dkomis You are an honest person, Are you by any chance European? You see, I have come to the conclusion that different peoples are not meant to live together, they really aren't. I will explain. Multiculturalism and “ racial diversity” are good when economy is good, when things are going pretty well people usually don’t care, but when economy hurts, people hurt as a result and competition for scarce resources begins… multiculturalism goes down the toilet. This does not mean that Europeans, who are experimenting with multiculturalism are any worse than other peoples, just means that it is not natural for different peoples to be living with each other with such a short period of integration. It took Europeans hundreds of years, in places like Central Europe to reconcile the difference between German-speakers and Slavs, though there were no physical differences between a Pole, Hungarian or German! I think it will be even more difficult and impossible for the new immigrants from Africa and Asia, who look different and have different languages and religions. In many ways European governments, by allowing all these diverse peoples to live in their midst, are putting them in grave danger. Sooner or later when a 1930-type Economic collapse occurs, since the “boom-bust cycle” is inherent in capitalism, what will happen to all these immigrants, especially in countries with strong fascist traditions like Italy? They will be massacred! This is not an exaggeration, a simple look at European history in the last 100 years will confirm this. The solution is to stop immigration and all types of integration efforts and force people to invest back home and return…I understand this will be very difficult, but it can be done. These people will re-start their great civilizations and contribute to “human” not “western” history. Take for example the history of the Somali people before Europeans. Somalis had conquered most of the Horn of Africa, from the Awasa River in Ethiopia to the Highlands of Kenya, they had forged their own civilization. In many was, the fact that today only Somalia can be considered a genuine “nation-state” in Africa is a testament to this, that is a country inhabited by people who identify themselves based on the same language, same culture, same religion and same race. Nowhere else in Africa is this the case, with the possible exception of Lesotho. But why are Somalis nevertheless the most divided? The answer lies with the fact that since the arrival of Vasco de Gama to the last British, French and Italian governors, the historical development of Somali people was interrupted. Like many other peoples on the continent and in the Third World, this “interruption” has had lasting repercussions up to this day. The issues where not resolved. When colonization ended, although these countries had European built infrastructure and languages, they did not have a similar ‘civilization infrastructure”, so people just re-started where they had left off before the European armies arrived, hence the modern tribal and genocide wars. A direct continution of the evolutionary process, people are evolving as Europeans evolved in the medieval times to become nations, these wars are the aquvalent to those wars of that time, when nations were being born and borders were being defined. For my people, the only way they can return and complete their ancestors efforts, is to return, but if European countries keep on taking them in, it will “continue that interpution”, which is unjust. I hope many people like you begin to fight this.

It's not fair to blame the western gorverments for accepting skilled immigration but those skilled people who want to be accepted by advanced wester countries. I am a Chinese and I've been studying in UK for one and half year, I have heard of the tragedies from Dover to Morecambe and I cannot blame anyone but my some of my country man who want to be smuggled for a 'better life' I really feel sad of these people but I woundn't approve their behaviour for it is not only damage ourselves but also robbing other people's job in an unfair way. About legal immigrantion, I'm afraid we cannot do anything but to condemn these people mentally, It is ridiculous to call someone Ameirican Chinese, or Britih Chinese, is he American or Chinese, I'm afraid most of native Chinese would be reluctant to call him Chinese because when he decided to immigrant, at the same time he gave up their rights and responsibilities for their motherland which I am pretty sure is not a difficult decision. But can they be called American? Don't think so, in my opinion US is European based. Unlucky people. Native residents of one country should always mentally condem those who do not want to contribute to their motherland , condenm those who give up the right to be master in their native country and immigrant to be slaves in other more advanced coutries, condemn those who after obtaining foreign residency, go back to their native country and enjoy the right as a foreign. If God made you, for example, a Chinese, be a Chinese for God's sake!

