Londonistan

[smiling assassin]

People like this woman and man are the problem.

[Jaguar]

People like this woman and man are the problem.

These are just the sort of posh kids who think it's edgy to live and work in south London or wherever and preach the wonders of diversity. Fast forward five or six years and they're married and living in rural Suffolk with their kid at the local village primary.

Seen it plenty of times.

[smiling assassin]

People like this woman and man are the problem.

These are just the sort of posh kids who think it's edgy to live and work in south London or wherever and preach the wonders of diversity. Fast forward five or six years and they're married and living in rural Suffolk with their kid at the local village primary.

Seen it plenty of times.

The thing that makes me laugh is when she says “I’ve got a degree I’m not a moron”. Just because you’re well educated in a certain subject doesn’t mean you can’t be a prick.

[Jaguar]

I can think of lots of people with degrees I wouldn't describe as well educated.

[jujigatame]

It lacks the Jewish conspiracy theory angle, that is true, but that sounds pretty much like a programme of replacement to me - even if your justification for it is deeply flawed as mass immigration is more likely to increase the demand for such services than resolve their supply.

Mass immigration does create profit though, mainly for the super rich. At the expense of the rest of the population whose quality of life is worsened. I'll give you that.

It takes a very specific, narrow perspective to view this as "replacement" though. I know many people who are kids of immigrants or are naturalized immigrants themselves. Hell my mom is the child of immigrants. They seem no less American to me than anyone else I know whose family has been here for several generations. To me it is not a "replacement" but a creation of more Americans.

And no, the economic need is not "flawed". Most immigrants do not come here at retirement age. They come when they are young. When you have a low birth rate and an aging population, you need young people paying into the system who will not collect benefits for decades. That's how it works, unless you want significant tax hikes, which I can tell you is just about the only thing the Republican party in the US wants less than increased immigration.

And "quality of life is worsened" is about as handwavey and personal as it gets. Immigration has in no way reduced my quality of life, and I can absolutely guarantee that the vast majority of anti-immigrant voters in the US have not had their lives improved in the slightest by Trump's deportation efforts.

It's bleeding, blindingly obvious that what you're suggesting is a great replacement.

Mass immigration is also making life more dirty, dangerous, corrupt, divided and unpleasant for ordinary people across the western world. It's as clear as day, the evidence is overwhelming. Yet still you advocate more of this madness.

It's blindingly obvious to you because you already convinced yourself of that conclusion.

I don't really know what else to say to that other than you've stated a highly ideological, emotionally driven opinion, that I strongly disagree with.

[jujigatame]

It lacks the Jewish conspiracy theory angle, that is true, but that sounds pretty much like a programme of replacement to me - even if your justification for it is deeply flawed as mass immigration is more likely to increase the demand for such services than resolve their supply.

Mass immigration does create profit though, mainly for the super rich. At the expense of the rest of the population whose quality of life is worsened. I'll give you that.

It takes a very specific, narrow perspective to view this as "replacement" though. I know many people who are kids of immigrants or are naturalized immigrants themselves. Hell my mom is the child of immigrants. They seem no less American to me than anyone else I know whose family has been here for several generations. To me it is not a "replacement" but a creation of more Americans.

And no, the economic need is not "flawed". Most immigrants do not come here at retirement age. They come when they are young. When you have a low birth rate and an aging population, you need young people paying into the system who will not collect benefits for decades. That's how it works, unless you want significant tax hikes, which I can tell you is just about the only thing the Republican party in the US wants less than increased immigration.

And "quality of life is worsened" is about as handwavey and personal as it gets. Immigration has in no way reduced my quality of life, and I can absolutely guarantee that the vast majority of anti-immigrant voters in the US have not had their lives improved in the slightest by Trump's deportation efforts.

Look at the primary school or birth data and come back to me on the replacement angle. You’ll notice it a lot more in 20 years when the boomers and gen x have died off and the culture is totally alien when the new gen grow up.

