Immigration Question

[Alexanderofmacedon]

What do you think that immigrant reform should look like that will help assimilate the migrant workers? For an example use Mexican migrant workers in Texas.

Think education etc.

I have a viewpoint, but it's not set in stone so I wanted to see if anyone brings up some good points. :2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would not like to assimilate migrant workers.

I would like to assimilate new immigrants.


What I will get is assimilated migrants along with immigrants forcing me to change to their approach.


Bitter, party of one, your table is READY!

[Fragony]

Up to the immigrant I don't believe in assimilation policy scrap it, nice if you integrate but as long as you can provide for yourself I couldn't care less what you eat for dinner. Works both ways though.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

I think for the most part; illegal immigrants have worked very well for the US, it provides cheap workers without any sort of burden on the tax payer (in theory). However i think that might be changing and now they are seen as a tax burden (car accidents, medical expenses, no tax income ect), in other words people who are not paying tax are needing services.

It's hard to change as 1/2 of cali is latino and the other southern states pretty much rely of them to hold the low pay jobs. i think a more open and transparent visa program might help, you don't want to force people to assimilate, you want them to become paying and well defined parts of the tax system.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'm not talking about illegal immigrants. They are ILLEGAL and are that for a reason. I'm talking about legal immigrants who do not have simple English skills, etc.

[JAG]

The free'er the borders the free'er the people.

[CountArach]

People should feel no pressure to become like everyone around them, so i couldn't care less if they are assimilated or not, just as long as they are willing to follow the laws of the land.

[Husar]

The free'er the borders the free'er the people.

Exactly. :2thumbsup:

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

I'm not talking about illegal immigrants. They are ILLEGAL and are that for a reason. I'm talking about legal immigrants who do not have simple English skills, etc.

well i really don't see what your asking about then; if they are legal then they can do as they please. keeping their own culture and identity is part of being a people. give them a reason to want to be citizens and belong, don't force them to learn english.

i would find it much more interesting to hear peoples thoughts of the legal/illegal migrant issue then anything else. if illegals are so bad for the USA maybe someone should lock the gate:idea2::logic:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

well i really don't see what your asking about then; if they are legal then they can do as they please. keeping their own culture and identity is part of being a people. give them a reason to want to be citizens and belong, don't force them to learn english.

i would find it much more interesting to hear peoples thoughts of the legal/illegal migrant issue then anything else. if illegals are so bad for the USA maybe someone should lock the gate:idea2::logic:

I don't know how simple that is. They're doing a horrible job with the illegal immigration though. I can understand the viewpoint of the illegal workers who are trying to have a better life, but it is illegal and the people who should be really punished are those that hire them and create a demand.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

I don't know how simple that is. They're doing a horrible job with the illegal immigration though. I can understand the viewpoint of the illegal workers who are trying to have a better life, but it is illegal and the people who should be really punished are those that hire them and create a demand.

you really need to ask your self if this is so important why don't they actually do something about it? and if they did what would it be? would it work? and what would happen if worked? i think those questions would be quite revealing indeed.

It depends if your talking about residents perm or temp or citizens i guess. If people can't or won't become citizens then i think thats a bigger problem then the language they speak. I think the key with migrants is to make them care about the country they are now living. I am a British and Australian citizen and i care very much for both of these countries.

does that make any sense?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

you really need to ask your self if this is so important why don't they actually do something about it?

Votes.

[naut]

From the personal experience of being an immigrant, assimilating can make your life easier. But, I don't think you should forget your past.

[Yoyoma1910]

Personally, the immigrants I am frustrated with the most about aren't from other countries, they're from other states.




That's right, I'm looking at you Idaho... with your unsweet potatoes, and your crazy well spoken accents.

[Fragony]

The free'er the market the free'er the people.

Fixed. Immigration is fine as long as it fills up the gaps. But as it is now it's opium for the elite.

[CountArach]

But as it is now it's opium for the elite.
That's funny, because I would say the same about Capitalism...

[Fragony]

That's funny, because I would say the same about Capitalism...

Why would a company want immigrants, and why would a politician want immigrants. Who is making a living and who is having a hobby.

