neo-Nazis in British Army arrested

[Okeefenokee]

on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism"

Did they force someone to watch BBC without a license?

lol

[de officiis]

How would your analysis apply to the Amish?

The Amish have their own culture, so I'm not sure what you're asking.
Are they synonymous with "American culture"?
No.
They don't join our wars, they don't share our history, they don't partake in our innovation and industry, they don't produce cultural goods that become part of American society, they don't embrace our values, etc, etc.
But they would be Americans - by Monte passport rules.

I think the point is that in your 11:05 post, you stated "Britain is a nationality - but it's also a culture." You suggested that the British are losing their culture because they have welcomed an influx of Muslims who do not share what you characterize as "British culture." But as you have admitted, the absence of a shared culture is true for the Amish, although they are undoubtedly American citizens. So the question is, how much of a shared culture makes up a nationality? Apparently, it cannot be the sole criteria, so merely "possessing a passport"--i.e., being a citizen from a legal standpoint, but not partaking of a shared culture--is also important.

To me, the larger issue is the extent to which a group of immigrants is prepared to live by the rules established by the dominant culture. No one worries about the Amish because although they live apart from the rest of us, they do so peaceably. But how would we respond if, say, 1% of the Amish began to misbehave, and misbehave badly? Would it be sufficient to simply impose the civil and criminal law on those 1% and hold them accountable as any other citizen would be held accountable? If not, at what point does society have the right to impute the acts of the 1% on the other 99% and pursue some sort of collective punishment, or attempt to limit or restrict their rights as a group? And if those sorts of actions were to be pursued, where would that leave our commitment to individual liberty, and the cornerstone western idea that we as individuals are typically to be held accountable only for our own conduct? Are we embracing some notion of collective guilt, and if so how can that possibly be reconciled with democratic principles?

These are the sorts of questions that I think underlie much of the debate between liberals and conservatives over Muslim immigration, but they are rarely examined.

[Smitty-48]

Note; British culture, English culture; not the same thing.

British culture includes the Empire, 95 million Muslim subjects therein at the zenith.

The Kingdom of England dates from 1066.

Great Britain dates from 1707.

India is a British culture, the West Indies are a British culture, America is a British culture, British is not an ethnic group, it's a system of governance; parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law therein.

Britain was indeed a nation of immigrants, 300 million of them in fact, it simply acquired them via expansion.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

[Smitty-48]

Note; not the Colours of England ^^^

England is the Rose and Cross of St. George, and while all Englishmen are British, not all British are Englishmen, to say the the least.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It is the only flag I could find.

[Okeefenokee]

Only 300 million? For an empire spanning the world? I always knew there was something up with this world spanning empire that didn't seem to be in the same league as other real empires. You were claiming territory where nobody lived.

[Smitty-48]

Even within the United Kingdom, the cultures are quite different, the Scots and Welsh are not like the English, in fact they don't even like them.

[Smitty-48]

Only 300 million? For an empire spanning the world? I always knew there was something up with this world spanning empire that didn't seem to be in the same league as other real empires. You were claiming territory where nobody lived.

Britain's immigrants by expansion alone, was five times the population of the United States at that moment, although roughly one third of them in the Raj in India, as Egypt was merely a protectorate and not formally part of the Empire.

The Raj was as British as London town, in fact, most Englishmen at the time, said that the Raj was far more British than Britain itself.

[Okeefenokee]

Only 300 million? For an empire spanning the world? I always knew there was something up with this world spanning empire that didn't seem to be in the same league as other real empires. You were claiming territory where nobody lived.

Britain's immigrants by expansion alone, was five times the population of the United States at that moment, although roughly one third of them in the Raj in India, as Egypt was merely a protectorate and not formally part of the Empire.

The Raj was as British as London town, in fact, most Englishmen at the time, said that the Raj was far more British than Britain itself.

And we got the IPA scourge as a result.