100,000 Gurkhas to be resettled in UK by 2011

[Lenny]

Gurkhas are the Nepalis in the British Army. They are of mixed ancestry: [two parts Tibetan-Mongoloid]+[one part Hindu-IndoAryan].


All Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997 with at least four years' service will be allowed to settle in the UK, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8060607.stm

In the video the woman "proudly" announces that the government will sponsor the immigration of any of these Gurkha veterans who wish to come to the UK, "and their families".

Supposedly 36,000 Gurkhas are eligible.

This could well mean 100,000 extra Nepalis (via chain migration and family-visas) in England by 2015. Count on it!:eek:

[Paleo]

i fully support the gurkhas staying here!

they helped defend this country, and have more than earned the right to live here!

their one of the few immigrants i will happily tolerate!

[Loki]

Many of these retired Ghurkas are old and not procreating any more. They're really the least of our concerns. It's best to concentrate on issues that will have more general public support, and that are far more detrimental demographically -- like the immigration of young single males from the Muslim countries, or from Africa.

[Lenny]

Many of these retired Ghurkas are old and not procreating any more.
There is a blank check for chain migration explicit in this arrangement.

[Lenny]

i fully support the gurkhas staying here!

they helped defend this country, and have more than earned the right to live here!

their one of the few immigrants i will happily tolerate!
Greetings Euan,
I had a feeling someone would post something like this.

The problem is: If you accept their immigration for patriotic imperial-prestige reasons; then what leg do you have to stand on to oppose a young Gurkha marrying your sister?



[Then again, I do not understand the British relationship and feelings for its loyal subjects; that relationship and its dynamics are totally alien to me.]

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that the British government should stop hiring Gurkha's from now on and make the brigade inactive or solely use the present brigade for home defense. Those that served with honor and are now continuing to do so should of course be allowed to stay or the government should see to it that those men are compensated and repatriated with honor- because those people rightfully earned it.

Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.

(as written on a monument to the Gurkha's in London)

But I think that the age of hiring foreign troops should be over. After those that are currently in service the regiment should be disbanded.

We Dutch had a similar situation in the early 50's when Ambonese (who were either married or still in the prime of their lives- other then many of the Gurkha's) who served with dignity and honor under the banners of the Royal Netherlands Indies Army and the Dutch Army had to be brought to the Netherlands to prevent them and their families from being slaughtered by the Indonesians.
But perhaps we should see too it that for instance Australian, New Zealander and Dutch forces liberate the Moluccan Islands and repatriate their offspring.

[Skandi]

I have worked with many Gurkhas, and have found that they generally want to fit in with our culture and not keep their own, however that might change if there were to be lots of them coming at the same time. I think that they should be allowed to stay, but that it should (from now on) be made clear to young gurkhas that they will not be able to bring their families over with them.

[Beorn]

i fully support the gurkhas staying here!

they helped defend this country, and have more than earned the right to live here!

their one of the few immigrants i will happily tolerate!

Agreed! :thumbs up




[Then again, I do not understand the British relationship and feelings for its loyal subjects; that relationship and its dynamics are totally alien to me.]

I can't speak for my fellow countrymen, but loyalty to my nation is second only to being a member of my family, but it doesn't account for someone joining my family.

I am all for the Ghurkas settling down and seeing out the remainder of their lives in the place they fought so valiantly and bravely for.


I think that the British government should stop hiring Gurkha's from now on and make the brigade inactive or solely use the present brigade for home defense.


Haha! Send the Ghurkas in after the extremist Muslims. We'd soon see who has God on their side.

[Paleo]

Greetings Euan,
I had a feeling someone would post something like this.

The problem is: If you accept their immigration for patriotic imperial-prestige reasons; then what leg do you have to stand on to oppose a young Gurkha marrying your sister?



[Then again, I do not understand the British relationship and feelings for its loyal subjects; that relationship and its dynamics are totally alien to me.]

hello:)

well for start my sister is not in favor of race mixing;), and second of all most Gurkha's are Hindu, and have arranged marriages. (only other Hindu's).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#Etymology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Hinduism#Arranging_the_marriage
(normally i wouldn't use wikipedia but these pages look good from what iv read)

[Atlas]

Indeed they did a lot for your country and now are too old to have many more generations, nepalis are not the worst immigrants.
The only problem here is that the algerians and africans "won" their right to stay here on the fact that they went to war against the germans. I'd tolerate a bit aswell, but several millions like now is a no-no especially considering the behavior of the youth.

