Welcome to Londonistan

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/06/london-mayor-global-press-reaction-sadiq-khan-curiosity-ignorance

Crazy part is that 40% of Londoners are not born in the UK.   Yet another reason for Brexit to succeed.  
There is a reason London and the U.K. Were great and it wasn't because 40% of their largest city were born outside of the U.K.   

Quote:In London, the religion of the Labour candidate for the city’s mayor became an issue only when his Conservative opponent made it one, by attempting to link his rival to Islamist extremism in a campaign criticised as divisive and racist. 

Abroad, however, it seems the faith and family background of Sadiq Khanis seen through a somewhat different prism: in much foreign media coverage of the elections, it was more important than his politics.
“Sadiq Khan likely to become the first Muslim mayor of London,” was the headline in France’s leading left leaning news weekly L’Obs. The country’s largest commercial broadcaster, TF1, went for: “Sadiq Khan: Muslim, immigrant’s son, self-made man – and future mayor”? The Metronews freesheet went further, saying a Khan victory would make the Tooting MP “the first Muslim mayor of a European capital”.
[/url]

 The Metronews freesheet’s report on Sadiq Khan. Photograph: Metronews
Le Monde went out of its way to note that Khan, “the son of an immigrant bus driver from Pakistan”, described his moderate Islamic faith as “part of my identity” – adding that his opponent Zac Goldsmith was “the son of a Franco-British billionaire of Jewish origin”.

Zac Goldsmith attacked by senior Tory over London mayoral election tactics

 
Read more

Khan’s religion was prominent in media coverage of the election in the Netherlands, where Ahmed Aboutaleb has been the Muslim mayor of the country’s second largest city, Rotterdam, since 2009. The headline of the authoritative NRC Handsblad was: “The green millionaire v the leftwing Muslim”, while the right leaning De Telegraaf chose simply: “London could get its first Muslim mayor”. 
In Germany, Süddeutsche Zeitung remarked – although not in its headline – that London seemed on course for its first Muslim mayor, while Switzerland’s Le Temps noted that the duel between the sons of “a billionaire, and a bus driver” could see the city becoming “the first European capital to be run by a Muslim”.

Different perceptions of Islam and integration were compounded in some countries by a wildly different continental view of Pakistan. “Is Khan’s Pakistani origin not an obstacle?” asked a journalist on the Swiss radio station RTS. “Is Pakistan not associated with fundamentalism and terror?”

The station’s interviewee replied that in a city in which almost 40% of residents were born outside the UK, and whose Muslim population makes up 12% of the total (and more than 30% in some boroughs), the popular image of Pakistan was more usually to do with corner shops and academic excellence.

But perhaps the most striking example of how differently much of the world sees London – and the importance of religion – from the way the city plainly sees itself came from the US, where Donald Trump caused uproar with a call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country.
 
[]“DEVELOPING: FIRST MUSLIM MAYOR OF LONDONISTAN”[/color] was the top headline on the popular news aggregator site The Drudge Report, followed closely by: “Jewish leaders express concern over voting problems” and “FLASHBACK: Parts of city 50% Islamic”.[/font][/color]

[Benton]

(05-06-2016, 09:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/06/london-mayor-global-press-reaction-sadiq-khan-curiosity-ignorance

Crazy part is that 40% of Londoners are not born in the UK.   Yet another reason for Brexit to succeed.  
There is a reason London and the U.K. Were great and it wasn't because 40% of their largest city were born outside of the U.K.   

Crazy? That's been about the same for new York for a long time. I'd guess that's pretty close to the percentage for most major metro areas.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-07-2016, 12:55 AM)Benton Wrote: Crazy? That's been about the same for new York for a long time. I'd guess that's pretty close to the percentage for most major metro areas.

Which just makes my point that a tighter immigration policy is necessary.   Now for London it's a particular issue since that's a major reason Brexit is winning.   Border security and tighter immigration policy wanted.   

The percentages of foreign born citizens should be in the neighborhood of 10%-20%.   

[Rotobeast]

I suppose this is as good of place as any.....

I think I finally figured out the mass immigration and it's "acceptance".
I think it was planned.
Take Germany's decreasing birth rate.
They need people to work, pay into the system, and help support the aging population.
That's the minor part though.
NATO was paranoid about Russia's troop build-up near Poland.
With Germany's (amongst other European countries) lowering population, their numbers to fight any kind of a ground war was slim.
They realized the Syria situation could be taken advantage of.
Their buddy, good old U.S. of A gleefully bombed the bejeesus out of "ISIS" positions.
This drove the people from their Syrian homeland and into the loving arms of European countries, with promises of milk and honey.
Boom..... instant cannon fodder.
It also explains why they were willing to accept so many young men of fighting age.

I believe Russia knew what was going on and wanted to jump in to calm the Syrian situation.
Of course it had to do with the pipeline, as well.

Something is afoot.

[mallorian69]

One flaw in your theory. If they aren't willing to fight for their homeland what makes anyone think they would fight for Germany or any other European country?

[Rotobeast]

(05-07-2016, 09:03 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: One flaw in your theory. If they aren't willing to fight for their homeland what makes anyone think they would fight for Germany or any other European country?

If they become citizens, conscription with imprisonment for those not willing to comply.

I guess they may flee again though.
However... if they received a taste of a better life, they may not.

[fredtoast]

So a 12% Muslim population turns London into "Londonistan"?

[BmorePat87]

Democracy in action.

[Benton]

(05-07-2016, 01:53 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Which just makes my point that a tighter immigration policy is necessary.   Now for London it's a particular issue since that's a major reason Brexit is winning.   Border security and tighter immigration policy wanted.   