[CountArach]

Why would a company want immigrants, and why would a politician want immigrants. Who is making a living and who is having a hobby.
Let me explain what I was saying:
1) You changed JAG's post to a pro-capitalist message (Free markets = free people).
2) You state that immigration is the opiate of the elite
3) I use a combination of 1 and 2 to get a message across about Capitalism and how anything can be labelled as an opiate of the elite without any real substantive evidence.

[Fragony]

and how anything can be labelled as an opiate of the elite without any real substantive evidence.

One is and the other isn't, that's the difference. Evidence: just about every western nation.

[Husar]

The problem is the inequality, as it was all westerners were rich and other countries poor, now our clever capitalist managers found out if they hire immigrants from poor countries for less money they can themselves become even richer and shift the rich-poor gap from West-Rest of world to Managers-Everybody else due to the decrease in normal wages caused by undermining the previous wages with the use of poor immigrant workers and the resulting higher profits which the management usually uses to increase their own income, then whine that all the poor people don't buy enough.

[KukriKhan]

My problem with un-visa'd immigrants is: if we have, and are apparently sustaining 12 million of them (as some estimators guess), they - the immigrants - have 'jumped the line', and taken the place of 12 million other immigrants from China, India, Kenya, Germany, Hungary, Syria, Korea, etc., etc. who would also like to come and live and work here - and have followed the rules we set down, but get delayed or denied entry because we're "all full up".

It's a situation that deserves a lot more attention than it currently gets.

[drone]

The economic situation will sort things out. Right now, they are doing jobs we don't want to do. Soon, they will be competing for jobs with desperate citizens and the opportunities will diminish greatly.

[HoreTore]

Can't comment on US immigration policy's, but here's what I'd want for my own country:

Scrap the asylum institutions. Get the immigrants a job as soon as they walk off the plane/boat/truck/whatever. Start language classes immediately. Give them proper housing. Have someone look after and follow them up at all times, to eliminate any eventual problems they'll face with the government, laws, applying for stuff, etc etc. Give them the education they'll need in order to contribute to society. Ie., a former Iraqi truck driver would need a short course to learn the norwegian traffic laws, etc.

Most of all, focus on getting people involved in our society, do not focus on "letting as few as possible in", like we're doing today.

Unfortunately for me, the norwegian people are way too scared of darkies. So I'm left to day-dreaming about a Norway with around 10 million people.... Ah, it would've been sweet....

[Fragony]

Most of all, focus on getting people involved in our society, do not focus on "letting as few as possible in", like we're doing today.

Bake them a coke for their birthday. Really wut teh.....

Why should we do all these things, I would expect someone to be properly prepared. But this isn't about working it's about multicultural desire.

[HoreTore]

Bake them a coke for their birthday. Really wut teh.....

Why should we do all these things, I would expect someone to be properly prepared. But this isn't about working it's about multicultural desire.

Because we'll benefit from it, as we're far too few here. It's win-win. And god knows I'm not going to contribute to raising the population numbers, so we're left with importing people.

Anyway, we do all of these things and more for the dutch people we're importing, so you really shouldn't complain, Fragony ~;)

[Fragony]

Because we'll benefit from it, as we're far too few here. It's win-win. And god knows I'm not going to contribute to raising the population numbers, so we're left with importing people.

Anyway, we do all of these things and more for the dutch people we're importing, so you really shouldn't complain, Fragony ~;)

Happy landing

[HoreTore]

Happy landing

Norway is a logistical nightmare, Fragony. We would be a lot better off with around 10 million inhabitants.

Why else do you think we're paying dutch people to move here?

[rory_20_uk]

Immigrant workers - nothing. They're easy in, easy out. No rights to stay whatsoever. They're here for more cash than they can get at home and they're here as we can pay them less. When the balance alters off they go.

Immigrants - more difficult. I'm personally for reducing for everyone most benefits the state provides - minimal unemployment benefit, no children's allowance etc etc.

Also, translation for other languages, no information in other languages; perhaps courses to learn English.

Yes, you can come over and not integrate, but there's no financial or community support unless you do.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Why else do you think we're paying dutch people to move here?

Because the dutch are terrific workers much unlike the import proletariat?

[HoreTore]

Yes, you can come over and not integrate, but there's no financial or community support unless you do.

What a well thought out plan to create a bunch of immigrant ghetto's in your country.

@Fragony: Uh..... what?

[Fragony]

@Fragony: Uh..... what?

Are you saying that the dutch are poor workers?

[HoreTore]

Are you saying that the dutch are poor workers?

