Thoughts on going back to your homelands (for non-European diaspora in the West)?

[Green disc]

I am more talking about the government's who allowed it to happen, it was a very bad decision, it would have been better if the West had used the Gulf model.
[/QUOTE]

Even if they worked for 30 years in Britain, you still expected them to go back

 

[waz]

Don't you feel alienated though? Society does not reflect you and the history of this country, despite the attempts of revisionism by the multiculturalist types (where they play up the non-European presence in the UK by claiming black Roman soldiers were garrisoned in the British isles and how London was always multicultural).

Don't you feel odd having this dual identity?

Nope not at all, I’m also in education. I’ve probably been more of asset to your race than the left wingers who will abandon a white working class child due to their political leanings.

 

[Cookie Monster]

1948 is when our government passed the Nationality Act which granted citizenship to peoples of our former colonies. Before this Britain was almost 100% European and almost 100% of this European population was ethnically British.

That's roughly the point during which time Britain had lost most of its colonies...and those colonies had become independent. If we r rewinding the clock and "fixing" things...like sending "outsiders" away...then the countries(previously colonies) these ppl are being sent to...must be reimbursed all the wealth that the British empire took from them(raw materials, taxes, etc) during the whole time that territory was a colony.

 

[peagle]

It is sustainable bro. You just sit back and relax.

The most constructive thing I've read in this thread so far.

For my part, I love this bl..dy country, for no other reason then, its home.

 

[Dalit]

The most constructive thing I've read in this thread so far.

For my part, I love this bl..dy country, for no other reason then, its home.

Absolutely. It is home. For you it is the UK. For me it is The Netherlands. No matter what happens. We will remain here.

 

[MastanKhan]

What do you find bad about Pakistan in terms of living standards? I would assume most Western Pakistanis are rich enough to buy nice houses in Pakistan by now.


Netherlands does no reflect your people's history though, and anyway, a baby born in a stable does not become a horse, and Rudyard Kipling was most definitely not an Indian just because he was born in Bombay, nor was Albert Camus Algerian.

Hi,

Human genes allows a human being to change over time---. Horses don't have those genes.

But indeed a clever comment but without any substance or thought put inot it---or maybe not---.

Also shows the mindset of the writer as to how they look at outsiders.

You came and conquered our lands and stole our wealth---thru war.

We will ultimately take over your land thru population growth---.

Should have thought about it before you started your conquest 600 years ago.

 

[Tom_Cruise]

i have a question 50000 pounds is big amount in west ?

Not particularly. Average at best.

 

[TNT]

Well it were Europeans who first started colonization, now this is the slpw colonization of the west. Guess what, these immigrants even have a higher birth rate.
Personally i dont like to live outside, spent a lot of time abroad but moved back to Pakistan. Home is home.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

First the OP Indian should go back to India, then maybe we will think about it.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

If by being born in a stable u do not become a horse...then what criteria makes u(u in particular) European(or British for that matter)?
...u r a Homo Sapien...before the arrival of Homo Sapiens...Neanderthals were thriving in regions of Europe. Homo Sapiens that came out of Africa at some point in distant history drove Neanderthals to extinction.
...so depending on how far back u draw the line...r u going to take that £50,000 and move back to Africa u homo sapien?

Or perhaps u r gonna protest that the above is not realistic...it's too far back in time. Let's move up a little then...how about all non Celts leave Britain?
No? Still unfair somehow? How about we try it at a small scale? In a great demonstration of "practice what u preach"...the British citizens leave northern Ireland(part of UK)...give that back to the Irish ppl...so they can live there as they had been for a long time.

Where does one draw the line for a person to be of a certain nationality? How many generations does it take for it to "reflect their ppl's history"? One? Two? Three? My guess is that ur answer will be something that will conveniently suit u(and others like u).
That answer wouldn't at all be objective no matter how u look at it...it will be completely subjective.

Objectively a "citizen" of a certain nationality...pays his/her taxes, votes, abides by law, gets represented by his/her government, etc. These ppl that u see as "outsiders" do all that...and yet somehow they don't belong.

The shooting at Christschurch and other such racist incidents...are just that...racist. Racism is just a mental construct...that one uses to justify all that is "wrong" with the society. So an "us vs them" can be created...and whichever group ends up on the receiving end...is somehow responsible for the [problem]...
...insert whatever that problem is...and this excuse can be recycled time and again for whenever a scapegoat is needed for a certain problem.

Dave Chappelle is a famous comedian here in the US...and he is also a genius when it comes to highlighting issues like racism. In one of his famous comedic bits...he showed a blind African American man(himself)...who grew up in the South(southern US states). He was enrolled in white dominant school with other blind kids...and was the only African American kid there...so no one ever told him or the other students...that way there wouldn't ever be any trouble. He grew up with those kids...learning the "white supremacist" concept and started looking down on African Americans...
...the whole thing is shown as light-hearted comedy...but the point is that racism is all in our heads...a completely made up construct.

@waz @masterchief_mirza tag other PDF Brits...I would like to know ur feedback to the OP.

Guys, he is obviously not who he claims to be.