The percentages of foreign born citizens should be in the neighborhood of 10%-20%.   

Except outside of being scared of people, there's no reason for that. New York's immigrant population has always been around 40%, except for around the mid70s through mid80s (I know, I know, you love the 80s and Reagan, but the main reason the immigrant population went up then was Reagans amnesty). So while you think it should be 10-20%, you're basing that off... Nothing.

New York at its biggest growth was 40% immigrant. New York during the countries biggest periods of growth, 40% immigrant.

If anything, you're making a great case for less border security and looser immigration laws.

[Beaker]

(05-07-2016, 07:41 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I suppose this is as good of place as any.....

I think I finally figured out the mass immigration and it's "acceptance".
I think it was planned.
Take Germany's decreasing birth rate.
They need people to work, pay into the system, and help support the aging population.
That's the minor part though.
NATO was paranoid about Russia's troop build-up near Poland.
With Germany's (amongst other European countries) lowering population, their numbers to fight any kind of a ground war was slim.
They realized the Syria situation could be taken advantage of.
Their buddy, good old U.S. of A gleefully bombed the bejeesus out of "ISIS" positions.
This drove the people from their Syrian homeland and into the loving arms of European countries, with promises of milk and honey.
Boom..... instant cannon fodder.
It also explains why they were willing to accept so many young men of fighting age.

I believe Russia knew what was going on and wanted to jump in to calm the Syrian situation.
Of course it had to do with the pipeline, as well.

Something is afoot.

Mods please move this post to the conspiracy theory thread.

[Rotobeast]

(05-07-2016, 01:12 PM)Beaker Wrote: Mods please move this post to the conspiracy theory thread.

I'm fine with that.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-07-2016, 10:29 AM)Benton Wrote: Except outside of being scared of people, there's no reason for that. New York's immigrant population has always been around 40%, except for around the mid70s through mid80s (I know, I know, you love the 80s and Reagan, but the main reason the immigrant population went up then was Reagans amnesty). So while you think it should be 10-20%, you're basing that off... Nothing.

New York at its biggest growth was 40% immigrant. New York during the countries biggest periods of growth, 40% immigrant.

If anything, you're making a great case for less border security and looser immigration laws.

On what planet do you think I support any form of amnesty?   Just because a GOP president was dumb enough to sign it doesn t mean I think it's a good idea.    Any form of open border/amnesty/or even loose immigration standards is the last thing this country needs:    Restricting the border for a decade or two or even three might allow us to catch up with the current situation and increase the quality of life for the low to mid wage worker.   


Not so much of a reagan fan .... More of a Calvin Coolidge guy myself.   

[Benton]

(05-07-2016, 03:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Restricting the border for a decade or two or even three might allow us to catch up with the current situation and increase the quality of life for the low to mid wage worker.   
.   

Other factors surely came in to play, but history says otherwise. Our biggest times of growth came with moderate to high taxes, little tax exemption, significant numbers of immigrants,few trade agreements, higher union participation. In that vein, if you want to catch up, history says go the opposite direction of what you're proposing.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

Saw this in the paper the today. I need to read up on this guy, curious as to what made him so popular?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-07-2016, 06:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Other factors surely came in to play, but history says otherwise. Our biggest times of growth came with moderate to high taxes, little tax exemption, significant numbers of immigrants,few trade agreements, higher union participation. In that vein, if you want to catch up, history says go the opposite direction of what you're proposing.

If you believe big government is the key to success then yes you would wish to go that route.   

We did fine in the 20's with restrictive immigration.   And with restrictive immigration unions flourish.    That's why the unions supported programs like operation wetback.    

Under Coolidge we were great until Hoover and his big government blunders put us into a deep depression.  

[StLucieBengal]

(05-08-2016, 02:24 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Saw this in the paper the today.  I need to read up on this guy, curious as to what made him so popular?

People afraid of being called an islamaphobe if they didn't vote for him.   Same reason people flooded to vote for Obama.   

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-08-2016, 04:58 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: People afraid of being called an islamaphobe if they didn't vote for him.   Same reason people flooded to vote for Obama.   

I really don't think that is the reason.  In fact I'm very surprised precisely because of the anti-Islamic immigration feelings in Europe in general.  Haven't had time to really dig into his bio.  But I doubt a vast majority of voters voted for him in order to appear not Islamaphobic.   And Obama is not Muslim, so no people did not vote for him for that reason.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-09-2016, 01:59 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: And Obama is not Muslim, so no people did not vote for him for that reason.

'Small' 'independent' 'adversorial' 'news' 'media' outlets tell the mentally incapable otherwise.  

[StLucieBengal]

(05-09-2016, 01:59 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I really don't think that is the reason.  In fact I'm very surprised precisely because of the anti-Islamic immigration feelings in Europe in general.  Haven't had time to really dig into his bio.  But I doubt a vast majority of voters voted for him in order to appear not Islamaphobic.   And Obama is not Muslim, so no people did not vote for him for that reason.

I was making the connection to voting for Obama because he was black.  It's the token vote, and if they can guilt you into that through fear of being called a racist or such.   

[GMDino]

(05-09-2016, 02:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I was making the connection to voting for Obama because he was black.  It's the token vote, and if they can guilt you into that through fear of being called a racist or such.   

Or they liked his policies or they didn't like his opponents.

But that wouldn't feed into the racial fear you are trying to push.

To put it another way:  I do not know a single person, not one, who said they voted for Obama just so people wouldn't think they were racist.  However Iknow several who said they would never vote for a "****** for president".

Meanwhile no one has to know who you voted for at all.  Secret ballot and all that.  But they felt bold enough to share their "feelings" on the matter.