No....? Are you? :dizzy2:

[rory_20_uk]

Newsflash - we've already got them! Sort of a "congratulations for getting in. Here's some free cash. Please enjoy your community centre and feel free to complain it's not big enough. Have as many kids as you want as we'll pay you per child with a bigger house and a higher grant. If there's any forms you don't understand please tell us - we will then need to get all leaflets and a translator to help with all interactions."

Reduce the incentives to come here, less will come. Reduce the ability to not bother learning English and more will try.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Reduce the incentives to come here, less will come. Reduce the ability to not bother learning English and more will try.

You'd have to work really hard to make it worse to live in Britain than in countries with half a century of civil war....

[Fragony]

No....? Are you? :dizzy2:

So you do think we are poor workers

[rory_20_uk]

You'd have to work really hard to make it worse to live in Britain than in countries with half a century of civil war....

Not true.

Same story when running away from a hungry lion: you don't need to run faster than the lion, merely faster than others running away.

So, we don't need to compete with e.g. Somalia, merely make it that considering the hastle to get here and what you get whilst here, other places are a better option.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

The economic situation will sort things out. Right now, they are doing jobs we don't want to do. Soon, they will be competing for jobs with desperate citizens and the opportunities will diminish greatly.

And the wages will go down as well I guess, as usual when there is more competition.

[HoreTore]

And the wages will go down as well I guess, as usual when there is more competition.

Wages don't go down; they just don't go up as much.

[Strike For The South]

Frankly I don't care. The ones who stay want to be here and the migrants ebb and flow. What I am worried about is the lawless Texas-Mexico border. Thats the real problem here. The drug trade has a monopoly in cities like Laredeo in Eagle pass but the idoits in Washington are worried about Jose making a fence.

Im never allowing any female relative down there without an escort. These drug runners have paralyzed Northern Mexico and are creeping into Texas and the rangers don't like that

[CountArach]

Yes, you can come over and not integrate, but there's no financial or community support unless you do.
Why should that be the case? I can't see any logical reason why the language a person chooses to speak should impact on whether they get unemployment benefits or not.

So you want them to all speak English, yet you are unwilling to teach them? How is that at all going to work with refugees who have no time or ability to prepare? If someone is escaping poverty in osme third world :daisy: hole, its all well and good to say "Come over here prepared to speak our language", but THERE IS NO WAY FOR THEM TO LEARN.

[Husar]

Wages don't go down; they just don't go up as much.

I think that depends on the job, my current wage is lower than the minimum wage in many countries and when I was looking for a job there seemed to be a whole lot of competitors and the money I get now was the highest wage offered to me. I was just looking for a part-time student job but the requirements seemed very high and the wages very low, the competition huge. I got my job through a friend in the end...

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Why should that be the case? I can't see any logical reason why the language a person chooses to speak should impact on whether they get unemployment benefits or not.

So you want them to all speak English, yet you are unwilling to teach them? How is that at all going to work with refugees who have no time or ability to prepare? If someone is escaping poverty in osme third world :daisy: hole, its all well and good to say "Come over here prepared to speak our language", but THERE IS NO WAY FOR THEM TO LEARN.

Rory did mention giving them courses to learn English.

In cases of Europe immigration I have the same feelings that Fragony and Rory have, but I'm more angry with the government for not doing anything about it. Sure a poorer immigrant class is getting a LOT of easy benefits, but it's in a persons nature to get the best they can. The government should put a stop to it.

[CountArach]

Rory did mention giving them courses to learn English. Then I misread his post. My bad...

In cases of Europe immigration I have the same feelings that Fragony and Rory have, but I'm more angry with the government for not doing anything about it. Sure a poorer immigrant class is getting a LOT of easy benefits, but it's in a persons nature to get the best they can. The government should put a stop to it.
Or we could help them out of just being an underclass... who knows? - they might actually become a functioning member of society! :rolleyes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Or we could help them out of just being an underclass... who knows? - they might actually become a functioning member of society! :rolleyes:

But why should we accept them into our country just so we can spend money making them functioning members of society? Why not, instead, get immigrants with qualifications and just teach them English/German/Norwegian?

[Sarmatian]

But why should we accept them into our country just so we can spend money making them functioning members of society? Why not, instead, get immigrants with qualifications and just teach them English/German/Norwegian?