I don't know what data you want me to look at or what you think it proves. I live in a city that's been full of huge waves of immigrants from all over the world for 100+ years and I've never wanted to live anywhere else. Youth culture is alien to me because I'm a middle aged man, not because the population has been "replaced" by some nefarious foreign force. Hell half the culture I AM used to wouldn't exist without immigrants.

[Jaguar]

It takes a very specific, narrow perspective to view this as "replacement" though. I know many people who are kids of immigrants or are naturalized immigrants themselves. Hell my mom is the child of immigrants. They seem no less American to me than anyone else I know whose family has been here for several generations. To me it is not a "replacement" but a creation of more Americans.

And no, the economic need is not "flawed". Most immigrants do not come here at retirement age. They come when they are young. When you have a low birth rate and an aging population, you need young people paying into the system who will not collect benefits for decades. That's how it works, unless you want significant tax hikes, which I can tell you is just about the only thing the Republican party in the US wants less than increased immigration.

And "quality of life is worsened" is about as handwavey and personal as it gets. Immigration has in no way reduced my quality of life, and I can absolutely guarantee that the vast majority of anti-immigrant voters in the US have not had their lives improved in the slightest by Trump's deportation efforts.

It's bleeding, blindingly obvious that what you're suggesting is a great replacement.

Mass immigration is also making life more dirty, dangerous, corrupt, divided and unpleasant for ordinary people across the western world. It's as clear as day, the evidence is overwhelming. Yet still you advocate more of this madness.

It's blindingly obvious to you because you already convinced yourself of that conclusion.

I don't really know what else to say to that other than you've stated a highly ideological, emotionally driven opinion, that I strongly disagree with.

It's just a logical and rational response to oppose one's nation being taken over and run into the ground. Nothing ideological about that, although I understand why many people might be very unhappy about it. it's a normal reaction.

[jujigatame]

It's bleeding, blindingly obvious that what you're suggesting is a great replacement.

Mass immigration is also making life more dirty, dangerous, corrupt, divided and unpleasant for ordinary people across the western world. It's as clear as day, the evidence is overwhelming. Yet still you advocate more of this madness.

It's blindingly obvious to you because you already convinced yourself of that conclusion.

I don't really know what else to say to that other than you've stated a highly ideological, emotionally driven opinion, that I strongly disagree with.

It's just a logical and rational response to oppose one's nation being taken over and run into the ground. Nothing ideological about that, although I understand why many people might be very unhappy about it. it's a normal reaction.

This is a very narrow, personal opinion, presented as "logical and rational" fact. You're perfectly entitled to it, I don't live in the UK so I cannot speak to your own personal situation, but as far as the situation in the US goes it is certainly not the reality.

[Jaguar]

It's blindingly obvious to you because you already convinced yourself of that conclusion.

I don't really know what else to say to that other than you've stated a highly ideological, emotionally driven opinion, that I strongly disagree with.

It's just a logical and rational response to oppose one's nation being taken over and run into the ground. Nothing ideological about that, although I understand why many people might be very unhappy about it. it's a normal reaction.

This is a very narrow, personal opinion, presented as "logical and rational" fact. You're perfectly entitled to it, I don't live in the UK so I cannot speak to your own personal situation, but as far as the situation in the US goes it is certainly not the reality.

On the contrary, any opinion poll of the British public overwhelmingly reflects my view which is also grounded in data about crime, housing, welfare dependency and other objective critera. So, it's not 'my personal situation' as you put it. Far from it.

But then your response is typical of the liberal left nowadays inasmuch as it is an underhanded attempt to personalise what are in fact clearly observable phenomena. So, quite frankly, it seems that your position is narrow, or even blinkered to reality.

Leaving that aside, my understanding is that mass migration is a controversial issue in the US too, even if you claim not.

[Tony1244]

It's just a logical and rational response to oppose one's nation being taken over and run into the ground. Nothing ideological about that, although I understand why many people might be very unhappy about it. it's a normal reaction.