i have quickly read through the posts above and would like to give my thoughts loosely based around them. i appreciate the problems with skills drainage from africa, and feel the best way to prevent this is not to remove the right of people to move, but to remove the economic condiditions that continue to underdevlop the african continent, and compell them to do so. of course, the most educated, and most dedicated and loyal people are needed to re-energise any economy, as has been said, but it is not just the internal demographics of african nations that are holding them back. western economies maintain their advantage with the benefits of export tarrifs and large scale subsidies. debt run up by african dictators installed and shored up by the west will never be repaid at current interest rates. if all the greatest minds in the world were in africa, under the present economic conditions, within the rules of the world bank and IMF, their countries will still operate under an impossible disadvantage. what is needed is for the west to stop exploiting africa. what is needed are trading conditions that allow a fair chance to all sectors of the market, in all geographical loations. what is needed is for us to cancel the debt, and work out a worldwide healthcare system that can provide medicine for all the millions of people (who would otherwise be capable of working as many do in the west) that are dying of AIDS. someone asked whether we want 'western culture' to spread around the world, or whether we want other places to have their own culture. this implies 'western culture' is a homegrown entity in a distinct space that has had no outside influence. i would argue to the contrary, that african, indian, arab, chinese, and all other cultures one could care to name, has had a profound and increasingly obvious influence on 'western culture'. this reflects a coming together of people, of arts, of experience, and its counter-influence on the rest of the world is not necessarily a malevolently driven deliberate attempt to supercede others, as is so often asserted. of course violent collonialism has always facilitated the impression of western culture on the rest of the world, and still does today. but that economic drive for empire is not the same as the education of people on different ways of life, and them subsequently adopting them. of course thre have been numerous genocides, and ethnic tensions on a lesser scale, where different races of people inhabit the same areas. this can often be due to the general economic supremacy of one race over another, due to having previous advantage of one sort or another. Having said this though, the targets of fascists are often the weakest, and poorest minority in a community. the perception that one race or ethnic group of people are in some way threatening the survival of another, can be grounded in some form of economic disparity, or based on simplistic xenophobia. the scale of the violence that results is not proportionate to the element of rationality in that original basis, bit rather in the perception of the agressors. it is that perception that needs to be addressed. we can now travel everywhere in the world. we communicate with everyone in the world. we can reproduce with everyone in the world. we are one species, but we have many different backgrounds. yet we all cry, we all bleed, we all laugh the same way. our personal differences can be a source of horror and tension, or a source of delight and intrigue. our economic differences can be remedied by worldwide structures that facilitate fair exchange and development, or they can continue to enforce the will of the rich and powerful, over the weak and poor. shall we divide ourselves into colours to make our lives more bearable? is anyone on this board honestly certain that their family history originates, or would have been benefited by coming, from a select gene pool restricted to one tiny square on this earth? the perception that a colour, or race, or group is to blame for the misfortune of another can only be remedied by education. its basis (if there is any genuine basis) can only be remedied by economic solutions and justice. building walls around bits of our planet, saying that if we mix we will lose who we are, is denying the process that has made us who we are. of course it is greatly accelerated now. the european towns that have so many asian, or black faces, have become that way in the last century, but we have always moved, and what we eat, the lanuguage we use, the music we love, is a product of the wonderful diversity of our species. a genuine free market.. perfect competition, can only occur when there is free movement of labour. should migrants be allowed to enter a richer economy, and price lower wage earners out of a job? of course not. but that is a symptom of the injustice of the global economic system. in the UK there is a minimum wage. the black market in labour is employing migrants at poverty wages, not legitimate enterprises. frameworks are emerging, if they were applied universally such movement would not have such an effect. if we are to have a global market, we should have universal conditions, and arguably, we should limit the negative impacts suffered until those are standardised. unfortunately the multinationals that increase their profits by taking advantage of the workers within weaker economies are not restricted by this objective. but that is not to say they shouldn't, or couldn't be. turning on our neigbour with a different colour face because we have become poorer, is a damning indictment of 'humanity'. it should not be forgot that behind all actrocities, are both economic and political pressures that are not 'human nature' at all. rather they are deliberately manipulated by propaganda and misrepresentation by the will of the elites our societies have always produced. it will not be until there is a just global system, that treats all people fairly, that the notion of killing another, to make one's lot greater, will become obsolete. i feel the focus should be on identifying our economic and political shortcomings, not on sectioning ourselves into pockets dependent on race or nationality. do we want restriction, or freedom? because keeping one culture, one race in a box, and not letting anyone else in, seems regressive, opressive, and indicative of a primeaval, illogical species. embracing our differences, collectively solving our problems, is what i would aspire to. and the people that leave their homes in search of a better life while we are still working this mess out, well i would love to hear their story, eat one of their meals, read one of their books, hear their music.. because down the road that never happens, i reckon we would all look, eat, dance, talk the same.. and that would be pretty damn boring in my opinion.