[Æmeric]

Maybe this is a dumb question but: Why can't the Gurkhas retire to Nepal with their pensions?:confused:

[Skandi]

of course they can, but they want their children to be able to live here.

[Æmeric]

The US has a similar problem with Filipinos who enlisted in the US Navy from the end of WWII till the early 90s, part of the agreement that allowed the US use of Clark AFB & Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines. Their American born children had birthright citizenship & through chain migration they brought over siblings & in-laws. The US now has 3-4 million Filipino & part Filipino citizens. They tend to be concentrated on the West Coast near US Naval facilities.:rolleyes2:

[The Lawspeaker]

Haha! Send the Ghurkas in after the extremist Muslims. We'd soon see who has God on their side.
Hehe- yes: the Muslims bring their bombs and hate- the Brits the Gurkhas. I bet my money on the Gurkhas. After all they have shown their metal.

[Psychonaut]

A brave soldier is a brave soldier, period. Those who fight for a nation should be honored by it. Maltreatment of veterans is despicable, particularly when perpetrated by the masses, who are generally non-veterans. I agree that Western nations should stop outsourcing their military to foreigners, but those who did serve should be honored accordingly.

[Óttar]

i fully support the gurkhas staying here!

they helped defend this country, and have more than earned the right to live here!

they're one of the few immigrants i will happily tolerate

:thumb001:


Haha! Send the Ghurkas in after the extremist Muslims. We'd soon see who has God on their side.

:thumbs up :thumbs up :thumbs up :jump0000:

[Freomæg]

I don't know much about the history of the Gurkhas, so forgive me if any of this sounds ignorant.

Yes, a person who puts their life on the line for a country deserves to be welcomed by it. But did the Gurkhas fight for Britain because they cared about our country, or did they fight for Britain because it was a good job offer?

The only thing I object to here is the kind of precedent it sets. Are we going to keep hiring Gurkhas and then giving them a home, or will it be a limited affair? I don't believe in the ethnic cleansing of Britain (it's unrealistic, particularly with all the mixed-race citizens). So long as Britain remains overwhelmingly white British - culturally and ethnically - I can live with a couple of hundred thousand ethnic minorities. Additionally, I don't mind Hindus at all.

Another point to ponder is - why exactly do so many of the Gurkhas want to come here? Do they not care about their own homeland? Are they coming here for the benefits or because they love Britain?

These are genuine questions. I've never had the pleasure of meeting or learning about Gurkhas.

[Óttar]

why exactly do so many of the Gurkhas want to come here?

First off, this issue was initially raised by Gurkhas who had already been living in Britain for a long time.

Otherwise, here are some points to ponder:

The Nepalese rupee is in the dumps, significantly more so than the Indian rupee. Nepal is extremely poor and destitute, not to mention a bunch of treacherous Maoists seized the government from the last Hindu monarchy on earth.


because they love Britain?


Love is a doing word.

The Gurkhas remained loyal to the British, fighting for them even during the Sepoy mutiny. Gurkhas served in both world wars. After Indian independence in 1947, some Gurkhas remained part of the Indian army and others remained in the British army.

In order to be in the British Gurkha division potential candidates must successfully complete tests in English grammar, western culture and customs, mathematics and basic education. Hindus generally have been more easily assimilatable than Muslims owing to the fact that Hinduism is open to outside influence, adaptable, and is not inherently inflexible like Islam.

[Spaniard_Truth]

i fully support the gurkhas staying here!

they helped defend this country, and have more than earned the right to live here!

their one of the few immigrants i will happily tolerate!

This is a typical British conservative stance. As long as Negroes, Jews, Pakistanis etc. are 'good citizens', they can live in Britain and mix with every single English woman, no problem.

It's wholly irrelevant how 'nice' or 'decent' they are. What matters is that their genes are as foreign and destructive to the British people as are the genes of a ghetto Negro drug dealer mixed with a Gypsy rapist.

The conservative media are partially responsible for this Gurkha rights movement. These people that defended Britain (from what?) can freely procreate with English in England because they fought against the evil Nazis and their terrible doctrine of racial purity and helped defend Britain's noble tradition of democracy! They secured British freedom to vote for one of three retards and pick one of three delicious poisons!

It's not so much the influence of this number of additional immigrants (who will a drop in the ocean), but it's the underlying stupidities of conservative 'Gurkha worship' that I find irritating.

[Æmeric]

A brave soldier is a brave soldier, period. Those who fight for a nation should be honored by it. Maltreatment of veterans is despicable, particularly when perpetrated by the masses, who are generally non-veterans. I agree that Western nations should stop outsourcing their military to foreigners, but those who did serve should be honored accordingly.

