If you’re bitter about immigration why not go into politics and get the laws changed? The influx wont stop until the law in Singapore changes.

I mean, Singapore’s such a modest-sized country one person could easily make a difference… it’s not like in these huge countries where one person has little chance of influence cause the Establishment’s so entrenched. (Btw, as I mentioned sometime back economics theory and empirical evidence supports your intuition on the immigration topic.)

I am a little interested in all these but I don’t really wish to study about it, maybe just general discussion, because my interests still lies with info tech

Okay, but laws don’t change themselves. You’ll be complaining about the same law ten, fifteen years from now.

Regarding immigration theory + empirical evidence, all could be summarized in 2 minutes verbally. There’s nothing to study, except unimportant details someone actually writing a law might.

Even studying politics doesn’t get the laws changed and we all know why. Complaining doesn’t mean that actions have to be taken. It just a way of “clearing” the frustration inside us in our freedom of speech country. Moreover, if everything that one complains, actions have to be taken to prevent us from complaining in the future, we would be so god damn bloody busy. Won’t we ?

Just my 2 cents.

Han: quite true, I have to agree with my brother, complaining is just to let the matter out of your chest. For the commoners like us, we can only hope.

The immigration-related changes in Singapore were very much done by those who run the U.S., through their various ways. Here is what they, the Jews, did to the formerly Anglo-Saxon city of Los Angelos with immigration law changes of 1965 (and a few earlier, a few later):

http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/special/metroamerica/ladiversity.htm

That series of maps parallel demographic changes that occurred in all the major cities of the U.S. since 1965. The same will result in Singapore if the laws don’t change — that is, the changes are not accidental, but intended by design. Countries that do not defend their borders shall cease to exist and become foreign-controlled mongrel colonies.

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Sports/Story/A1Story20080120-45724.html

FREETOWN – ENGLISH soccer star David Beckham met with children in Sierra Leone as part of his role as a Goodwill Ambassador for Unicef, the United Nations child agency.

The LA Galaxy midfielder arrived in West Africa late on Friday on a two day trip to a country struggling to recover from a 1991-2002 civil war.

Infant and maternal mortality are among the highest in the world in the former British colony, where roads, schools and hospitals were devastated by a conflict notorious for images of drugged child soldiers raping and killing civilians.

‘He’s here as a guest of Unicef,’ the charity’s spokesman Alison Parker said. ‘He’s covering programmes on child survival in Sierra Leone; visiting a number of Unicef programmes in the northern part of the country on malaria prevention and immunisation.’

The former England captain travelled beyond the hot hilly coastal capital Freetown on Saturday to deprived rural areas in the north of the country, once held by rebels during the war.

More than 50,000 people were killed during the civil war and thousands more were left mutilated by rebels, who hacked limbs, noses and ears off their victims.

Youth unemployment runs at two-thirds and football is the most popular sport, played on dirt pitches by roadsides across the tropical country. Many taxis in Freetown bear huge stickers devoted to Manchester United, Beckham’s old team.

Sierra Leone’s footballing talent was highlighted this month after Watford’s 19-year-old Sierra Leonean midfielder Al Bangura, who faced deportation, won the right to remain in Britain.

@Leroy
Not sure if that post is for me, as in, “everyone’s on the feel-good globalization bandwagon, lose the xenophobia”, but .

Firstly, regarding the civil war, at least 50% of the post-1945 African civil wars have the CIA funding one side or another (it’s more like 90%), someones even instigating the whole affair from naught. U.S. corporations somehow always emerge with control of natural resources (e.g. diamonds, gold, uranium, copper, oil). I think this is not difficult to check. In the few areas like Sudan where firms from other countries hold a major stake in something, in this case China and oil, the CIA foments a civil war in Darfur and because its side isn’t winning accuses China (!) of sponsoring geonocide.

Secondly, all US/UK-based international organizations of that sort — UNICEF, Red Cross, USAID, Doctors Without Borders — accomplish little, and as a standard matter are infiltrated with CIA agents-in-training. It’s better not to have them in a country, as a rule.

Thirdly, Britain’s a dying nation-state, demographically speaking. As with the U.S., this is because their government isn’t controlled by Britons anymore.

From an article on the UK’s demographics:

“Across the country, [non-whites] account for almost 22 per cent of pupils at primary school
compared to 20.6 per cent last year. At secondary level, numbers rose at a similar rate, to 17.7
per cent.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nschools127.xml

Not a country to copy unless it’s a demographic death spiral one wants.