i feel that zesssto has made an extremely valuable point, in that these countries need their gifted and educated peoples to resolve conflict and rebuild their countries. if they keep leaving, there will be no hope for that country, and the exodus will continue. i applaud my old IT teacher, he was somalian, and he actually went home to teach his peoples, by then a much revered man! he also felt great acheivement in doing so, and was again proud to be a somalian.

my problem isnt to do with where people come from, looking or behaving different. and i am well aware we are a nation of immigrants! its more to do with people blatently abusing our countries goodwill, and the sheer numbers of people that suddenly live in here. my local area is simply not coping, either in terms of housing or adequate services, i dont give 2 hoots what damn colour a person is, or where they come from. (my best friend is kosovan/my family are immigrants too) but i do care when suddenly our housing lists grow tenfold, the waiting lists for people already on it gets shunted, (from being told you will have to wait 2 years, to suddenly 5-6 years for a move, whilst speaking to recent arrivals who waited only weeks in some cases). our local ammenities and their workers are going under, the doctors surgeries cannot cope no longer, the receptionists at their wits end! simply put: nobody ensured that we had enough resources to cope. and now they are taking funding away from the few things we had left, the youth base, the daycare for disabled centre. the playgroup. all gone. instead we now have just centres for the new arrivals. its like we have just been forgotton about, and that hurts. the only suggestion i can think of, is to not allow such dense immigration settlers in to one place, but spread out all over the country, and perhaps areas such as mine wouldnt feel the pinch. mbe says: "this is not a simple matter of immigrants causing social problems: it is more a matter of intolerant people who refuse to accept others' rights, regardless of their nationality or immigration status." not th case. immigrants here are causing social problems big time, simply by the sheer numbers here. i am not intolerant of them or their situation. but its a case of i wouldnt attempt to cook for a party of 100 in my small oven, i would first buy several big ovens. and it is often THEM being intolerant of us, in terms of abusive and uncivilised behaviour on a daily basis, as they far outnumber us, and have the full wieght of the councils and police support behind them, whereas we have no rights. all because they all too often accuse them of being racist, therefore police and council back down..... shamefully. i urge you to leave your home in greece and spend just 1 week here on this estate, where 3 families are often crammed into a single property, and you cannot get a doctor for love nor money. then talk about "reducing other peoples rights" if you suddenly had thousands of people flooding into your area, and claiming welfare from the state, lets see how your local council could cope???

Mr. Edwards Sir you are right, I am neither an academic nor an immigration specialist. I am just a concerned citizen who, by the way does not come from your "own racist country of UK" as you put it, but from Greece. I did not dismiss your "serious and hard work" as superficial and left wing but if your serious and hard work is as superficial and left wing as your flimsy pro-immigration argumentation in this forum, then sir I do dismiss your "serious and hard work" as superficial and left wing. I suggest that you read what you attempt to reply to more carefully and to avoid flaunting your elitist and academic arrogance because frankly it is in rather bad taste. Additionally, you might wish to reconsider your obvious ease at using words such as "bigot" - it is not polite to say the least. Now do you have any real answers to the questions posed in this forum? Sincerely, An Athenian Greek.