I question the motives of those who fight for a foreign power. Where do their loyalties lie? Why do they choose to serve this nation over that one? Most likely it is which is most beneficial economically. In the case of Filipinos in the US Navy they did it for economic reasons - they viewed the USN as a civil service job with a uniform - & to get their families into the US. They have no loyalty to America, it's traditions or the descendents of it's founding families. Let them have their pensions but make them return to where they come from.

[Psychonaut]

I question the motives of those who fight for a foreign power. Where do their loyalties lie? Why do they choose to serve this nation over that one? Most likely it is which is most beneficial economically. In the case of Filipinos in the US Navy they did it for economic reasons - they viewed the USN as a civil service job with a uniform - & to get their families into the US. They have no loyalty to America, it's traditions or the descendents of it's founding families. Let them have their pensions but make them return to where they come from.

I get what you're saying, but I can't help but wonder if the situation wasn't different prior to the World Wars. The enlistment of the Gurkhas under the British military was done at the height of British Imperialism, so they very well might've seen themselves as servants of the Empire. I don't really know enough to judge this particular case. If their land were still a British protectorate, then sending them home with a hearty pension would be the best solution, but sending a veteran home to a region that's currently being bullied by China is no good.

[Sol Invictus]

I can't believe people here are actually supporting the immigration of foreigners into their countries. This is an outrage what they are doing. They have no right to be in the UK and no reason to. Stay in your own country damnit.

What I mean is, yes, they fought bravely and defended the interests of the Empire for a long time. Well-done. You can live out the rest of your days in your own country as honoured subjects of a former Empire. Give them a pension, and be sure they live out the rest of their days happily.

The UK is different now. There is no Empire that needs defending, and your service to the Empire didn't include terms that when your service was over, you can live amongst people who aren't your kind. You're crossing the line. You are now an invader.

Don't let this globalist conditioning change what we are fighting for.

[The Lawspeaker]

I can't believe people here are actually supporting the immigration of foreigners into their countries. This is an outrage what they are doing. They have no right to be in the UK and no reason to. Stay in your own country damnit.
I understand- that's why I think that hiring foreign troops should be discontinued. But those that served with honor and shed their bloody in the company of European troops and fought for the same cause in the same uniform- should they be turned away ?

[Äike]

I can't believe people here are actually supporting the immigration of foreigners into their countries. This is an outrage what they are doing. They have no right to be in the UK and no reason to. Stay in your own country damnit.

I agree with you 100%.

Western Europeans just don't know how badly immigrants can influence the country. When most of Western European countries are around 90% native(at worst cases) then Estonia is 68% Estonian. I can safely say that without the Russian immigrants, Estonia would have practically no HIV sick people and crime rate would drop around 500%-1000%.

Immigrants are always bad. The more there are, the worse they are.

[Sol Invictus]

I understand- that's why I think that hiring foreign troops should be discontinued. But those that served with honor and shed their bloody in the company of European troops and fought for the same cause in the same uniform- should they be turned away ?

Turned away no. Give them pensions in their own country. The globalists are doing this for a reason, and it's intentions are not honourable ones. They don't have the interests of these brave men at heart as they would have you believe. They are trying to eliminate the identities of host countries by using migratory tactics. It's the oldest trick in the book, from medieval Britain with the Scots, to the present. This is what contributed to the demise of the Roman Empire, and it will be the demise of all Western countries in the generations to come. Preservationists shouldn't be making "exceptions" and "compromises" with the enemy, whether we hurt their feelings or not. Our cause is just and it is noble. Theirs is destructive and deceptive.

[Sol Invictus]

then sending them home with a hearty pension would be the best solution, but sending a veteran home to a region that's currently being bullied by China is no good.

An unfortunate circumstance, but in order to survive as a people, we need to stop sticking our noses in places where it doesn't belong and worry about how WE are being bullied in our own homes. Nobody asked US if we wanted our cultures to be thrown out the window and disregarded in favour of people who have no right to live with us and our people to begin with. Our circumstance is extremely dire as well and that's all any of us should be concerned about. We have to break off our chains and re-assert our right to govern our own tribe the way we want to without having the burden of other people's troubles placed on us. I think the first step is to get rid of the "guilt" complex that we suffer from. If we have to hurt some people's feelings, or if people end up dying as a result of our actions (like the Gurkhas being slaughtered by the Chinese) then so be it. I'll do anything in my power to ensure my children live free, happy, and proud of who they are. If that means turning people away from our borders, then so be it.

