OK, I can't argue with this so far.
And yet, it's very hard not to read this particular sentiment as a complaint: that foreigners or people with roots outside the UK are just too visible.
If it is such a popular opinion, why does the need to self-censor exist? If it is out of respect for the feelings of those who one conceivably thinks there are too many of in any case, it is an odd form of respect. Saying 'no offence, chum, but we're seeing and hearing far too much of your sort around here' doesn't exactly offer an escape from the 'them and us' mentality - 'them' being established non-white ethnic minorities, new immigrants, Muslims, whatever, versus the 'us' of white and British - that characterises so much of the immigration debate as it is.
To take your statements at face value would be to overcome the huge barriers placed by the prior usage of the phrases "mass immigration" and "multiculturalism" in the demonology of the far (or even not so far) right in, er, modern day Britain. You will understand why I might have reason to be sceptical about something that on first and second readings sounds a little.. tone deaf, at best, given the forum it's posted in.
I think a way of moving from this impasse would be if you told us three things: what the phrases "mass immigration" and "multiculturalism" mean to you; how we might get away from the current state of 'us and them' politics; and what you think practical solutions to the problems these phrases represent would look like.
I wasn't sure if it was worth trying to get my opinion across here one more time but I'll give it one more go.
babooshka and Agirlwithdoubts have written so many strawmen points I don't know where to begin so i just won't bother.
We talk about how many British people feel like Britain as changed too much. However, the vast majority of British agree that you don't need to be white to be British, so why are people upset?
When we talk about Britain changing too much, it's not related to color of skin, like i said before, this is not the 1960s. It's a cultural shift. Many people walk through their town and city and feel like they live in a foreign land, and who can blame them for complaining? Nobody consulted them.
I disagree with a lot of what former EDL leader Tommy Robinson says but he made an interesting point. He's made a career from complaining about the decedents of foreigners who have a strange cultural and religion, but his grandparents were foreigners with a strange cultural and religion. the difference is, there no such thing as an 'Irish English' like there is 'Pakistani British'.
Before 1948 the only constant flow of immigrants (in much smaller numbers) to England were Irish, and that too was controversial, not everyone was happy about their arrival and they had a hard time. Most of us have heard the infamous sign 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' but the decedents of Irish immigrants nonetheless adopted the norms, culture and values of mainstream England and now just call themselves English. (Irish immigrants in Scotland on the other hand is different story).
The point i'm coming to is that is what SHOULD have happened with immigrants after 1948. and interestingly that was originally the course that history was taking. Many second generation immigrants from the third world who were born in the 50s or 60s would be derogatorily called 'coconuts' by some of the younger second generation immigrants around today who were born during the 'multicultural' era. Hassan who was born in the 60s, in his autobiography on the forum, discusses how when he visited Egypt it was a cultural shock for him, even though his dad was from Egypt. Tell me, How many kids born to Pakistani parents in bradford nowadays would find Pakistan a cultural shock?
British second generation immigrants born in the 50s and 60s adopted the norms, identity and values of mainstream British society because they knew nothing else. The numbers arriving here were much smaller, there was no established foreign community and more importantly the government had yet to adopt 'multiculturalism and diversity' as the official narrative as a country. It started during the 80s and accumulated with new labour's election win in 1997 this idea of being a 'diverse' country, opening up the borders allowing enormous amounts of people to arrive here and treating minorities as a different 'type' of British person.
They thought, absurdly, that we were better of splitting society down religious and ethnic lines and have sections of British society that had different beliefs, norms and values than other parts.
30 years later, after 7/7, Pakistani grooming gangs, more British Muslims fighting for ISIS than in the British armed forces, a British soldier behind decapitated on London streets, the rise of anti-Muslim hate, the EDL and Britain first. What a disaster it has been.
Having said all of that, i don't think descendants of immigrants should be offended by people who argue against mass immigration and multi-culturalism. That doesn't mean we want to kick people out of the country or wish certain people weren't here or had never been born.
Do married couples who never wanted children necessarily hate or want to get rid of their children who were conceived by accident? No of course not, and i would argue the same for the descendants of immigrants.
Topic: Anti-immigration