This is a very narrow, personal opinion, presented as "logical and rational" fact. You're perfectly entitled to it, I don't live in the UK so I cannot speak to your own personal situation, but as far as the situation in the US goes it is certainly not the reality.

On the contrary, any opinion poll of the British public overwhelmingly reflects my view which is also grounded in data about crime, housing, welfare dependency and other objective critera. So, it's not 'my personal situation' as you put it. Far from it.

But then your response is typical of the liberal left nowadays inasmuch as it is an underhanded attempt to personalise what are in fact clearly observable phenomena. So, quite frankly, it seems that your position is narrow, or even blinkered to reality.

Leaving that aside, my understanding is that mass migration is a controversial issue in the US too, even if you claim not.

It is a major issue in the US. A white Floridian liberal is practically an endangered species now. That did not used to be the case. When issues are the economy, reproductive rights, cannabis, the environment, minimum wage, etc, most folks are Left of center. Introduce issues like immigration and trans teens, and you are putting Trump/Vance in power.

Not rocket science, folks.

[jujigatame]

It's just a logical and rational response to oppose one's nation being taken over and run into the ground. Nothing ideological about that, although I understand why many people might be very unhappy about it. it's a normal reaction.

This is a very narrow, personal opinion, presented as "logical and rational" fact. You're perfectly entitled to it, I don't live in the UK so I cannot speak to your own personal situation, but as far as the situation in the US goes it is certainly not the reality.

On the contrary, any opinion poll of the British public overwhelmingly reflects my view which is also grounded in data about crime, housing, welfare dependency and other objective critera. So, it's not 'my personal situation' as you put it. Far from it.

But then your response is typical of the liberal left nowadays inasmuch as it is an underhanded attempt to personalise what are in fact clearly observable phenomena. So, quite frankly, it seems that your position is narrow, or even blinkered to reality.

Leaving that aside, my understanding is that mass migration is a controversial issue in the US too, even if you claim not.

I don't claim that. Immigration is an incredibly controversial topic in the US. "Personalizing" the issue is exactly how the anti-immigrant American right fosters this controversy, most commonly by singling out specific criminal immigrants as a way of implying immigrants commit a lot of crime when they commit less than native born Americans. The reason most people here have strong feelings about immigration is because they've been fed a steady diet of propaganda on the topic, not because immigrants have actually impacted their lives in a significant way.

This conversation started when I pointed out something that remains true. The American economy is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, and low birth rates mean we are only going to be more and more dependent on it in the future. The social security trust fund is going to be gone in ~7 years and then seniors will be looking at huge benefit cuts. A party that is anti-immigrant and anti-taxation in this environment is is not living in reality. Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign is not benefiting the average American one iota.

[Jaguar]

This is a very narrow, personal opinion, presented as "logical and rational" fact. You're perfectly entitled to it, I don't live in the UK so I cannot speak to your own personal situation, but as far as the situation in the US goes it is certainly not the reality.

On the contrary, any opinion poll of the British public overwhelmingly reflects my view which is also grounded in data about crime, housing, welfare dependency and other objective critera. So, it's not 'my personal situation' as you put it. Far from it.

But then your response is typical of the liberal left nowadays inasmuch as it is an underhanded attempt to personalise what are in fact clearly observable phenomena. So, quite frankly, it seems that your position is narrow, or even blinkered to reality.

Leaving that aside, my understanding is that mass migration is a controversial issue in the US too, even if you claim not.

I don't claim that. Immigration is an incredibly controversial topic in the US. "Personalizing" the issue is exactly how the anti-immigrant American right fosters this controversy, most commonly by singling out specific criminal immigrants as a way of implying immigrants commit a lot of crime when they commit less than native born Americans. The reason most people here have strong feelings about immigration is because they've been fed a steady diet of propaganda on the topic, not because immigrants have actually impacted their lives in a significant way.

