I'm cutting out the rest because this made my eyes crush themselves in my skull.

Are you implying that a person of, say, South African descent who is the fourth generation being born in Britain is not British? That they are intrinsically un-British because their ancestry is rooted in another part of the world? Like a dog when compared to a British horse?

I'm not implying anything... I'm asking a question.

For example, Kevin Pietersen was born in South Africa yet plays Cricket for England. How?

And dont try to make it seem like in calling people dogs. The same could be said for any animal or insect. For example. If a bee is born in a wasp nest... Is it a bee or wasp?

If i my family had lived in Albania for 100 years, they moved to England for a year... Then i was born in England. They suddenly move back to Albania a week later... Does that make me English?

Got to go. Will reply when im back.

An infant? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're a British citizen, though I'm not clear on what the specific legality is there. Yes, you woudl be British. yes, you woudl be British. Yes, you would be British.

Yes, you would be British.

Yes.

You're implying htat people of different ethnic descents are not British. That's exactly what you're implying. A person whose grandparents were from, say, Egypt, but have spent thel ast fifty years in Britain, and the grandchild being raised to adulthood only knowing British culture? He's as British as anyone in this topic. Moreso than quite a few.

Carl, don't try and pose a strawman argument in your very first sentence, it wont work. I never said that English people and foreigners were rivals, I was saying that in situations where violence may occur it is a wise situation to close some places like pubs, where violent behavior can be incubated.

In fact, I'm a little insulted that you tried make out as though I thought English people and foreign people should be rivals.

...

As for saying that Muslims can celebrate Ramadan and English people can't celebrate St. Georges day, you're wrong. English people are just as welcome to celebrate St. Georges day as any one else. Nobody has tried to stop them, only tried to stop potential for violence. You can celebrate it as much as you like, it's not as though the government has banned St. Georges day at all.

And as for the threat of violence posed, let me tell you a story. I used to know a muslim man called Amjid (I never got along with him, I just knew him). Anyway, two years ago at the start of Ramadan he got jumped by a group of chavs whilst he was walking home yelling things like "f*ck off back home if you want to celebrate Ramadan". I remember hearing this story and being extremely shocked. He had to run away, he was very lucky to escape. So the situation goes two ways.

And again, you said why can't you celebrate St. George's day. Well you are very welcome to celebrate St. Georges day. No-one with any power is stopping you. The only people you think are stopping you are a small minority of people who get pissed off easily and for the wrong reason, and the Daily Mail (or any sensationalist newspaper) try to make a bigger deal out of it than it actually is.

I celebrate St. Georges day every year unhindered. I've never experienced trouble, no one has ever told me not to celebrate.

...

As for why it isn't a national holiday, the only patron saint with a national holiday in the UK is St. Patrick, that is only a national holiday that can be celebrated in Northern Ireland and it was a major demand they wanted in the peace process. the government made it a national holiday against their will. The welsh and the Scottish, like us, don't get a national holiday for their patron saint, so why do you think that it's so unfair?

...

As for your last point, my Grandad came to the UK from Australia when he was young. He considers himself fully English. My dad is thus half Australian, and I'm 1/4 Australian. Are you saying that I or my dad have no right to call ourselves English, even though we consider ourselves English, and the government and our passports say we are?

I've never even been to Australia.

a) A lot more hateful. Not more racist.

b) Not at all. And you're not inciting hatred. You're not treating them any differently from an "indigenous Brit". You ask them to leave, and if they don't leave, you go back to thinking up policies on something other than immigration.

And if he identified himself as British, he'd probably want to stay. You're assuming that the doctor, because he was born in Britain, considers himself British. That's not always the case. I've met plenty of people with foreign born grandparents who don't consider themselves British.

a) Yes it is more hateful. I mean it's obviously equally racist as the other scenario too. I said it was worse, and in general I think that statement is true, whatever the case.

b) Inciting hatred was another, more extreme, situation I used the same logic for. My point was essentially regarding what you implied about it being better because you are offering them money for leaving, which I think doesn't make it better at all. If anything it makes it far worse.

...

Whether they consider themselves British or not is irrelevant. I didn't mention it, and I'm certainly not assuming it like you say. The official stance is that they are British, and if they feel another way then so be it. It is unfair to ask one group of British people to leave based on their lineage and not ask the so called "indigenous" group.

Also, conversely to what you say, I've met people (one of my friends in particular stands out) who are extremely proud of being British, despite only being second or third generation British.

a) Not better, no. Worse, much worse. Just not more racist.

b) Again, it's not better, just less racist. Less harmful to those people who are affected. Basically, there are three ways in which they could do this:

-Ask people to leave voluntarily... if they wanted to, they already would have.

-Give people an incentive to leave- this.

-Force people to leave- worst of all. Most hateful, most racist, and just terrible.

_________________

I agree with you- many immigrants (some even first generation) do feel British. But some don't, and that's fine. I don't think they should get money to leave; I just think it's a lot better than forcing them to leave, which would be the alternative.

Of course, the whole idea of making Britain "99% indigenous British" is stupid.

I wouldn't say it was less racist, I think I would say it was at least equally as racist to offer them cash. As you said though, the incentive is the next one up on the list after asking, and that's why I think it's worse and just exacerbates everything.

To be honest, I guess were are pretty much debating the same side here, it's just that we have slightly differing views. I think in general we both agree that what the BNP want to do is bad. And I don't like getting into such heated debates with people I like, so do you want to just call it quits?

Your confusing yourself now, nick griffin did not ask this hyperthetical guy to leave the country all he is saying to everyone with foreign lineage is that "IF THEY WANT TO" they can go home and get paid 50k

So it would be more like this.You having a house party for your family + vgchartz members and thinking to yourself, jeeze my house is getting a bit full, its getting hard to keep on top of everything going on then standing up and making the anouncemnt to people who arent of your family "my house if full I dont mind too much if you want to say...... but if you WANT TO GO HOME! I will pay for your taxi fair home.

thats spot on mate, your blowing things out of proportion