Political Crossfire Forums

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5373074.stm

I'd like to see how these Australian language and history tests compare to the 'pub quiz' level of examinations we're to levy in the UK.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1743 Location: London

DSwain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5373074.stm

I'd like to see how these Australian language and history tests compare to the 'pub quiz' level of examinations we're to levy in the UK.

I see the logic behind the thinking, but it smells of discrimination to me. Why you ask? That country was founded on the dispossession of everything Aboriginal. There is massive discrimination by the white Australian towards the Aboriginals, and they're the original inhabitants. If any retiring Brit moving to Spain was asked the same, it would spell the end of the Costa Del Dream. Then again it depends on the difficulty of the test. But if its a issue of integration, we whites are the worse at it.

Take Jamaica for example, I went there on holiday visiting a Aunt once. There's a reasonable size expat community out there. Let me tell you in plain English, they either live in the hills or on the coast, and there is virtually no integration by the ex-pats with the local community at all. The same could be said about the Kenyan whites, from what I've observed. Do we whites even mention it has a problem, or that we are just as guilty, even more so of it.

Its a blatant colour issue, if new people move in and they are white, the integration process is easier. As soon as the shade of skin goes darker, then problems begin. The Cronulla riots for example, many of the W.A.S.P's were beating up people of Mediterranean decent, just because there skin and hair colour was naturally darker, and not by suntan, mistaking them for originating from Muslim countries.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Plato & Socrates wrote: DSwain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5373074.stm

I'd like to see how these Australian language and history tests compare to the 'pub quiz' level of examinations we're to levy in the UK.

I see the logic behind the thinking, but it smells of discrimination to me. Why you ask? That country was founded on the dispossession of everything Aboriginal. There is massive discrimination by the white Australian towards the Aboriginals, and they're the original inhabitants. If any retiring Brit moving to Spain was asked the same, it would spell the end of the Costa Del Dream. Then again it depends on the difficulty of the test. But if its a issue of integration, we whites are the worse at it.

Take Jamaica for example, I went there on holiday visiting a Aunt once. There's a reasonable size expat community out there. Let me tell you in plain English, they either live in the hills or on the coast, and there is virtually no integration by the ex-pats with the local community at all. The same could be said about the Kenyan whites, from what I've observed. Do we whites even mention it has a problem, or that we are just as guilty, even more so of it.

Its a blatant colour issue, if new people move in and they are white, the integration process is easier. As soon as the shade of skin goes darker, then problems begin. The Cronulla riots for example, many of the W.A.S.P's were beating up people of Mediterranean decent, just because there skin and hair colour was naturally darker, and not by suntan, mistaking them for originating from Muslim countries.

I think you're mixing up the rights of a host government to stipulate any regulations it wishes regarding economic migration and the racism of certain host communities. Whatever our view of big or little government, one of the oldest and most crucial of government tasks is the defence of national borders against external influences.

Language skills and learning about the host country is not racist unless we're going to say that non-whites are inherently worse at learning than are whites - I see no reason why a black man from a non-English speaking country can't learn English in the same way that a white man from a non-English speaking country can.

What this sort of firm government action does do, however, is reassure the host population that the government is in control which should, in theory, make race riots less likely. If the indigenous host population sees that the government is in control of immigration and feels there is a genuine debate about immigration then anger and frustration are less likely to fester. The problem with the UK is that immigration has been pilloried as a race issue for decades to the extent that we have not been able to discuss it in polite company until very recently.

The experience of certain former colonies such as Jamaica is necessarily very different from that of host countries like the UK. Former colonies experience very specific migratory patterns from the UK - it's either land owning families who 'stayed on' following independence, it's Brits with very specific skills needed by the local economy or it's the affluent older person who is retiring in the sun. With all of the above, integration is not an imperative, nor does the host government make it so. Should Jamaica start to demand that ex-pats start to learn patois, then so be it - that's their right - and British ex-pats could respond accordingly, by participating or upping stumps for UK.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1743 Location: London

DSwain wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: DSwain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5373074.stm

I'd like to see how these Australian language and history tests compare to the 'pub quiz' level of examinations we're to levy in the UK.