This conversation started when I pointed out something that remains true. The American economy is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, and low birth rates mean we are only going to be more and more dependent on it in the future. The social security trust fund is going to be gone in ~7 years and then seniors will be looking at huge benefit cuts. A party that is anti-immigrant and anti-taxation in this environment is is not living in reality. Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign is not benefiting the average American one iota.

We've been here before haven't we? When you just keep repeating the same things and deny what you've said.

* First, your answer does imply that immigration isn't viewed as problematic in the USA

* Second, you have personalised the discussion by describing my views as narrow and talking about my 'personal situation'. I have avoided similar accusations

* Third, it is pretty difficult for people not to have strong feelings when they see their country being wrecked and all that they and their forebears have worked for used and abused, and taken from them and their children

* Fourth, immigration can be a good thing. In small numbers and when those immigrants comprise hard-working people who respect the values, customs and traditions of the country they come to. Mass immigration from the third world brings the opposite. Afghans, Somalis, Congolese, Iraqis, Albanians, Lybians, Syrians are not your friends and will not improve the West

* Fifth, certain immigrant groups are most certainly far more likely to commit crimes than others, especially violent crime and sex crime. I have posted the data on here before. It's freely available if you can be bothered to look. Ditto, unemployment, there are clear patterns among different migrant groups. Our prisons are overflowing with foreign nationals. Ditto social housing

* Sixth, your claims about the economy are just sloppy and based on continued mass population expansion - which, in turn, just creates the demand for more immigration. The fact is, we have mass youth unemployment alongside a shrinking demand for many forms of labour. Which will only continue due to technology. The reality is that the great replacement you seem to champion is not needed. It is in fact a big part of the problem.

* Finally, I never mentioned Trump and I have no idea whether his deportation programme benefits anybody - although I do think that deporting illegal immigrants is the right thing to do as they should, by definition, not be in the country. Leaving that aside, what I have said is that the great majority of the population do not want mass immigration so it should not be imposed upon them. For reasons described above.

Cue your response... yeah, but the population would decline otherwise and we need immigrants to do all these jobs

[jujigatame]

On the contrary, any opinion poll of the British public overwhelmingly reflects my view which is also grounded in data about crime, housing, welfare dependency and other objective critera. So, it's not 'my personal situation' as you put it. Far from it.

But then your response is typical of the liberal left nowadays inasmuch as it is an underhanded attempt to personalise what are in fact clearly observable phenomena. So, quite frankly, it seems that your position is narrow, or even blinkered to reality.

Leaving that aside, my understanding is that mass migration is a controversial issue in the US too, even if you claim not.

I don't claim that. Immigration is an incredibly controversial topic in the US. "Personalizing" the issue is exactly how the anti-immigrant American right fosters this controversy, most commonly by singling out specific criminal immigrants as a way of implying immigrants commit a lot of crime when they commit less than native born Americans. The reason most people here have strong feelings about immigration is because they've been fed a steady diet of propaganda on the topic, not because immigrants have actually impacted their lives in a significant way.

This conversation started when I pointed out something that remains true. The American economy is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, and low birth rates mean we are only going to be more and more dependent on it in the future. The social security trust fund is going to be gone in ~7 years and then seniors will be looking at huge benefit cuts. A party that is anti-immigrant and anti-taxation in this environment is is not living in reality. Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign is not benefiting the average American one iota.

We've been here before haven't we? When you just keep repeating the same things and deny what you've said.

* First, your answer does imply that immigration isn't viewed as problematic in the USA

* Second, you have personalised the discussion by describing my views as narrow and talking about my 'personal situation'. I have avoided similar accusations

* Third, it is pretty difficult for people not to have strong feelings when they see their country being wrecked and all that they and their forebears have worked for used and abused, and taken from them and their children

* Fourth, immigration can be a good thing. In small numbers and when those immigrants comprise hard-working people who respect the values, customs and traditions of the country they come to. Mass immigration from the third world brings the opposite. Afghans, Somalis, Congolese, Iraqis, Albanians, Lybians, Syrians are not your friends and will not improve the West