Because for some jobs you don't need qualifications. If you think that a university professor from eastern Europe is going to come to Germany to clean toilets, you're really in for a surprise. For cleaning toilets, you'll get a guy who doesn't have any qualifications. From my short experience in the US, I got the impression that no one had any problem with immigrants as long as they took jobs Americans didn't want. But, when they started taking jobs Americans actually do want, there's an immigration problem.

But, you guys are all forgetting that you need increasing population to keep the economy going. I remember reading that in the next several decades, EU is going to be short of about 20 million workers. So, like it or not, EU will have to import workers or the economy will suffer. I don't have the numbers for US, but I'm sure it's a similar situation...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Because for some jobs you don't need qualifications. If you think that a university professor from eastern Europe is going to come to Germany to clean toilets, you're really in for a surprise. For cleaning toilets, you'll get a guy who doesn't have any qualifications. From my short experience in the US, I got the impression that no one had any problem with immigrants as long as they took jobs Americans didn't want. But, when they started taking jobs Americans actually do want, there's an immigration problem.

Indeed. But in this scenario, we should take exactly what we need, and those who do come should have a knowledge of our language. This doesn't mean they have to speak it at home, but they have to know what I'm telling them. Say a grace period of a year to get a moderate grasp of the language, and if they can't meet it...

[Incongruous]

Why should that be the case? I can't see any logical reason why the language a person chooses to speak should impact on whether they get unemployment benefits or not.


Think a little harder about it, its not that they do not deserve unemployment benefit or that one truly wishes to deprive them of it based uppn their ethnicity. However knowing the language of the country you decide to live in is a must, otherwise we get confusion and the breakdown of society, not a good thing.

You must learn, and the best incentive is the possible complete loss of financial security, with that issue in the way of you and your doll out, you are gonna start tackling it fairly quickly before it becomes a problem.

Problem solved!

[Fragony]

Then I misread his post. My bad...

Or we could help them out of just being an underclass... who knows? - they might actually become a functioning member of society! :rolleyes:

There is absolutily no desire to become a functioning member of society, why even try when you can just sit back and have honour in the local teahouse. It's all there for the taking but there are no takers.

[Sarmatian]

Indeed. But in this scenario, we should take exactly what we need, and those who do come should have a knowledge of our language. This doesn't mean they have to speak it at home, but they have to know what I'm telling them. Say a grace period of a year to get a moderate grasp of the language, and if they can't meet it...

What's deal here? Assimilation or how good a job they're doing? If it some menial, repetitive job, like bring Box A to the place B, their command of the language needn't be anything special.

If it's some job you need qualifications for, like some managerial job - well, in that case those who don't speak the language (or are unwilling to learn it) generally won't be interested in the job, because in order to do that job well, quality of communication needs to be high.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What's deal here? Assimilation or how good a job they're doing? If it some menial, repetitive job, like bring Box A to the place B, their command of the language needn't be anything special.

If there is any chance of them staying in the country permanently, then yes, they need to have a grasp of the language, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[Fragony]

If there is any chance of them staying in the country permanently, then yes, they need to have a grasp of the language, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Mwah if it isn't a job requirement. If someone has made absolutely no effort out of being of any use then no welfare check when unemployed. Lefties aren't equiped to understand that when all your daddy wanted was an additional tit on his goat it's hard to be impressed by the poverty that is having electricity running water and seperate rooms for the kids and only one holiday a year, might be poverty to them and their comrades but immigrants are from the big tall.

[KukriKhan]

... but immigrants are from the big tall.

I think I understand the rest of the post, but that part has me confused. What is "the big tall"?

[Fragony]

I think I understand the rest of the post, but that part has me confused. What is "the big tall"?

That would be the world, a big place that supposedly covers even more landmass then the channels of southern-Amsterdam.

[rory_20_uk]

Why should that be the case? I can't see any logical reason why the language a person chooses to speak should impact on whether they get unemployment benefits or not.

So you want them to all speak English, yet you are unwilling to teach them? How is that at all going to work with refugees who have no time or ability to prepare? If someone is escaping poverty in osme third world :daisy: hole, its all well and good to say "Come over here prepared to speak our language", but THERE IS NO WAY FOR THEM TO LEARN.


I did not mean that employment benefits are only paid to persons who speak a certain language, merely that all forms are en English and the onus is on the applicant to fill them in.

