Britain's immigration policy

I don't know why they are complaining about Bill Gates' status. If you want educated, smart people, this rule works 99% of the time. And, if Bill Gates has a serious interest in working in England, I'm sure he'll work it out easily enough.

College requirements to come to the US? Don't we already give preferential treatment to foreigners with degrees?

 

Bill Gates is just an example

it really about non-educated prospective immigrants who may potentially be enterprenuers

 

Sure, and I'm saying the population of future successful entrepreneurs without college degrees is so small that they aren't worth legislating for. Go with your easy bread-and-butter stuff -- people with education and skills. If there is an entrepreneur in Angola who is going to become the next business mogul and wants to do it in England, there's always University of Phoenix.

 

This is exactly how US immigration policy has been implemented from time to time, as I understand it. We've had laws designed to keep specific nationalities out, the Chinese specifically...we've had laws designed to attract the best and the brightest of the world...we've had laws designed to keep out the illiterate. Our policy has not been the same throughout our history. It has changed over and over and over again.

 

The whole point of this is to try to come up with a way to exclude the people they don't want coming in any more.

The complaints about people like Gates is just the sort of thing that is going to happen, people pointing out abdurdities in such 'misdirection-type' rules.

What they NEED to do is stop screwing around trying to exclude the massive influx african and muslim immigrants by saying 'You need to have a degree' or some stupid BS, and just say 'We are not taking any more africans or middle-eastern immigrants this year.' That's what they are doing anyway, but they don't want to be accused of being 'insensitive' or 'racist'.

 

World Population Shifts from Europeans to Africans and Indians

Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit—Black Population to Double

The big population story of the 21st Century is shaping up to be the status reversal of whites and blacks and the Indian baby boom
As a percentage of world inhabitants, the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.

Using 2010 as the base reference, the big gainer in the population derby will be blacks or sub-Sahara Africans. This group will expand almost 133% to 2.7 billion by 2060. By the middle of this century blacks will represent 25.38% of world population, which is up dramatically from the 8.97% they recorded in 1950.

The other groups measured in the study were the Central Asians (Indians), East Asians (Chinese and Japanese), the Southeast Asians, Arabic (North Africa and the Middle East), and Amerindian-Mestizo (Mexican and Central America). All these groups will experience a population growth. The Chinese/Japanese and Indians will trade rankings and the relative global presence of the other groups will remain more or less constant.

The big population story of the 21st Century is shaping up to be the status reversal of whites and blacks and the Indian baby boom. A side bar will be the single digit minority role that whites will assume. Of the 7 population groups studied, only whites are projected to sustain an absolute decline in numbers.

In 1950 whites and blacks were respectively 27.98% and 8.97% of world population. By 2060 these figures will almost reverse as blacks surge to 25.38% and whites shrink to 9.76%. From 2010 the white population will decline while blacks will add 1.2 billion to their numbers. In this time frame the the Indian subcontinent will gain 1.2 billion people. These groups and their governments will be looking for elbow room, and the diminished presence of whites in Europe, and especially in the relatively wide open spaces North America, will provide such an opportunity. Specifically, countries like Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia can expect to be pressured to accept collectively hundreds of millions of refugees from India, and sub-Sahara Africa.

(Click on link below to get your free copy of the report)

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=population

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6pzPp1Q2ew

 

What interesting place for your only two posts to be.

 

Prolly an AE.

 

Aren't they pretty much obligated to take a large number of those immigrants, as being members of the Commonwealth?

 

You don't need to change the policy. You just need to tell the guys giving out visas to look for talent.

I knew someone who was pretty much a genius. He got his student visa to study in the US easily because his would-be professor wrote a personal letter to the consulate telling them give the guy a god damn visa.

The US visa policy strongly favors anyone who stands out. If you're the sh-t at something, you'll get your visa.

 

What does Europe teach us? They face an even bigger problem. Part 2
They're respectable, wealthy, well-raised and educated. They know history, speak different languages and travel. They hold high posts at banks, financial corporations and law offices. These are the new European nationalists

A short description of our first installment: Ethnic battles are erupting in the heart of the EU. Belgium’s Flemings and Walloons are fighting among themselves and hoping to split the country in two. At the same time, Arab emigrants are fleeing to Belgium en masse. Will Belgium face another Kosovo scenario?

“The most popular child’s name in Brussels and Antwerp is ‘Mohammed,’” said Mia Doornaert, diplomatic editor at the Flemish paper Standaard. “I don’t have anything against emigrants if they’re willing to work and integrate into the local community. But that’s not what’s happening. We’re being forced to feed them. Arab emigrants hide from the police in our churches, which in turn refuse to kick them out. That’s just how things are here. Why don’t they go and hide in their mosques? And it’s impossible to print even one word about emigrants in the press without being called a racist.”

“It’s hard to imagine that Belgian residents are ready to mix their ancient Christian blood with the Arabs,” I said emotionally. “And your nation’s heroes commanded the first and only successful Crusade and freed Jerusalem!”

It turned out my passion was contagious. “You’re absolutely right!” she said. “Europe shouldn’t forget about its Christian history. I think the EU made an unforgivable mistake by removing the clause about our Christian roots in the Constitution. I always respected Pope John Paul II. He was a good person, but why did he decide to apologize for the Crusades! The Muslims started conquering our Christian shrines first. They captured Jerusalem and Constantinople — a large Christian center. Europe didn’t receive any apology from the Muslims for seizing our shrines. Why should the Christians feel guilty? In a global world where borders between peoples are being removed, it’s important for people to know where they came from and where they are going. People need an identity. I’m Flemish and I’m proud of my people’s history. The Walloons call our national feelings ‘folklore.’ But it’s not folklore. It’s our sense of self.”

[...]

Read on:

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute....h-us-they-face-an-even-bigger-problem-part-2/

 

Promoting genocide for whites? Noel Ignatiev and the culture of Western suicide

Part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide.

There has been a renewed interest recently in a 2002 article by Paul Craig Roberts, actually the first of two (here is the second), drawing attention to a rather frightening phenomenon at Harvard University: the effort by a professor, Noel Ignatiev, and his journal, Race Traitor, to promote the “cultural and psychological genocide of whites.”

Now that’s an odd choice of words—guaranteed to draw attention to himself and his ideas. Was he in any way also promoting the slaughter/liquidation of whites, as some of his adversaries have suggested? Ignatiev says no. In his words,

We frequently get letters accusing us of being “racists,” just like the KKK, and have even been called a “hate group.” …

Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc….

Ignatiev et al. have developed a story that goes as follows: A bunch of very bad people got together and created a category called “white” to which they belong but people with different colored skin can’t belong. Then they made laws that favored people in the white category, they colluded with other whites to dominate the economic and political process, and they invented baseless scientific theories in which whiteness had its roots in real biological differences.

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute....and-the-culture-of-western-suicide/#more-2788

 

Weird....