Dillon wrote:Well I see you’re
still bothered by it Shafique, The OP is still White British v Immigrants, not Non-White or General population, Immigrants, I wonder is it
this that really irks you and the reason you keep trying to change it?
Mine hasn’t changed, and it’s not likely to, it’s still there if you’d like another go at it?
Yep, happy to go another round.
Ok - we're reading the Sun report differently - it was saying that 'White British' people would be in a minority in 2066 if the professor's assumptions held.
I couldn't see in the report where he said the non 'White British' would not not be British who were non-White or would be descendants of white immigrants. It did not say 'British citizens' or 'British Born' - but 'White British'. A child of a Polish immigrant, born and raised in Britain, I would contend would be classed as a 'White British' person in 56 years time.
In fact the article contrasts the situation with the US - where it makes a distinction between White Americans and others, and excludes Hispanics in the count of White Americans. It is about race.
But be that as it may - let's agree the group will include "white immigrants, non-white immigrants or non-white Britons", I still make my point that the growing feral underclass of white British population is the greater threat to Britishness.
Over 56 years the non 'white British' population will be even more integrated than they are now - the Michael Portillos, Dianne Abbots etc will be as British as each other, even though only one of them will be termed 'White British'. I would consider Michael Portillo to be a typically 'white British' person even though he is the son of an immigrant.
At the end of the day, I'm not the one that used the term 'White British' first in this thread.
But I do blame the welsh as well.
Cheers,
Shafique