It has already been pointed out that I mentioned English classes. And the UK is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world.

Africa, jealously keeping it's title as world's biggest hole has most countries that either speak English or French as a second or first language.

The UK ISN'T here to help those in some 3rd world hole. Finally the government is waking up to the idea that we select the best to come in. If persons have no economic value then go elsewhere. If you speak the language and have a skill that is needed then yes, you're welcome, and after a number of years of good service you can get permanent residency.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

And the UK is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world.

I have never heard anyone speaking the UK. ~;)

But yes, it makes sense to learn the language of the people you live with and meet every day.

[Sarmatian]

If there is any chance of them staying in the country permanently, then yes, they need to have a grasp of the language, no ifs, ands, or buts.

What about democracy, human right...? You can't force people to speak a language, you can't force them to adapt to certain culture and change their own customs and traditions...

[rory_20_uk]

Not force. But not lift a finger to help. And if their culture causes a breach of the peace, causes offence to one's neighbours then these activities should be restricted by the police.

E.G. this discussion board is in English. All people are welcome - as long as they can read and write English.

Personally I think if you want to emigrate to a country you should at the very least not cause offence to the local culture - even at the expense of your own: I can't, nor do I feel I should be able to walk in Mecca enjoying a bottle of whisky along with a pork sandwich.

~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

Not force. But not lift a finger to help. And if their culture causes a breach of the peace, causes offence to one's neighbours then these activities should be restricted by the police.

E.G. this discussion board is in English. All people are welcome - as long as they can read and write English.


It's the same thing - if Immigrant A speaks the language and is assimilated he gets every right there is, but Immigrant B doesn't get anything because he isn't assimilated or doesn't speak the language.

If I move to England and start to work there, I'd be paying taxes the same as you. You can't take away my rights, either fully or partially just because my neighbour might be offended because I cheered for Serbia in England-Serbia footy match...

[rory_20_uk]

That would be for the courts to decide. In that case, probably not. If someone decided to slaughter a pig in their front garden as that what is done at home, then they would be breaching the law. If someone decides to give their children knives as that's what happens at home again they're breaching the law.

Immigrants that can't speaks the language shouldn't have the chance to start working. If you're not in the EU you have far less rights than I do. Merely paying taxes doesn't make you a subject of this country.

People are very quick to bang on about their "rights", few seem as interested in their responsibilities. I would say that integrating is a responsibility - else why are you here? if a economic migrant, then don't be surprised if you're removed when you're no longer needed.

~:smoking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What about democracy, human right...? You can't force people to speak a language, you can't force them to adapt to certain culture and change their own customs and traditions...

You are correct - we can't force them. But we can deny them entry if they refuse.

[CountArach]

You are correct - we can't force them. But we can deny them entry if they refuse.
Which would be the definition of force :idea:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Which would be the definition of force :idea:

No. They don't have to come in the first place. It would be forcing only if they had no other options whatsoever.

[Husar]

What about democracy, human right...? You can't force people to speak a language, you can't force them to adapt to certain culture and change their own customs and traditions...

No, you can't force them but if you can't understand them you can not employ them etc.

[Sarmatian]

You are correct - we can't force them. But we can deny them entry if they refuse.

Well, it's not something you can ask really - "Excuse me, but are you gonna assimilate in the next three years? See, if you say no, you won't be allowed to enter.".

I understand both of yours and Rory's point. After all, Kosovo is maybe the best example how grave consequences bad immigration policy can have. Actually, in the case of Kosovo, total lack of immigration policy would be better wording.

Mostly, I wanted to see how would some people here react, since most of the people is American/western European and it's as I thought - It's okay as long as it's happening somewhere else, but when it comes and bites me on the bottom...

The problem here is that it's very hard, maybe even impossible to have an effective immigration policy and at the same time uphold all standards of democracy and human rights... Americans have their diversity visas, which sole point is to give visas to people from countries that don't immigrate to US in large numbers and in effect keep US ethnically diverse. In other words to keep it balanced. The problem is it's not very effective.

Two solutions I see is:
1) Don't allow groupings - There's 30,000 Turks in Munich and almost none in Hamburg. You're a Turk, it's okay you can come to Germany, but you can't go to Munich, you have to go to Hamburg.
2) Have quotas for each county - 500 immigrants from Turkey each year, 500 from China, 500 from India, 500 from Russia etc...