* Fifth, certain immigrant groups are most certainly far more likely to commit crimes than others, especially violent crime and sex crime. I have posted the data on here before. It's freely available if you can be bothered to look. Ditto, unemployment, there are clear patterns among different migrant groups. Our prisons are overflowing with foreign nationals. Ditto social housing

* Sixth, your claims about the economy are just sloppy and based on continued mass population expansion - which, in turn, just creates the demand for more immigration. The fact is, we have mass youth unemployment alongside a shrinking demand for many forms of labour. Which will only continue due to technology. The reality is that the great replacement you seem to champion is not needed. It is in fact a big part of the problem.

* Finally, I never mentioned Trump and I have no idea whether his deportation programme benefits anybody - although I do think that deporting illegal immigrants is the right thing to do as they should, by definition, not be in the country. Leaving that aside, what I have said is that the great majority of the population do not want mass immigration so it should not be imposed upon them. For reasons described above.

Cue your response... yeah, but the population would decline otherwise and we need immigrants to do all these jobs

This is getting very tiresome. Even your first supposition is completely wrong. Nothing I've said implies that immigration "isn't viewed as problematic" in the US. It is viewed as such by many (Stephen Miller most notably) which is why we've voted in a virulently anti-immigrant administration which is engaged in an expensive mass deportation project that will do absolutely nothing to benefit the lives of the average citizen.

I called your view "narrow" because it is. You are presupposing your own worldview when you make unspecific authoritative claims like "quality of life is worsened" or "it's clear as day, the evidence is overwhelming". Sticking to this idea of "replacement" (rather than the creation of new citizens) is similarly narrow. I do not mean this to "personalize" anything. In fact I am trying to give you a wide berth because I primarily know about this issue from an American perspective. For instance, the US does NOT have a youth unemployment problem and studies of local labor markets have shown that immigrant inflows have NOT reduced native employment. Maybe these things are different in the UK, I don't know. I know that immigrants are LESS likely to commit violent crimes in the US, maybe that's not true in the UK either, I don't know. What I do know is that the American political party that wants less immigration has consistently lied by implication in order to get people to believe the opposite.

You're refusing to engage meaningfully with the real problems presented by an aging, declining population. Again, maybe the UK is unique and different in some way, but what I am explaining to you are the actual facts of the matter in the US. If you have a declining, aging population, you either need more immigrants, major tax hikes, or major benefit cuts. This is the reality that is rapidly approaching us. Any politician who says he wants to reduce immigration, keep taxes low, and keep everyone's retirement benefits untouched is a charlatan, full stop.

[Evander]

I tend to agree, hopefully a Reform government can at least save other parts of the country, but London is a cesspit and too far gone.

It would appear it's too far gone now, i'd never go there ever again

If i remember rightly, Ricky went there once and was scared away by some small brown children, i lived there for 20 years and it was fine.

You're saying you lived in London for 20 years and everything was perfectly fine, what part of London did you live in exactly ?
Did you ever go outside while you lived there ?

[Evander]

I lived in Notting Hill, Westbourne Grove, Holland Park Whitechapel and Limehouse.

Never felt the city was 'lost' to anything. I look back on those years as some of the finest I've had. If a lottery win comes my back, I'd be back in a heartbeat.

No offence Lenny, but it's a bit of a stretch listening to someone who says they lived in Holland Park while trying to pass it off as being even remotely comparable to many other parts of London.
The part I will agree with you on, you said you'd be back in a heartbeat if you won the lottery, you would quite literally have to win the lottery to live in that area.

[Evander]

Even though I have not lived in London for a very long time, I'm about as frequent a visitor as you can get due to family and friends, I'm normally back at least once a year, sometimes twice and on the odd ocassions three.
I'm a born a bred Londoner, seen it all from the 70's up to present day.
Yes there are nice areas of the city much like anywhere else, but for the average bod it's pretty lame.
To say it's a safe city after dark is an absolute lie, it's never been that way for now at least 50 years.
The only people that really talk that way are those people who either live in the more wealthy areas, outsiders who are new to the city or locals who are too scared to say anything about what really goes down.