I'd like to comment on MBE's post and his reply, because although I think dkomis's retort was overstated and I don't agree with all his views, he does have a point. Although MBE takes pains to point out his academic specialization in the field, his second and third comments do suffer from what dkomis claims -- superficiality. Social conservatism and and intolerance to difference serve very specific social ends, and he doesn't seem to understand this. He uses the example that his neighbors might object to his presence "because I might "look different", or "not behave properly" or somehow not conform to the behaviour that others wish to inpose upon me." Yes, of course they would. Society functions because there IS a code of behavior, or multiple codes of behavior, that people are expected to obey. Social theorists have been talking about how this works for a very long time (habitus, hegemony, ideology, etc). A new person shows up who doesn't seem to know the rules, or seems to have a different set entirely? That's a social threat. All societies have a rather limited ability to accept the rights of people to act differently than the norm. It's not a useful stereotype to associate "the elderly" with this mentality, as it's one that all of us share, even those of us whom dkomis would disparagingly call "left wingers" (a term I'd identify myself with in fact). It's not simply that change is scary, or that people are afraid of difference because they're ignorant or old -- it's that change and difference are reasonably perceived as threats to what is currently accepted as normal, as moral, as understandable. An entire culture is built on the fact that those ideas are perceived as being shared. Immigrants often don't share them. They may come to share them, to adapt to a certain degree, or they may not. Of course, change happens, as thousands of things influence that culture all the time -- new ideas, new technology, and (as we're talking about here) new people. But individuals will always kick and scream as they're dragged through the change. Why? They say it's because their culture, their way of life, is under attack. Are they wrong? No, they're absolutely correct. The question is whether or not you think such a change is automatically a bad thing. Personally, I don't. But I don't call people bigots just because they do. Understanding those fears, and addressing them, is an important part of addressing immigration problems in Europe. Dismissing those fears as unfounded, uneducated, or racist is unproductive. Here, in Greece (where I'm located as well), Albanians do take an unfair amount of blame for violent crime and burglary. (Though as more "foreign-looking" immigrants arrive, Albanians seem to be moving out of the spotlight. Difference is always a relative matter). The economy has been difficult, wages are some of the lowest in the EU and the cost of living is one of the highest, and immigrants are one place that people look to blame. Does that mean that they're simply scapegoats for other problems? Does MBE really mean to suggest that unrestricted illegal immigration on the scale that Greece has undergone in the past 10 years doesn't have its own social consequences? Does he really want to reject dkomis's list of possible consequences of illegal immigration ("real and/or perceived dangers to the identity of the host community, of strains on the welfare system and on the infrastructure of the host society, of cultural differences and failing assimilation, of overpopulation and urban sprawl, of deterioration of the natural environment, of depression of wages (particularly among the poor natives and previous immigrants) of (increased) marginalization and alienation and of "balkanization" of our societies to name a few.") as simply the spoutings of someone "who knows rather less about the matter?" That seems an unfair categorization to me. It's difficult to celebrate the migrations of the present immigrants in Greece as instances of impowerment, as MBE would like, while their status makes them vulnerable to economic exploitation. Immigrants are scapegoats and victims in Greece to a tremendous degree, but to state that we should not talk about this issue in terms of "unemployment, changing social configurations of cities, etc," as MBE states, makes me suspect that MBE doesn't get out of the office much to see what's going on in Greece around him. Exactly what kind of academic field do you follow, MBE? When you ask for people to discuss what the "real problems" are, does that mean you don't consider any of the economic or social problems that dkomis or gaelflyn raise as "real problems"? I myself am "pro-immigration" and pro-legalization of the current immigrant population. But I still take all of comments that the posters here have presented and the problems that they see with the current status of immigration (whether those insights be "academic" or personal) as a serious part of the debate, concerns that should be addressed by those who would argue for the rights of immigrants, and not as figments of their imagination or as previously existing problems that have nothing to do with immigrants but mistakenly get associated with them. Dkomis is right when he says name-calling doesn't help (or disparaging people's lack of academic credentials, in my opinion). (By the way,dkomis might take his own critique, that name calling doesn't help, to heart).

