nope, that was the Borg in Star Trek.

Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan

Sorry mate, don't get the reference, if there's one minority group I can't tolerate, it's Trekkies ;-)

Has it actually been disastrous for the UK. Short term there usually has been some phase of 'disturbance' but realistically the 60s, 70s and 80s all saw large migrations into the UK, without any real problems (and a lot of areas of the UK and UK culture in general benefitted from such migration).

In truth the West Indian, Indian, Banglideshi, Common Wealth and pakistani migrations largely just p*ssed off racists who's issue was more about agenda than reality.

The problem in more recent years hasn't been the migration per se, but the scale of temporary migration, which is a very different situation. When you're talking about adding 300k people per year to the population, and upwards of 500k new people per year - its a problem.

There is a difference when the view is short term working migration to long term migration both in terms in terms of integration and cohesion. Long term migration tends to promote increasing, if gradual, integration, across generations. Short term migration doesn't, as the intention is to return home, rather than to make a new home.

Its very hard to look at the Indian migration into the London and South East, and not consider it a major success (especially if you experienced the impact it had on towns like Reading in terms of creating a better community).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think that there are some positives to be found in virtually anything and you can point to them to make an argument. The same argument can be made in reverse of course so it a question of the balance. As a white person of a certain age,if you are asking me the question, I would say that Britain was far better before mass migration for many reasons. I am not adverse to a bit of diversity in an otherwise insular population but the pace of change has been far too fast and not selective enough.

The numbers are a big part of the problem for sure and it is ironic I suppose that the human capacity for intolerance and religious and cultural separatism is part of the the reason why I have a separatist view on this subject.

Culture and immigration are related, only tangentially. There exist a number of cultures and subcultures, both complimentary and conflicting within the UK, to which migrants may contribute to, conflict with and introduce new concepts into.

However, its important to draw a distinction that the UK, even without migration, would consist of any number of different cultural concepts, groups and conflicting identities

There is no 'monoculture of Britishness', and the introduction of new ethnic groups and migrants, doesn't contribute a massive culture shift.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It would be more pertinent to the debate if you focused on the actual rather than the academic.

The fact is that there has been an unprecedented influx in migration - temporary or permanent, time will tell - and communities have been forced immigration upon them.

There has been no or little planning or assistance from the authorities with this.

This has been largely done for economic reasons, partly social engineering.

The fact is that the inaction of the authorities, or the unwillingness to address the issues mass immigration brings, has and is creating ghettos, social apartheid and resentment.

Whilst some people will be reluctant to integrate the bigger issue comes from lack of planning. Leaving communities to fend for themselves and dropping migrants in an unwelcoming environment.

Of course there will be effects from this

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02