99%? Really?

I my experience I would tend to put the figures of people I consider truly 'Good' as probably between 15-20%. With another 60-70% as being ok, depending on a variety of factors with a remaining 10-15% being downright bad.

But thats not really the subject being debated is it?

I am assuming that people like you feel the UK, and by default Europe and North America, would be better places with less white people living in them, as a % of the population. Because, afterall, divesity is a strength. Right?

Which is what the Great Replacement is. A deliberate policy, by people in positions of political power, to ensure that this happens.

With your openly admitted employment policy as a microsm of that. All I am asking is for transparency around the issue. Surely that has to be for the best?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Out of interest what is the historical precedent for you to base your optimism on?

And lets go with this 'fear' narrative. Why should people not fear migration given the disproportionate amount of violent crime carried out by non-whites in white majority country's? Or should that just be ignored or not considered a factor at all?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Of course you can fear it. If we had absolute zero immigration violent crime would still exist. Poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunities is a far bigger factor to violent crime than immigration.

Agree with this other than the ‘putting down’ part. We’re not feral dogs mate

But then surely it must follow that if we accept your reasons for violent crime, then a nations immigration policy should do as much as possible to ensure that those coming here do not fall into these categories?

Hence a policy of awarding 'points' based on employbility factors/job offers, having a language qualification and so on. Not just allowing anybody to wash up on our shores, having already broken international law by not applying for asylum in the first safe country. And then strictly enforcing deportation on people whose visa's have run out and so on.

Moving to a foreign country is a privilage, not a right. Effectively you are a guest and as such, should be expected to adhere to specific rules. Break those and you should expect to be ejected. No ifs nor buts.

I was probably in a rare category of ardent Brexiteers in that I would have happily kept most of the 'free-movement' criteria in place for EU nationals with some specific tweeks to the rules. My issue was always with non-EU migrants, who actually cost this country money and prove a net drain on us.

I can buy into a lot of the arguments around why migration can be benefical to a nation state but it has to be done in a way that benefits everybody rather than just an excuse to flood the country with cheap labour and let Government/Corporations off the hook when it comes to investing in serious long term training and education.

Purposeful and selected migration, then yes, there is a definite case for but for those who are not going to be a positive net fincancial gain, then an absolute committment to both prevention of arriving in the first place along with ensuring that any who are here illegally are removed ASAP.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

I have very little I disagree with in that.