mbe Dear Mr. Edwards, I have had the opportunity to read your (very interesting) paper "Southern European Labour Markets and Immigration: A Structural and Functional Analysis". Like I said, I am neither an expert on the subject, nor do I have the time (or interest anymore) to argue the points of your thesis. The "arguments", however, that you have put forward in this forum, pale in comparison to that work as they indeed are flimsy and superficial. What is most surprising Sir is your patently offensive manner towards both me and AP and towards the country and the people who have extended their hospitality to you and have given you the opportunity (through your association with the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences) to advance your career. Objective and constructive criticism is always welcomed. Subjective and unfair, on the other hand, is best kept to oneself. In your case Sir such criticism is also unbecoming of your status as both a member of the academic community and as a so-called "expert" on immigration. Finally Sir, if this wildly accusatory, vastly unsubstantiated and borderline racist retort is what you would define as "scientific" then no, I do not have any "scientific" questions to ask you. dk

mbe, In a previous post you admitted not to have read Brimelow's book - I quote "...The Brimelow arguments: These date from more than 10 years ago, I think. I have some remarks to make on your summary [assuming that you have not misrepresnted his arguments, as I have never bothered to read it]." Yet now you "...conclude on this Brimelow argument: it is a ridiculously simplistic and inaccurate presentation > of choices, which avoids major structural issues as > if they simply do not exist. Furthermore, this vague > general argument cannot be applied to any country in > the way that it is formulated: each country has a > unique set of characteristics - historically, > sociologically and economically - which politicians > need to respect." Interesting that one could have such strong views about a set of arguments he claims he hasn't bothered to read. Either you have a propensity for "malakia" Martin or Perseus has brilliantly managed to summarize all 317 pages of "Alien Nation" in just under eight lines.

Hello Martin, Nice to hear from you again. With respect to population trends, I will concede that this may be an inexact science. It is a fact that no reputable demographer has been willing to put his career on the line and make a prediction for the population of non-European ancestry in Britain by 2050. The US Census Bureau is not so coy; their middle-range projection for 2050 puts the percentage of that segment of their population at over 50%. That is really the nub of the Brimelow Question – why is this happening and why is it a ‘good thing’? There are a number of examples of modern societies where immigration is for all intents non-existent. The one I was particularly thinking of is Japan. In many respects Japan and Britain are strikingly similar and there is no obvious reason why a Japanese-style immigration regime could not have been implemented in Britain in the post-war period, had the political will been there. I won’t quibble with your estimates for the components of ongoing immigration streams into N. Europe. Except to note that for the UK the family reunion channel was supposed to ‘dry up’ in the 70s, according to proponents of the 1971 Commonwealth Immigration Bill. Yet here we are 30-odd years later still admitting 30,000 or so family members from the New Commonwealth each year. I can see that we will have to agree to differ on the status of the New Commonwealth citizens who emigrated to Britain starting in the 1950s. I am mildly astonished that you would attempt to claim that any of these incomers were British before arrival. This must be based on an extremely legalistic interpretation of the 1948 British Nationalities Act rather than any real-world criteria of Britishness. Regarding a definition of who is an immigrant, I suppose a reliably consistent classification would be those who are granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK. It is very remarkable to see how the numbers of such persons is increasing each year, and the countries from which they originate - most of which have no historical connection to the British Empire. With the increasing access to permanent settlement now available to all kinds of new entrants – working holidaymakers, work permit holders, asylum seekers, etc – the number of immigrants cannot fail to grow very substantially. And of course since each new settler automatically gains the right to bring in other family members, the cycle is self-perpetuating. You may be familiar with the case of the Pakistani population of Oxford that started with two men in the 1950s and is now – thanks to the magic of chain migration – several thousand strong. And again, in conclusion, I suggest you are missing the central point of the Brimelow Question. It is not actually seeking to a resolve the issue of whether continuing mass immigration is good or bad. Rather, it is asking the following. Since there are so many unknowns involved, would it not be more prudent to debate and evaluate the pros and cons of continuing the present strategy rather than blithely accepting the default position that although mass immigration is fundamentally inevitable, rather like the weather, it will all come good in the end. In view of the demographic realities vis-a-vis the third world I believe this question is germane to all developed countries, not least the UK. Perseus