[Freomæg]

I understand and admire what you're saying Veritas Aequitas. How about a list of immigrants for repatriation, by order of priority? The Gurkhas could be at the very bottom. With all other significant immigrant groups out, it would be easy enough to assess how negative or positive the impact of the remaining minorities - the Gurkhas - is. My guess is that they'd be deemed positive, or at the very least, neutral. With such a state of affairs, the vast majority of Britons would already value homogenous relationships, for preservationist reasons, so the threat of Gurkhas intermixing would be near non-existent.

The real threat comes not from the practical quantity of immigrants but rather the mentality that permits such circumstance. If we rediscovered a worldview which resulted in the rejection of multiculturalism and the repatriation of most immigrants, then the battle is won as far as I'm concerned. It is not essential for the preservation of Britain that it be ethnically cleansed, just that it be restored its old values.

[Sol Invictus]

I understand and admire what you're saying Veritas Aequitas. How about a list of immigrants for repatriation, by order of priority? The Gurkhas could be at the very bottom. With all other significant immigrant groups out, it would be easy enough to assess how negative or positive the impact of the remaining minorities - the Gurkhas - is. My guess is that they'd be deemed positive, or at the very least, neutral. With such a state of affairs, the vast majority of Britons would already value homogenous relationships, for preservationist reasons, so the threat of Gurkhas intermixing would be near non-existent.

The real threat comes not from the practical quantity of immigrants but rather the mentality that permits such circumstance. If we rediscovered a worldview which resulted in the rejection of multiculturalism and the repatriation of most immigrants, then the battle is won as far as I'm concerned. It is not essential for the preservation of Britain that it be ethnically cleansed, just that it be restored its old values.

Hi Cythraul,

I agree with you there, only it's not about Gurkhas only. It's not about Gurkhas mixing with us, it's about foreigners who have no right to be here (or there) to begin with. The Gurkhas being allowed to go to Britain is just another step towards making people feel like it's good for foreigners to settle with us. This is all a part of Global conditioning, and people are eating it up, and it's sickening.

[Loyalist]

If this was a matter of simply permitting elderly Gurkha veterans to live out the rest of their lives in the comfort of the country which they have bravely and selflessly served, then of course I would support it. After all, these men have sacrificed far more for the United Kingdom than the majority of the British populace cares to today. However, the issue has clearly been hijacked by multiculturalists, who exploited the plight of Gurkha veterans as a pretext for bringing about yet another tidal wave of immigration. Providing care for ex-servicemen does not justify or mandate the entire extended family of the individual to pack up and re-settle as well.

[Svarog]

Not that this is any of my concern but yeah, these guys are least of England's problem, they have been used for the England's benefit instead of billions of pakis, albanians, blacks etc that immigrate to England to actually HARM it's economy, culture etc, as perfection is the farest possible point to discuss, it is better to set the priorities and stick to them, and beside, difference between these guys and some somalis (for example) is quite big, England can be hold responsible for both migration but directly responsible for just one

Gurkha (http://www.fotorola.com/uploads/fe7849f8af.jpg)

Immigrant (http://www.fotorola.com/uploads/e4781a3cba.jpg)

Another one (http://www.fotorola.com/uploads/167c7663c2.jpg)

[Sol Invictus]

Not that this is any of my concern but yeah, these guys are least of England's problem, they have been used for the England's benefit instead of billions of pakis, albanians, blacks etc that immigrate to England to actually HARM it's economy, culture etc, as perfection is the farest possible point to discuss, it is better to set the priorities and stick to them, and beside, difference between these guys and some somalis (for example) is quite big, England can be hold responsible for both migration but directly responsible for just one

They are not England's problem, they were they were of concern to the British Empire. Times have changed and so must our policies. I can't believe anyone in their right mind would even consider "exceptions" to the rule of preservation. It's counter to our cause and it's against the laws of nature. A Lion don't live with Hyena, and Tigers don't live with Wolves.

[Psychonaut]

An unfortunate circumstance, but in order to survive as a people, we need to stop sticking our noses in places where it doesn't belong and worry about how WE are being bullied in our own homes.

I agree with you. I am both an isolationist and a nativist. However, these men who served (not their extended families) valiantly for the British deserve to be treated accordingly for their meritorious service. There are a number of things that the Brits could do, not all of which require the Gurkhas to come to the U.K., but leaving men who valiantly fought on their behalf at the mercy of the Chinese not the right thing to do at all. A hard stance on immigration is an absolutely essential point for ethnic preservation, but respecting and caring for those who bled for your nation is the only honorable thing to do.