[Nightmare Roy]

It would appear it's too far gone now, i'd never go there ever again

If i remember rightly, Ricky went there once and was scared away by some small brown children, i lived there for 20 years and it was fine.

You're saying you lived in London for 20 years and everything was perfectly fine, what part of London did you live in exactly ?
Did you ever go outside while you lived there ?

Yes, North, South, east all over the place. What part of Londonistan have you lived in? Or even visited.

[Evander]

If i remember rightly, Ricky went there once and was scared away by some small brown children, i lived there for 20 years and it was fine.

You're saying you lived in London for 20 years and everything was perfectly fine, what part of London did you live in exactly ?
Did you ever go outside while you lived there ?

Yes, North, South, east all over the place. What part of Londonistan have you lived in? Or even visited.

Whereabouts m8 ?
Me West btw

[Jaguar]

I don't claim that. Immigration is an incredibly controversial topic in the US. "Personalizing" the issue is exactly how the anti-immigrant American right fosters this controversy, most commonly by singling out specific criminal immigrants as a way of implying immigrants commit a lot of crime when they commit less than native born Americans. The reason most people here have strong feelings about immigration is because they've been fed a steady diet of propaganda on the topic, not because immigrants have actually impacted their lives in a significant way.

This conversation started when I pointed out something that remains true. The American economy is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, and low birth rates mean we are only going to be more and more dependent on it in the future. The social security trust fund is going to be gone in ~7 years and then seniors will be looking at huge benefit cuts. A party that is anti-immigrant and anti-taxation in this environment is is not living in reality. Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign is not benefiting the average American one iota.

We've been here before haven't we? When you just keep repeating the same things and deny what you've said.

* First, your answer does imply that immigration isn't viewed as problematic in the USA

* Second, you have personalised the discussion by describing my views as narrow and talking about my 'personal situation'. I have avoided similar accusations

* Third, it is pretty difficult for people not to have strong feelings when they see their country being wrecked and all that they and their forebears have worked for used and abused, and taken from them and their children

* Fourth, immigration can be a good thing. In small numbers and when those immigrants comprise hard-working people who respect the values, customs and traditions of the country they come to. Mass immigration from the third world brings the opposite. Afghans, Somalis, Congolese, Iraqis, Albanians, Lybians, Syrians are not your friends and will not improve the West

* Fifth, certain immigrant groups are most certainly far more likely to commit crimes than others, especially violent crime and sex crime. I have posted the data on here before. It's freely available if you can be bothered to look. Ditto, unemployment, there are clear patterns among different migrant groups. Our prisons are overflowing with foreign nationals. Ditto social housing

* Sixth, your claims about the economy are just sloppy and based on continued mass population expansion - which, in turn, just creates the demand for more immigration. The fact is, we have mass youth unemployment alongside a shrinking demand for many forms of labour. Which will only continue due to technology. The reality is that the great replacement you seem to champion is not needed. It is in fact a big part of the problem.

* Finally, I never mentioned Trump and I have no idea whether his deportation programme benefits anybody - although I do think that deporting illegal immigrants is the right thing to do as they should, by definition, not be in the country. Leaving that aside, what I have said is that the great majority of the population do not want mass immigration so it should not be imposed upon them. For reasons described above.

Cue your response... yeah, but the population would decline otherwise and we need immigrants to do all these jobs

This is getting very tiresome. Even your first supposition is completely wrong. Nothing I've said implies that immigration "isn't viewed as problematic" in the US. It is viewed as such by many (Stephen Miller most notably) which is why we've voted in a virulently anti-immigrant administration which is engaged in an expensive mass deportation project that will do absolutely nothing to benefit the lives of the average citizen.