I see the logic behind the thinking, but it smells of discrimination to me. Why you ask? That country was founded on the dispossession of everything Aboriginal. There is massive discrimination by the white Australian towards the Aboriginals, and they're the original inhabitants. If any retiring Brit moving to Spain was asked the same, it would spell the end of the Costa Del Dream. Then again it depends on the difficulty of the test. But if its a issue of integration, we whites are the worse at it.

Take Jamaica for example, I went there on holiday visiting a Aunt once. There's a reasonable size expat community out there. Let me tell you in plain English, they either live in the hills or on the coast, and there is virtually no integration by the ex-pats with the local community at all. The same could be said about the Kenyan whites, from what I've observed. Do we whites even mention it has a problem, or that we are just as guilty, even more so of it.

Its a blatant colour issue, if new people move in and they are white, the integration process is easier. As soon as the shade of skin goes darker, then problems begin. The Cronulla riots for example, many of the W.A.S.P's were beating up people of Mediterranean decent, just because there skin and hair colour was naturally darker, and not by suntan, mistaking them for originating from Muslim countries.

I think you're mixing up the rights of a host government to stipulate any regulations it wishes regarding economic migration and the racism of certain host communities. Whatever our view of big or little government, one of the oldest and most crucial of government tasks is the defence of national borders against external influences.

Language skills and learning about the host country is not racist unless we're going to say that non-whites are inherently worse at learning than are whites - I see no reason why a black man from a non-English speaking country can't learn English in the same way that a white man from a non-English speaking country can.

What this sort of firm government action does do, however, is reassure the host population that the government is in control which should, in theory, make race riots less likely. If the indigenous host population sees that the government is in control of immigration and feels there is a genuine debate about immigration then anger and frustration are less likely to fester. The problem with the UK is that immigration has been pilloried as a race issue for decades to the extent that we have not been able to discuss it in polite company until very recently.

The experience of certain former colonies such as Jamaica is necessarily very different from that of host countries like the UK. Former colonies experience very specific migratory patterns from the UK - it's either land owning families who 'stayed on' following independence, it's Brits with very specific skills needed by the local economy or it's the affluent older person who is retiring in the sun. With all of the above, integration is not an imperative, nor does the host government make it so. Should Jamaica start to demand that ex-pats start to learn patois, then so be it - that's their right - and British ex-pats could respond accordingly, by participating or upping stumps for UK.

My Aunt's out there to retire, live well, play bridge, enjoy a round or two of golf, mixed in with a couple trips to the USA a year, plus the hot weather does wonders for her arthritis . From what i've been told, Barbados is just the same, with a even larger ex-pat community.

What pattern do you see DSwain. The people finding it difficult to integrate in Australia are non-whites. What does that tell you? I do agree that governments should be tough on immigration. But the Aussie can have the most difficult of tests, and the government will still be seen has soft on immigration for some people.
People just love to blame others for there crap lives. In the Czech republic there are no ethnic minorities, or immigration issues, and people are still pissed off with there lives. I support the total stopping of immigrants over here. Just to prove a point, that if it all stopped today, we still would'nt be happy.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

Plato & Socrates wrote: DSwain wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: DSwain wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5373074.stm

I'd like to see how these Australian language and history tests compare to the 'pub quiz' level of examinations we're to levy in the UK.

I see the logic behind the thinking, but it smells of discrimination to me. Why you ask? That country was founded on the dispossession of everything Aboriginal. There is massive discrimination by the white Australian towards the Aboriginals, and they're the original inhabitants. If any retiring Brit moving to Spain was asked the same, it would spell the end of the Costa Del Dream. Then again it depends on the difficulty of the test. But if its a issue of integration, we whites are the worse at it.

Take Jamaica for example, I went there on holiday visiting a Aunt once. There's a reasonable size expat community out there. Let me tell you in plain English, they either live in the hills or on the coast, and there is virtually no integration by the ex-pats with the local community at all. The same could be said about the Kenyan whites, from what I've observed. Do we whites even mention it has a problem, or that we are just as guilty, even more so of it.