[Sol Invictus]

A hard stance on immigration is an absolutely essential point for ethnic preservation, but respecting and caring for those who bled for your nation is the only honorable thing to do.

Then where do you draw the line? Help me understand. I am blown away at the support for FOREIGN Immigration. Call me heartless and dishonourable if you like, but this is making me sick to my stomach.

[Psychonaut]

Then where do you draw the line? Help me understand. I am blown away at the support for FOREIGN Immigration. Call me heartless and dishonourable if you like, but this is making me sick to my stomach.

I would draw the line at combat veterans; those who entered into actual combat on behalf of Britain. A lot of my opinion here has to do with the fact that I'm a soldier and that my religion (and yours too, right? ;)) places warriors up on a pedestal. So, to me this seems like less of an immigration issue and more of a veterans issue. None of my previous comments were talking about anyone other than combat veterans. I don't care about their extended families. I don't care about those who just joined the military and didn't see action. I'm only here concerned with those who actually fought for Britania. I'm not even thinking that it'd be a necessity to let these fellows immigrate. If they weren't being killed and abused by the Chinese in their homeland, then the best solution would be for them to stay there and be financially taken care of by the British. Since that's not quite possible, what other options are there? I suppose the Brits could intercede in the region and station some "peace-keeping" troops, but that's a crap ton of international meddling, which I don't advocate either. A good compromise would be to send them to one of the British protectorates where they'd be able to more easily assimilate racially. After all, Britain still has dozens of protectorate states throughout the world just like the US does.

[Lenny]

A brave soldier is a brave soldier, period. Those who fight for a nation should be honored by it. Maltreatment of veterans is despicable, particularly when perpetrated by the masses, who are generally non-veterans. I agree that Western nations should stop outsourcing their military to foreigners, but those who did serve should be honored accordingly.
Honor them by giving them a dignified and well-paid pension in their own countries.


A brave soldier is a brave soldier, period.
Foreign mercenaries are not exactly soldiers in the sense of the old farmer-turned-militiaman or army-volunteer Archetype; a common man whose heart is filled with patriotism and answers his country's call to arms.

These Gurkhas are mercenaries and were paid - well - for their service. There was never a stipulation in their contracts that they and their descendants and extended family would have the right to live in the UK.

See here:

Cythraul:
Yes, a person who puts their life on the line for a country deserves to be welcomed by it. But did the Gurkhas fight for Britain because they cared about our country, or did they fight for Britain because it was a good job offer?
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=49571&postcount=17

[Lenny]

These people that defended Britain (from what?)
From those who wanted to overturn the apple cart that was the British Empire, it seems. (And that happened anyway...) Strictly speaking, no one has "defended Britain" since King Harold 950 years ago:eek:

and then this...

These people that defended Britain (from what?) can freely procreate with English in England because they fought against the evil Nazis and their terrible doctrine of racial purity and helped defend Britain's noble tradition of democracy!

They secured British freedom to vote for one of three retards and pick one of three delicious poisons!
A bit cynical but not without truth. Fighting for empire and fighting in the insane 1914-1945 conflicts in Europe are not things to be super-proud of, in retrospect.

[Óttar]

If they weren't being killed and abused by the Chinese in their homeland...

Not Chinese. Native Nepalese Maoists, but same thing in my opinion.

[Skandi]

Not Chinese. Native Nepalese Maoists, but same thing in my opinion.

In which case we should let them retire early and go and defend their lands. Letting they stay would be stealing the cream of the crop.

[Osweo]

In which case we should let them retire early and go and defend their lands. Letting they stay would be stealing the cream of the crop.

Here's a question. Should an established nationalist government take its nationalism 'international', and aid others in similar struggles? :chin:

[Óttar]

Here's a question. Should an established nationalist government take its nationalism 'international', and aid others in similar struggles? :chin:

Yes. There should be a pan-Nationalist feeling in which Nationalist states support the aims of other states. I however support a Libertarian streak in the brand of nationalism. And as far as I'm concerned, Arabs and Muslim hardliners of any stripe can piss up a rope.

Maybe there will be brought about a First Nationalist International. Natintern. :p

[Skandi]

Here's a question. Should an established nationalist government take its nationalism 'international', and aid others in similar struggles? :chin:

If it is asked for help/advice, and if the other nationalistic government is not expansionist, then yes, but it is not our business to run other peoples countries, just because one system of government is correct for us does not mean it will suite all people and cultures.