According to Michael O'Keefe...
-
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
@Doctor-Phibes said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
A homogeneous population is not the take-away. He's bemoaning the loss of what makes Ireland culture unique. That's what happens when the influx of immigrants is too large and too fast to assimilate.
-
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
@Doctor-Phibes said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
You had the curries already in 1990.
England got better after that with EU immigration and much, much worse with middle eastern and south Asian migration. By which I mean Islamic immigration.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
You had the curries already in 1990.
England got better after that with EU immigration and much, much worse with middle eastern and south Asian migration. By which I mean Islamic immigration.
@jon-nyc said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
You had the curries already in 1990.
England got better after that with EU immigration and much, much worse with middle eastern and south Asian migration. By which I mean Islamic immigration.
It's ironic that Brexit was sold as a solution to the immigration from Europe, which I agree improved the country no end. What's happened since then is definitely problematic, and the points based system that was introduced seems to have increased the number of immigrants, which presumably wasn't its intent.
