From the Dallas Morning News regarding the woman (Gillian Duffy) whom Gordon Brown referred to as a bigot:
" Duffy: You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you're ... but all these eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?
Brown: A million people have come from Europe, but a million British people have gone into Europe. You do know that there's a lot of British people staying in Europe as well. ..."
Does that make Duffy a bigot, "
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"? It's unclear. It depends on why she's opposing the influx of Eastern Europeans. Is it because they're different from her, and she's worried about the cultural ramifications? Or is it an economic concern -- depressed wages, crowded schools, etc.?
Although U.S. and British immigration policies are miles apart, I'm struck by the similarities in the debates.
About 80 percent of immigrants coming to Britain do so legally, yet there are people just as vociferously opposed to the influx of foreigners in the U.K. as there are here.
It's gotten me thinking about the nature of our debate; we talk about foes of illegal immigration, about being a nation of laws, about the principle involved. But if we'd had this influx of immigrants legally, I don't think the debate in the U.S. would change much. Opposition here would remain strong. Just as it is in Britain.http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/so-is-she-a-big.htmlI wonder if our "opposition here would remain strong" "if we'd had this influx of immigrants legally".