@andrew_lilico It's pretty crazy that being an island, surrounded by the best defensive line possible - the sea - has ended up being worse as a barrier to illegal immigration than continental land borders.
With land borders barbed wire, live munitions, forcible prevention - all permitted π€·
@albieamankona@bbclaurak@cspencer1508 I'm sure his previous 3 marriages ended completely amicably and his 4th will go just as smoothly π€
Would be enlightening if they ever published a book and had it serialised in the Mail π³
@FuturistPartyGB I look forward to never hearing anyone describe themselves as British-Indian ever again.
I trust they will stick to Brown-British, just as British-British people are forced to disassociate themselves from their ancestry and reduced simply to a melanin level as White-British π«
@FuturistPartyGB Similarly, we must accept infinity Afghans as "they helped us" and "we abandoned them"?
Actually WE were helping THEM to be free, but in the end they weren't fussed.
Just like we helped the French but had to evacuate from Dunkirk. That didn't entitle all Frenchmen to move here!π΅βπ«
@FuturistPartyGB Those details are often used to justify mass immigration.
Sure, people across the Empire helped against the Axis powers, but Britain itself entered the war to help countries across Europe, yet we claim to entitlement to move on mass to those countries just because we helped them.
@frankdrebin286@_SalmanAnwar@GoodwinMJ I think the backlash is due to unfairness, two-tier you might say!
E.g. British-Indian = nationality+ancestry
But if Brits are forced to say White-British, they should be Brown-British
The 'white' addition is a convenient trap to instantly claim every debate is being 'racialised'
@Johnmcternan So will we only ever hear you say Brown-British from now on?
No more British-Asian?
If British-British are reduced to White-British, then surely every other group should be forced to do the same.
@Johnmcternan Skin colour wouldn't come into the equation if English people weren't forced to refer to themselves as White-English.
Every other group can say Indian-English, Pakistani-English, Nigerian-English etc.
Yet one group alone is reduced to skin colour.
Why is there no English-English?
@Iromg This is why everyone hates paying tax now.
If you knew if would definitely go towards stuff that British-British would collective enjoy and make our lives better, fine.
But taxes are wasted sustaining the worst people to be here against our will π
@PODroxman@sundersays@LucyGoBag What we can say is they don't force people to call themselves Brown-Indian, Brown-Banglahedshi, Black-Nigerian etc. in the way that Brits are forced to refer to themselves as White-British.
Why does everyone else get to include their ancestry in their identity, apart from Brits?
@Con_Tomlinson@piersmorgan Why are actual Brits the only group reduced to a skin colour as White-British, whereas every other group gets to include their ancestry e.g. British-Indian.
We should be consistent.
Either allow British-British, or ban British-Indian etc.
Brown-British, see how they like it.
@ishaantharoor Actual Brits are forced to refer to themselves as White-British, whilst every other group is allowed to have their ancestry in their identity
E.g. British-Indian, British-Nigerian etc.
Does that seem fair?
One group alone, disassociated from their ancestry, reduced to skin colour
@anandMenon1 Why do you think we've ended up in a situation where the group formerly referred to as Brits are reduced to being White-British, yet Sunak gets to be British-Indian?
Why isn't he forced to say Brown-British?
I think the backlash is down to that unfairness.
Why no British-British?