Its a blatant colour issue, if new people move in and they are white, the integration process is easier. As soon as the shade of skin goes darker, then problems begin. The Cronulla riots for example, many of the W.A.S.P's were beating up people of Mediterranean decent, just because there skin and hair colour was naturally darker, and not by suntan, mistaking them for originating from Muslim countries.

I think you're mixing up the rights of a host government to stipulate any regulations it wishes regarding economic migration and the racism of certain host communities. Whatever our view of big or little government, one of the oldest and most crucial of government tasks is the defence of national borders against external influences.

Language skills and learning about the host country is not racist unless we're going to say that non-whites are inherently worse at learning than are whites - I see no reason why a black man from a non-English speaking country can't learn English in the same way that a white man from a non-English speaking country can.

What this sort of firm government action does do, however, is reassure the host population that the government is in control which should, in theory, make race riots less likely. If the indigenous host population sees that the government is in control of immigration and feels there is a genuine debate about immigration then anger and frustration are less likely to fester. The problem with the UK is that immigration has been pilloried as a race issue for decades to the extent that we have not been able to discuss it in polite company until very recently.

The experience of certain former colonies such as Jamaica is necessarily very different from that of host countries like the UK. Former colonies experience very specific migratory patterns from the UK - it's either land owning families who 'stayed on' following independence, it's Brits with very specific skills needed by the local economy or it's the affluent older person who is retiring in the sun. With all of the above, integration is not an imperative, nor does the host government make it so. Should Jamaica start to demand that ex-pats start to learn patois, then so be it - that's their right - and British ex-pats could respond accordingly, by participating or upping stumps for UK.

My Aunt's out there to retire, live well, play bridge, enjoy a round or two of golf, mixed in with a couple trips to the USA a year, plus the hot weather does wonders for her arthritis . From what i've been told, Barbados is just the same, with a even larger ex-pat community.

What pattern do you see DSwain. The people finding it difficult to integrate in Australia are non-whites. What does that tell you? I do agree that governments should be tough on immigration. But the Aussie can have the most difficult of tests, and the government will still be seen has soft on immigration for some people.
People just love to blame others for there crap lives. In the Czech republic there are no ethnic minorities, or immigration issues, and people are still pissed off with there lives. I support the total stopping of immigrants over here. Just to prove a point, that if it all stopped today, we still would'nt be happy.

Very good points, Plato. The challenge for politicians in these sorts of cases is to be more effective in communicating the problems and the benefits of immigration to the people while making sure that we know just how difficult it is for people to immigrate (and, of course, to make sure that the immigration system is bloody hard, yet fair). I think immigration can be incredibly beneficial for host communities because of economic benefits and certain cultural benefits - but those immigrants must abandon their existing nationalities and problems - they should be British (or Australian or whatever) first and foremost and, if they can't do that, they must not be given citizenship and should be asked to leave at the end of their initial residency period.

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

Plato and Socrates... Quote: ... it smells of discrimination to me.

We can only hope so - but I very much doubt that our politicians will ever summon up the balls necessary to break rank from the half-century of political correctness which has seen our cities and townships stocked with indissoluble alien ethnicities.

After 50-years of being embarked upon non-discriminatory policies with regard to our immigration programmes, it's high time our respective governments factored into the demographic equation the vital matter of cultural - and dare I say it... racial compatibility with the host society.

These new initiatives are mere window-dressing and utter nonsense in so far as they will not even for one moment stem the tide of the continuing influx of incompatible cultures and ethnicities which for the past few decades have been allowed to take root in our homelands.

This inflow will continue unabated until our homelands are composed of nothing more than a patchwork quilt of tribal entities - all with their 'ethnic community' leaders sitting as representatives in our parliaments - all vying with one another for how best to promote and advance their own little fiefdoms.

bob.appleyard · Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 7404 Location: Manchestar, innit

What are compatible cultures?