But in both cases you're violating someone's rights because in case 1) you're limiting someone's freedom of movement and in case 2) you're basically denying entry because of nationality. In the first case, you could offer some incentives, like government sponsored jobs or housing. Immigrants can still go where they want but maybe they'll decide to go there where they have some benefits. But, it's a question how successful it would be, since immigrants tend to go where there's already a big population of their countrymen, because they can usually help them more than the government or some state institution.

[Incongruous]

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there, the expansion of human rights to include the right to live wherever you like however you like is bogus and has cause massive social friction across the UK.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there, the expansion of human rights to include the right to live wherever you like however you like is bogus and has cause massive social friction across the UK.

This. :bow:

There is nothing wrong with proposing limits. Yes, immigrants should be allowed to live where they want in our country (when they can afford to find their own place to live, but that is another matter), but we don't have to let them in in the first place.

Give them a time limit to learn the language. If they cannot pass a competency test within a certain period of time, remove their legal right to remain in the country. The exception to this is if they have a legitimate fear of prosecution at home (in which case they should have claimed asylum in the first place). They should also be given a time limit to find a full time job. Remind me what the point is of taking them if they can't or won't work?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

This. :bow:

There is nothing wrong with proposing limits. Yes, immigrants should be allowed to live where they want in our country (when they can afford to find their own place to live, but that is another matter), but we don't have to let them in in the first place.

Give them a time limit to learn the language. If they cannot pass a competency test within a certain period of time, remove their legal right to remain in the country. The exception to this is if they have a legitimate fear of prosecution at home (in which case they should have claimed asylum in the first place). They should also be given a time limit to find a full time job. Remind me what the point is of taking them if they can't or won't work?

Correct. Quota systems are good.

The problem I have is when for example, some guy born in the UK is given more respect even if he is a bum, sponges off of society, and doesn't do anything all day. Then you have a hard working immigrant trying to learn the language the best he can just to survive. There is a fine line, but I think most of my constituents know that line.

The world revolves around incentives. If immigrants aren't working, assimilating or learning the language quickly enough (or idealy before they even emigrate) then you need to make an incentive for them to do so..i.e you have this much time to do this and this, and if you don't you are going back.

[Papewaio]

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there, the expansion of human rights to include the right to live wherever you like however you like is bogus and has cause massive social friction across the UK.

So what do you think UK would look like without immigration? Pics only? A land of red headed Celts maybe some blond Danes? No Normans? No German Monarchy? No English?

Would it be land where you can't stumble out of a night club at 3am and not get a Kebab or a searing hot curry? :laugh4:

No cappuccino's, no algebra... is it people, culture, language or food that is being banned for not being British enough?

When and where do you draw the line? :juggle2:

[Fragony]

Are we really going to compare centuries of demographic change to Brittains leap of faith these last decades?

[HoreTore]

Anyway....

Another relevant question is; how do we behave when we are the immigrants? Aftenposten had a rather neat series of articles on that a week or so ago, focusing on our current colonial efforts in Spanish Gran Canaria. The truth? Tax scams, welfare scams and black market labour(done by us). One of the norwegians interviewed, who ran a black market carpenter shop, told the reporter that he wasn't intending to make his business legal and pay tax, because then he would be forced to a) pay taxes, which is an expense, meaning less profit, and b) he would no longer receive disability checks from the government. Most of them simply refused to learn Spanish, seeing absolutely no point in learning it, and instead complained that the Spanish didn't know Norwegian. They have settled in 90%+ pure Norwegian neighborhoods, complete with street signs with Norwegian names. The spanish locals there generally regard them as rude and vulgar crooks, who live the high life by stealing their (legal and tax-paying)work through black market labour(especially the taxi's), while they are left unemployed and struggling.

Oh, and the icing on the cake? Guess which party these people sympathize with and vote for.... That's right, the right-wing party, FRP, the party of law, order, welfare dismantling and harder immigration policies... "Because after all, them scary muslims don't want to integrate, so they should leave our country!!11".

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. :wall:

[Fragony]

Something should be done! That's how I like my irony, ironic

[rory_20_uk]

My take is:

A person who has legally come to the country, values the laws and history of the country and wishes to be English should be given the oppourtunity to do so. The liklihood is that first generation immigrants will not integrate fully, but the second can.