'Anti-immigration and Western Racism is good for Third World' - I really find it hard to believe a Somalian would say that - you obviously have never had to pick your teeth up with broken fingers and blurred vision due to blood in your eyes having been beaten up by a bunch of bored/confused/scared thugs. Nick Griffin (of British National Party) needs testimonies like zesssto's to 'intelectualy' justify his new caring brand of fascism. The thing about the net is I can say I'm Somalian , Algerian , Irish whatever... you really have no way of knowing. Given that I will trust you are telling the truth, do what all Pakistanis and Indians did in the 50s 60s and send money home to help your families build businesses and stop blaming the 'west'. zesssto ,seriously, send money home - or go home yourself and start the good work (BNP will even give you a grant). As for the rest of this thinly vieled discussion . . . Where I live in London, just about every white girl is pushing a brown baby. That is what has sealed the future of the UK. For every 'concerned' person there are 50 more who just don't give a damn about this race business. The genie is out of the bottle and it really is just a matter of taste as to whether you see this as a positive or negative thing. The 'world citizen'(dual culture) identity that these brown babies grow into might just save all our asses , or at least redefine the whole concept of national identity. Dual nationality is not a new invention. A French / American is hardly a baffling concept, why should it become anymore complicated when it becomes, say, Scottish / Nigerian. gaelflyn, I've reread your input a few times now and I really do feel for you and your kind. I also sense the great fear you seem to have. The world is changing fast and if I could lend you a time machine I surely would. I find your reluctance to identify the race/nationality of the people who stole your family's bikes curious. Are you worried that if you do identify their race you may be accused of being racist ? You shouldn't be. You clearly feel different to these people so why not clearly state they are Jamaican or whatever, it's not racist to tell the truth. Anyway, everyone is racist. I personally hate all races (white, black, brown and yellow) , it makes life less complicated for me. If you really feel the need to get physical with imigrants then maybe you will at some point but just be careful you don't get arrested or badly hurt yourself or hurt another person in a way you later seriously regret. In my experience far better to build bridges where possible (try and imagine the family you are having trouble with are a bunch of (white) scouse scallys and think how you would deal with them). This simplistic idea 'England for the English', does this mean Irish and Americans go home. Or am I right in thinking you mean something slightly different.

I think you are mostly right. However, it seems that when we talk about immigration and thereafter racism, that most counties, even in progresive Europe, are scaled by how 'bad' they are.

Have a look at Denmark : 10% of the population are muslims ( immigrants and 2.3.4. generations) Most of the immigrants - 90% - are on wellfare. Many of those donŽt speak a proper Danish - if they speak Danish at all. They live in their owen city in the cities, because they want it so. They are looking at the Danes with disgust- we are the abes, the dogs, the Dhimmies to them. And they tells us that by words - and by their behaviour . We have to live with that- and with our thoughts about what a future our own kids have in their own country. When an Old- Dane family have 2 children - the New-Danes have 6-8 children. We have no problems with other New-Danes. The problems are only with the muslims. Why ?