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

First off you must bear in mind that 99% of immigration has nothing to do with creating a better society for the host people. It is almost entirely a sop to the business community who provide massive campaign funds to political parties at the time of the elections.

The building trade is one of the most high-profile amongst those who lobby the government for a greater immigration flow in order to keep the housing industry cracking along at a good pace whilst providing a livelihood for several million in the trade.

The UK and Australian governments have not cared a damn that their non-discriminatory immigration policies has for decades been importing the sort of ethnicities who very predictably have given rise to 'a colour problem' and a sharp divide between the Muslim community and the non-Muslim community in the host society.

Here in Sydney Australia we have the makings of another Los Angeles well on its way. Just to service the immigrant criminal problems which have been imported into Sydney via our government's totally un-mandated 'non-discrimination policy' - the authorities have had to create special police squads: The Middle Eastern Crimes Task Force... and The South East Asian Task Force.

Australia's Muslim community see themselves as standing very much apart from mainstream society as a separate identity that has its primary allegiances firmly placed with international Islam. To their credit our Muslim leaders openly acknowledge that their loyalty to Australia is a secondary consideration to that of keeping faith with the global Islamic community.

Muslims are not compatible with Judeo-Christian Western societies. Most of their Islamic edicts forbid them to engage in a whole compendium of social practices which we in Western society take for granted is all part of our culture.

We've just seen Muslim parents withdrawing their small children from a school's dancing classes because... quote: "dancing leads to kissing and kissing leads to sex". We're talking here about children under 10 years of age.

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

And now our Australian government is embarked upon an immigration programme to bring in thousands each year of blacks from Somalia and the Sudan.

This is a guarantee for creating crime-ridden black ghettoes of the future of the sort that plagues every large city in the US - and certain inner-suburbs of the UK.

A litmus test for immigrant compatibility is... "are these immigrants likely to marry into the families of the host society?" It's 'No', because they're blacks. Or 'No', because their Asians. Or 'No', because they're Muslims.

I exclude the US from all of my above comments as US society has already long since become a cess-pool of ethnic tensions and black/white rivalry and resentments. But in my own lifetime I could have walked from John O'Groats to Lands End... or Perth To Sydney - and not seen one Muslim or one Afro-immigrant.

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

Of the estimated 250 ethnicities which have arrived here in Australia via the immigration bandwagons - guess which is the one cultural group which has demanded of our suburban councils that they set aside special days during which only the females from their ghetto communities may swim at the local public baths... ?

The Muslims.

We have public baths here in Australia which lock their gates to the public on certain days so that the local Muslim women can take a swim without having to compromise their 'modesty' to the lascivious gaze of the general public.

Give me a break.

If we had the BNP here in Australia I would be voting for them early and often on polling days.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 5677

Hotdog wrote: And now our Australian government is embarked upon an immigration programme to bring in thousands each year of blacks from Somalia and the Sudan.

This is a guarantee for creating crime-ridden black ghettoes of the future of the sort that plagues every large city in the US - and certain inner-suburbs of the UK.

A litmus test for immigrant compatibility is... "are these immigrants likely to marry into the families of the host society?" It's 'No', because they're blacks. Or 'No', because their Asians. Or 'No', because they're Muslims.

I exclude the US from all of my above comments as US society has already long since become a cess-pool of ethnic tensions and black/white rivalry and resentments. But in my own lifetime I could have walked from John O'Groats to Lands End... or Perth To Sydney - and not seen one Muslim or one Afro-immigrant.

How many of the original settlers married aboriginals?

(Just playing the devils advocate)

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

Ssuchi... Quote: How many of the original settlers married aboriginals?

(Just playing the devils advocate)

The Devil you say.

Well, smartypants... :-D ... it just so happens that the majority of urban aborigines are shacked up with white folk. So there!

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 5677

Hotdog wrote: Ssuchi... Quote: How many of the original settlers married aboriginals?

(Just playing the devils advocate)

The Devil you say.

Well, smartypants... :-D ... it just so happens that the majority of urban aborigines are shacked up with white folk. So there!

That's the answer to a different question.