Another Indian game, and a poor one at that.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

This cartoon says it all really

This cartoon sums up a lot of different issues.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

A question I have for the non-Europeans living in the West, if there was a government programme in which you could surrender your passport and resettle in a country of your choosing (most likely your ancestral homeland), in exchange for £50,000, would you take it?

In general, what are your thoughts about moving back to your homelands, will you guys ever do it or do you intend to stay for the duration of your life here in the West? What are your thoughts on the changing demographics in the West and the instabilities and conflicts these changes will bring (such as the Christchurch and El Paso gun attacks)?

Hindus, Buddhists and Jews are peaceful and law abiding citizens. We don't need to go back.

 

[Silverblaze]

A question I have for the non-Europeans living in the West, if there was a government programme in which you could surrender your passport and resettle in a country of your choosing (most likely your ancestral homeland), in exchange for £50,000, would you take it?

In general, what are your thoughts about moving back to your homelands, will you guys ever do it or do you intend to stay for the duration of your life here in the West? What are your thoughts on the changing demographics in the West and the instabilities and conflicts these changes will bring (such as the Christchurch and El Paso gun attacks)?

An interesting proposal.

Simple answer is neither the host country nor the immigrants will do this its just not financially feasible.

If 'white countries' so to speak, want non white immigrants to return to their native lands, they must develop a comprehensive plan. Forced repatriation will not work. An action plan with yearly targets that suits and benefits both has to be developed.

Britain for example could desist from interfering in countries and stop destabilizing them and criticizing them on human rights etc and carry out investments in the target country where it wishes a particular group of migrants should return to. They could actually help the target country to stabilize or at least remove their own contribution to its instability.

For example - What if UK decided not to accept any asylum requests from rebel leaders or corrupt politicians from Pakistan.

A large investment in let say a particular part of Pakistan in the education sector could create a way where Pakistani immigrants might go as teachers/ professors. Similar investments in other sectors would be needed.

Bear in mind an investment is not a freebie as UK conglomerates will earn money as well. When small groups return or settle in their native lands, others might follow too.

This is achievable, but UK and others dont want it. They will not cease interference, and continue moral policing of countries. This attitude will never allow the return of immigrants. The problem is establishments in UK and others feel a loss of influence if they cease interference.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Peoples are different not only because of their races, but also because of their geographic environment that well explains differences in development levels

It is impossible that industrialization of 19th century could happen (lets say) in the deserts of Arabia or mountains of Tibet....Probably development of capitalism and industrialization requires a place with a lot of arable land, temperate climate, navigable rivers and good ports--Europe

Differences in development level are explained by: 1)geography 2)institutional environment

In order to be successful, a country must have several geographical characteristics:

1) temperate climate which is good for agriculture and prevents spread of diseases

2) navigable rivers, which were used as natural transport highways in 19th century and stimulated trade, specialization and capital accumulation

3) access to ocean and good ports in order to trade with the rest of the world

4) a lot of arable land

Europe and US has all of this...Africa (for example) has few

Africa has tropical climate that faciliate spread of diseases, lacks large amount of arable land, lacks navigable rivers and has few places to build a port.

This is arable land map---as you can see US has a lot of land and Africa has very little
View attachment 682493
This is climatic map---as you can see places with temperate climate are very developed
View attachment 682494
And this is USA map that shows all geographic features needed for success
View attachment 682496

These maps are misleading. Yes Canada and the Northern US have arable land...but only for a few short months. It is similar to Russia where cold weather is more prevalent than warm. This is why we have spent tremendous amounts of money on hearty plant/seed research.

In September people are wearing jackets..until maybe May. That's like 8 months.

 

[JackFell]

An interesting proposal.

Simple answer is neither the host country nor the immigrants will do this its just not financially feasible.

If 'white countries' so to speak, want non white immigrants to return to their native lands, they must develop a comprehensive plan. Forced repatriation will not work. An action plan with yearly targets that suits and benefits both has to be developed.

Britain for example could desist from interfering in countries and stop destabilizing them and criticizing them oh human rights etc and carry out investments in the target country where it wishes a particular group of migrants should return to. They could actually help the target country to stabilize or at least remove their own contribution to its instability.

For example - What if UK decided not to accept any asylum requests from rebel leaders or corrupt politicians from Pakistan.

A large investment in let say a particular part of Pakistan in the education sector could create a way where Pakistani immigrants might go as teachers/ professors. Similar investments in other sectors would be needed.

Bear in mind an investment is not a freebie as UK conglomerates will earn money as well. When small groups return or settle in their native lands, others might follow too.

This is achievable, but UK and others dont want it. They will not cease interference, and continue moral policing of countries. This attitude will never allow the return of immigrants. The problem is establishments in UK and others feel a loss of influence if they cease interference.

In my view, the separation should be amicable. I think Britain should use its £13bn annual foreign aid budget to help immigrant get the required work skills to make their countries better, such as qualifications as plumbers, electricians, engineers etc etc.

As I said earlier, the immigrants coming to the West are usually far smarter than their average in their homelands, but nothing special here, so they are a bigger loss to their homeland than they are a gain to the West.

I agree with you on interference, Britain should not even be bothering to have a foreign policy beyond one which is very rudimentary for countries outside of Europe, most natives do not want these weird wars and whatnot.