Are these people really British?

[glitterpaperchain]

In 1688, foreign strangers were arriving on British shores daily. The locals complained of despoilment of their environment. Londoners complained that French was everywhere, and not a word of English could be heard spoken! The French immigrants were denigrated either for being too poor, thus a drain on rate-paying parishioners, or too prosperous, at the expense of local merchants and business owners.

(Taken from Thou Savage Woman by Blessin Adams, great book!)

That sounds exactly like what I hear the media saying about immigrants now! So when the far right are making sure that Britain is for the British, shall they make sure we all trace our lineage back to the 1600s, and make sure no descendents of those awful French immigrants count as British?

Ive seen this kind of naive argument raised before. The Romans invaded. The Saxons invaded. The Normans invaded. And so on.

In those days there was no democracy so the native population had no say in the matter.

Now we are supposed to be a democracy. However, beginning with Windrush, successive governments have allowed large ethnic groups into this country without any public mandate. This has changed the face and character of the country in ways that many of us now deeply resent. Instead of simply allowing these people into the country as guest workers we have given them equal citizenship. Again, without any public consultation or mandate.

I don't recall a referendum on "do you want a multi cultural society" but nevertheless we got one. I know what my vote would have been.

Where abouts in the UK do you live OP?

Due to the British empire the people who came in on the windrush and similar were British subjects.

countries without empires had to have guest workers because they didn’t have a source of labour to rebuild the country that already had citizenship.

(now the phrase is British citizens but at the time it was subjects).

It's fine if you want to live in an economic zone with many millions of people from 195 countries all here for their own personal financial gain I suppose.

Millions don't.

Mass immigration in one lifetime hasn't created a multi cultural nirvana has it? The country is deeply divided with the pro globalisation people sneering at the people that disagree with them. This seems to be the predominant "British value" now as evidenced by this enjoyable sneer thread. Is this the outcome you wanted? I get the impression it is, maximum sneer and contempt opportunity.

This

Britain has been invaded so many times in the past as well as having waves of immigration from all over that I don't even know what British is apart from being born in this country or taking out British citizenship. I assume many recent immigrants still associate themselves with their home countries rather than Britain as most of us would if we moved abroad.

It was gene selection. Those without the gene died out.

Referendums aren't useful in a parliamentary democracy.

I mean we had one 10 years ago, and it's not solved anything.

Also, nothing stopping you from getting elected on your manifesto. I mean if you don't like the ready meals sold in supermarkets, you can always learn to cook.

They might not have had an elected government but they still had power over public policy via civil war. The whole reason the 1066 war happened was because Harold Godwinson was crowned king, despite William of Normandy being Edward the Confessor’s closest relative (ignoring Edgar Ætheling, who was a child). The English public were threatening civil war as they didn’t want a Norman king, they wanted an English king, so Harold was crowned, resulting in William’s invasion to claim the throne, which he had a very valid claim to.

Yes that's how evolution works

Do you not see the irony in what you are saying at all?

You will of course note that despite what the "English" people wanted (many would have identified as Danish among other cultures) they did get a Norman king.

Which one might suggest set the tone for the next few centuries.

Before the EU Britain was part of and led the commonwealth and most people who lived in commonwealth countries were British. So prior to the Second World War there were British people all over the world - India, Hong Kong, Ghana, parts of the Carribean etc. these British people had (largely) freedom of movement within the empire.

nobody held referendums on the British Empire but then nobody asked the people who lived in the countries that were occupied/colonised either.

you’d have to go back almost so the sixteenth century to have a time where British people were only in the British isles.

What would your vote have been and which people would you allow in? Where did your ancestors come from?

What about before Windrush the poor out of Ireland, the Jews out of Europe, the Polish, the Italians, etc, etc do they not all count as multi cultural? A democracy means you vote for a political representative it doesn't mean you get a vote on every decision of that government.

Immigrants are all here for their own personal financial gain.

Like I said, maximum sneer opportunity.

I always laugh at posters calling people with a different opinion bigot! That's literally the definition, unwilling to tolerate a different opinion.

Do you think 600 to 900 were arriving every day?

Did the locals have to pay for the French to get accommodation?
Food?
Healthcare?
Dental treatment?
Clothing?
Technology?
Clubs?
Free university?
Language classes?
Travel?

Was itbonly French men thatvturned up?

Did the French men rape the young women from the villages and when the locals prilotested, Did the local get called names by others?

I doubt it.

Your point is ridiculous.

This is not true

Yeah I used “English” as a simplification for the general public. England didn’t even exist as a unified country until the 10th century, but was just a collection of counties, so most people didn’t consider themselves culturally English until much later.

Admittedly, I just wanted to talk about medieval history as it’s my special interest! So I’m sorry for derailing the thread, but I think the point stands that the Witan took the public’s views into account, they didn’t completely just do what they wanted and sod everyone else. They knew William was going to invade which was why they immediately discounted Edgar as they knew he was too young and wouldn’t be able to lead the army, whereas at least Harold had a chance.

Where do you live and what's your actual direct experience of immigration?

In my experience people who come out with asinine cliches like yours ("the Hugenots! The Normans! We're all immigrants! What is "British" anyway?! Football hooligans? Hahaha") have very limited experience of the day to day reality of the massive unchecked Third World immigration of the last 20 years.

Even Dickens noticed these women.

Mrs. Jellyby is a comically neglectful philanthropist from Charles Dickens’s novel Bleak House. She is most famous for her "telescopic philanthropy"—campaigning for the natives of Borrioboola-Gha in Africa while entirely neglecting her own children.
Her most famous descriptions and quotes are from the perspective of other characters, as well as her own placid rationalizations:

• Looking to Africa: "She was a pretty, very diminutive, plump woman of from forty to fifty, with handsome eyes, though they had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off. As if... they could see nothing nearer than Africa!"
• Ignoring her family's plight: When asked about her son who had just fallen down an entire flight of stairs, or the financial ruin of her husband, she placidly brushes it off, stating: "Happily for me, I am so much engaged that I have no time to think about it."
• The "Telescopic Philanthropy" verdict: John Jarndyce summarizes her character's hypocrisy by noting: "The people who do a little and make a great deal of noise; the other, the people who do a great deal and make no noise at all."

I think it's really sad to have such an opinion of immigrants

Yeah. And how did that work out ?

I'm a great fan of ignoring counterfactuals. In that vein the Norman conquest was inevitable in some form or another.

Of course the other point being evaded by many here, is if you want to talk about "who let them in ?" you really should move the question from Britain 2026. to "the rest of the world 157x-1949 and find our how the people of India, or South Africa or North America weren't asked either.

Yes, I think all the French were put up in 5* hotels and given iphones, paid for by the locals

The scale of immigration we have now today is way way more in terms of numbers and complexity than whatever took place in the past. Even during the Norman invasions, it was an elite group from the other side of the channel (so not that genetically or culturally different) that took political control, which then basically ended up mixing with the local anglo-saxons. They were also of the same religion. You cannot say this is what happens nowadays.