Your original question was:

Quote: "are these immigrants likely to marry into the families of the host society?"

i.e. you're discussing the new people to come to a country.

I asked about the original white settlers as they are some what similar to your example.

And from the original white settlers (who took over the Aboriginal lands) very few married into the families of their hosts (as you put it).

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1507

Hotdog wrote: If we had the BNP here in Australia I would be voting for them early and often on polling days.

I'm so, so glad you managed to immigrate then.

A question (as usual :-D )...

You seem intent on proving that immigrant communities can never form part of a society as intergration with some aspects (you specifically mention Muslims) seem incompatable with the culture of the host nation.

If that is the case, how would you explain the success of multiculturalism in Canada? You can quote the article citing the arrest of "islamic exremists planning on murdering hundreds of thousands and bringing death to your mothers and stealing your children" if you like, but the success of intergration in cities like Vancouver is a tribute to actual well thought out policies coming into play.

A second question...

Why are you so scared of those with a different skin colour? Every time you mention an immigrant community you cite those of a different skin colour to yours. Why is it that you never mention the effects of Polish immigration in the UK only Bangledeshi? Why aren't you up in arms about Romania and Bulgaria entering the EU and flooding the market with more dirt cheap labourers?

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

slitedeviance... Quote: You seem intent on proving that immigrant communities can never form part of a society as intergration with some aspects (you specifically mention Muslims) seem incompatable with the culture of the host nation.

I have repeatedly been at pains to say that in Australia there are around 250 different nationalities represented amongst the migrant population... and it is ONLY 3 or 4 of these immigrant groups who are way over the top as star-performers in our crimes statistics... and in our unemployment statistics... and who have a well-known reputation for 'bad attitude' and threatening behaviour towards anyone outside of their ethnic group.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1507

Hotdog wrote: I have repeatedly been at pains to say that in Australia there are around 250 different nationalities represented amongst the migrant population... and it is ONLY 3 or 4 of these immigrant groups who are way over the top as star-performers in our crimes statistics... and in our unemployment statistics... and who have a well-known reputation for 'bad attitude' and threatening behaviour towards anyone outside of their ethnic group.

What would you say was the main defining factors that seperate these groups from the other 246 who are able to form some semblence of intergration?

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

Slitedeviance... Quote: If that is the case, how would you explain the success of multiculturalism in Canada?

:lol:

You do but jest of course!

In Canada they've had to pass a whole raft of racial vilification laws to dampen down and discourage the more public manifestations of racism and disenchantment between the various ethnic communities.

They have a thriving industry in which paid professionals go around to schools and workplaces counselling people to be tolerant and accepting of other races and cultures. What this tells me is that the Canadian government is subsidising a task force to keep the lid on the pressure-cooker of 'multiculturalism'.

My point is why deliberately engineer a situation in which your homeland society becomes one that is riven with immigrant tribal loyalties with all of the resentments and tensions that this gives rise to?

I know you can't unscramble the egg, but countries such as the UK and Australia and Canada and New Zealand still have time to close the gates on certain streams of immigration which are currently in the process of wiping out the predominance of the host people in many of our nations' suburbs.

There are whole sections of London and Sydney where you would think you were walking the streets of some Middle Eastern township.

http://www.debwewin.ca/racism.htm
http://www.debwewin.ca/unityanddiversity.htm

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

slitedeviance... Quote: Why are you so scared of those with a different skin colour? Every time you mention an immigrant community you cite those of a different skin colour to yours.

Because nothing more quickly and effectively shatters and divides the homogeneity and the social cohesion of those nations whose society just happens to be white - than does the introduction of an immigration programme which sources a steady stream of black people from Africa and elsewhere.

Apart from this dividing society into an us-and-them internecine scenario - it's not long before special bureaucracies have to be developed to oversee that 'tolerance' and racial equality is maintained at all levels of society.

Generally speaking people like to have their familiars around them. All I'm saying is that why should nations whose societies have been identifiably and comfortably white for centuries - now be suddenly obliged by international treaties with the UN or whatever - to have their social homogeneity and their national identity blown apart by the artificial insemination into the homeland of tens of thousands of blacks who will eventually out-breed the host people?