I called your view "narrow" because it is. You are presupposing your own worldview when you make unspecific authoritative claims like "quality of life is worsened" or "it's clear as day, the evidence is overwhelming". Sticking to this idea of "replacement" (rather than the creation of new citizens) is similarly narrow. I do not mean this to "personalize" anything. In fact I am trying to give you a wide berth because I primarily know about this issue from an American perspective. For instance, the US does NOT have a youth unemployment problem and studies of local labor markets have shown that immigrant inflows have NOT reduced native employment. Maybe these things are different in the UK, I don't know. I know that immigrants are LESS likely to commit violent crimes in the US, maybe that's not true in the UK either, I don't know. What I do know is that the American political party that wants less immigration has consistently lied by implication in order to get people to believe the opposite.

You're refusing to engage meaningfully with the real problems presented by an aging, declining population. Again, maybe the UK is unique and different in some way, but what I am explaining to you are the actual facts of the matter in the US. If you have a declining, aging population, you either need more immigrants, major tax hikes, or major benefit cuts. This is the reality that is rapidly approaching us. Any politician who says he wants to reduce immigration, keep taxes low, and keep everyone's retirement benefits untouched is a charlatan, full stop.

It certainly is tiresome as you just keep making the same assertions, provide no evidence to support them, and double down on your position. Rinse and repeat.

But it's not just that I don't agree with you, evidence suggests you are wrong. Youth unemployment is a problem in the USA (NEET rates currently around 12% although varies across the country and between ethnic groups - 24% for Black women). Entry level jobs are also shrinking in the US as they are elsewhere, partly due to AI. Google is your friend here if you can be bothered to do even the most superficial research rather than grandstanding.

Unemployment rates in the US vary between different ethnic groups and are lower than average among European and Oceanic migrants but considerably higher among those entering from pooer countries. In America's case that generally means the Hispanic world. It's different in Europe where we have mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East, although unemployment rates are higher among these groups too. Ditto crime, especially the patterns of violent crime I mentioned earlier, particularly against women and girls. It's truly appalling.

Crime patterns in the US are highly racialised, which means that certain sections of the 'indigenous' population (ie black and Hispanic are hugely overrepresented in the crime figures). It's the same for US immigrants where Hispanic immigrants, for example, have far higher offending rates than European immigrants.

Leaving that aside, the notion that my position is narrow is classic projection. Mass immigration is not only unnecessary for the labour market, it is causing housing shortages, environmental damage, strain on health services, increasing class sizes, and filling up prisons.

Criminals are literally being released from prison as they are overflowing with foreign nationals and you can't see how that's damaging people's quality of life? Nor is being unable to get a doctor's appointment, a place in your local school or somewhere to live a problem. Never mind the people trafficking, tropical diseases, drug dealing and modern slavery. All is good.

Finally, you accuse me of failing to engage with the "problems presented by an aging, declining population". On one hand, that does sound rather like you are wanting a great replacement. But also the notion that we just need to keep expanding our population indefinitely is the politics of the madhouse. It's casuing great harm across the western world. It's also unnecessary.

[banjo]

I don't get people who want to live in large cities and towns, you're more likely to be a victim of crime then there's all the hustle and bustle.

[Evander]

I don't get people who want to live in large cities and towns, you're more likely to be a victim of crime then there's all the hustle and bustle.

Look hippy
Why do you say it like we don't already know it ?

[Jaguar]

I don't get people who want to live in large cities and towns, you're more likely to be a victim of crime then there's all the hustle and bustle.

"Vibrant", "diverse", "bustling" = dirty, dangerous, overcrowded.

[Evander]

Said this years ago
I think we are going back to towns and villages long term
People are just happier in a small community
Get the centre lefties and right in the same town and it'll take off.

[Jaguar]

Nations are incresingly polarising along the lines of race and ethnicity. It's clearly observable in different towns and cities. Having said that. these trends in demographics were being pointed out by the Chicago School of urban sociology nearly 100 years ago.

Space and place are important, not only in terms of practicalities but culture, identity and belonging.

[Evander]

Oh ffs ...
Where did you learn to talk like that ?