To take the example of the UK. white immigrants, such as poles etc who come from within europe are generally accepted the moment they speak english well and their children are instantly unequivocally British. However, coloured immigrants are always immigrants and their offspring are considered to be immigrants down the generations until such time as they are invisibly inter-married with white people.

So, who is an immigrant ? The pole who arrived yesterday, or the 3rd or 4th generation British Asian ? In popular culture it would be the British asian.

People talk about the british and their thousand years of undiluted british bloodline. Except of course that this british bloodline was principally Viking and german/celtic. Then we added a dash of french with the Norman invasion. Then over the years we have had Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Dutch, Flemish, more French, Chinese, then during the war we took in refugees from all over europe (although shamefully few jewish) and then afterwards we have commonwealth Asian and African.

So we have an absolutely undiluted English bloodline (apart from all the immigrants).

the discussion about immigration is utterly flawed until you define who you mean, which invariably means revealing who you're prejudiced against. Yet most people are unwilling to admit to blatant racism, so they talk about their culture being swamped as Enoch Powell did in his notorious "Rivers of blood" speech and which thatcher approvingly alluded to a decade later.

What they never understood was that not everybody shared their prejudice and not all people view immigrants so negatively. In short they underestimated the generosity and humanity of the British people, the very people they venerated for their warlike behaviour when it suited them.

And that's the problem with it. It's a subject shot through with dishonesty and it's difficult to discuss.  

keep to the Fen Causeway