To his credit, Britain's Trevor Phillips - the chair of the 'Commission for Racial Equality' (for Chrissake!) - agrees with me, so I can't be such a monstrous racist for expressing these views.

Trevor Phillips... Quote: "We've done work here which shows that people, frankly, when there aren't other pressures, like to live within a comfort zone which is defined by racial sameness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/5012478.stm

http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew01y.RefLocID-0hg00900c001002.Lang-EN.htm

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1743 Location: London

Hotdog wrote: Slitedeviance... Quote: If that is the case, how would you explain the success of multiculturalism in Canada?

:lol:

You do but jest of course!

In Canada they've had to pass a whole raft of racial vilification laws to dampen down and discourage the more public manifestations of racism and disenchantment between the various ethnic communities.

They have a thriving industry in which professions go around to schools and workplaces counselling people to be tolerant and accepting of other races and cultures. What that tells me is that the Canadian government is subsidising a task force to keep the lid on the pressure-cooker of racism.

My point is why deliberately engineer a situation in which your homeland society is based upon immigrant tribal loyalties with all the resentments and tensions that this gives rise to?

I know you can't unscramble the egg, but countries such as the UK and Australia and Canada and New Zealand still have time to close the gates on certain streams of immigration which are currently in the process of wiping out the predominance of the host people in many of our nations' suburbs.

There are whole sections of London and Sydney where you would think you were walking the streets of some Middle Eastern township.

http://www.debwewin.ca/racism.htm
http://www.debwewin.ca/unityanddiversity.htm

GUYS LIKE YOU ARE A CONTRIDICTION AND A JOKE. :roll: You live in Australia, a country founded by my forefathers on the butchering and dispossion of the original inhabitants. The thieving of the best land. The relocation of the Aboriginals when the resided on anything deemed valuble or coverted by the W.A.S.P's. ie; wealthy deposits of Opal, industrial diamonds as well as rich deposits of uranium etc.

The white settlers, immigrants like yourself, did nothing to fit into Aboriginal culture, let alone learn the language.
It has got nothing to do with new immigrants not being able to integrate. It is all to do with bigots like you, resenting non-white immigrants coming over, and people like you making there transition difficult, with barely disguised hostility towards them.

This white superiority and fitting in thing, fails to work most times, because of white resentment. Then people like you will be so confused when things don't work out.
It is not the new immigrants or the Blacks or the Muslims, who have the problem. It is people like you who have a chip on there shoulder. This chip on your shoulder and make no mistake, you do have one, is based on a false sense of superiority. White employers refuse to employ ethnic minorities, then sit round the barbecue and discuss things like, those buggers don't like to work, or why don't they get a job?

On my one and only visit to Australia, speaking to relatives and other whites, I got that impression that everyday casual racism was acceptable. You just confirm what I already new. So what people are too dark for you? Any darker than Greek or Turk and that's it? Or is Lebanese white just a shade too much? :lol:
A IMMIGRANT, WHO RESENTS NEW IMMIGRANTS, IN A COUNTRY OF IMMIGRANTS? That's a joke if ever I have heard one. :?

Political correctness indeed? Time to invest in a new SS uniform. You are way past the stage of political correctness, being able to temper your language and disdain for people with darker skin than you. You are just a unreconstructed racist. Plane and simple. What a bitter and resentful life you will lead, I pity you not.
When you have more racist thoughts, just remember where you live and who's country it was. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Hotdog · Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 421

slitedeviance... don't worry about your Polish immigrants - or the Rumanians and Bulgarians arriving to settle in Britain. If you don't want them, we'll certainly take them.

They're white, Christian, and of Western cultural heritage - and will therefore meld in seamlessly with the Australian mainstream and marry our daughters within one or two generations only.

Not so with the blacks who are now for the first time streaming into our city suburbs from the Sudan and Somalia... And also not so with our Muslim community who want to maintain their religious integrity by marrying into their own.