No country is set in stone. All cultures drift over time. Coming here and adding something to the mix is fine - indeed a good thing. Coming over here and speaking a different language, trying to follow different laws, a different religion, different schools isn't.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

a different religion
Errr... seriously?

[Fragony]

Couldn't care less what tree they bark at. Get a job, respect the law. That is all that can and should be asked. Can't live with that, bye.

[Sarmatian]

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there, the expansion of human rights to include the right to live wherever you like however you like is bogus and has cause massive social friction across the UK.


This. :bow:


I'm sorry guys, but since UK is a member of EU, people not born within UK have a right to go, live and work there. Same goes for Germany.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'm sorry guys, but since UK is a member of EU, people not born within UK have a right to go, live and work there. Same goes for Germany.

Agreed. But like we're saying, there have to be rules that are more strict and restrictions.

[Husar]

Well, I guess if you all want me to stay here and I don't like it here I have to talk to that released RAF guy to get some tips on how to change my country so I can enjoy it more. :idea2:
Politically speaking I'd never get any support for my ideas anyway. Oh well, I would've gone elsewhere but apparently that is bogus and I have no right to do that, guess I have to kill some people to make it more lively here.

[seireikhaan]

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there, the expansion of human rights to include the right to live wherever you like however you like is bogus and has cause massive social friction across the UK.
:inquisitive:

Please explain. Because, for me, this seems to indicate you don't believe in any form of immigration to be allowed.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

His statement is correct if taken how I read it - if we don't want to let you in, you shouldn't have the right to come in.

[seireikhaan]

His statement is correct if taken how I read it - if we don't want to let you in, you shouldn't have the right to come in.
Your statement, if I interpret correctly, is that a government has the right to regulate immigration policy. I have no problem with this.

My interpretation of Bopa's statement was that NOBODY should be allowed to immigrate to the UK. THIS, I do have a problem with this. Closing your country off to the rest of the world completely is a shallow, narrow-minded perspective which harms both those who would wish to immigrate, as well as the country itself.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My interpretation of Bopa's statement was that NOBODY should be allowed to immigrate to the UK. THIS, I do have a problem with this. Closing your country off to the rest of the world completely is a shallow, narrow-minded perspective which harms both those who would wish to immigrate, as well as the country itself.

Agreed, fair enough.

[Husar]

I say stop government regulation and let the migration market regulate itself, it's the only real capitalist approach. ~;)

[Kralizec]

I'm sorry guys, but since UK is a member of EU, people not born within UK have a right to go, live and work there. Same goes for Germany.

More or less. You're not going to have many problems when you have a job in the new country and can support yourself financially. If someone moves to the UK or France because the unemployment benefits there are better, he'll be sorely surprised.

...

As others have said before, unless you're a refugee, it's perfectly fine if the state expects you to learn the language and respect the law of the land under the threat of deportation. But that's about it, I'm not in favour of "assimilation" strategies.

[Husar]

As others have said before, unless you're a refugee, it's perfectly fine if the state expects you to learn the language and respect the law of the land under the threat of deportation. But that's about it, I'm not in favour of "assimilation" strategies.

I agree.

And to further elaborate on the rest, we had nobility for centuries, it was an almost closed circle of "better" people until the rest of people decided it was unfair and fought bloody wars to bring down the nobility or fought politically to restrain them more. In many western countries they are now heroified*.
Now we have an almost closed circle of countries which are well off and don't really want to let anyone into their circle of "better" people. Some of these countries are even patronising other countries and people in these countries now wonder why everybody else thinks that this situation is a bit unfair.

Call me stupid but I notice a certain pattern, many things and issues just move on to a larger scale gradually which is why I won't be surprised if the EU ends up as some sort of nation state.



*that may not be a word but I want to use it now

[KukriKhan]

For the sake of conversation, what if we turn the question on it's head, and look at the situation from the immigrants' point-of-view?:

To: Western European Former Colonial Powers
From: Your Former Colonies

Dear Most Esteemed Former Masters:

You owe us.

Were it not for the actions of your grandfathers & great-grandfathers, you would not enjoy the standard of living and political freedom you exercise today. Your very middle-class existence is due to last century's exploitation and theft of our labour and resources.

You came to our land, didn't speak our language, worship our gods, or follow our cultural ways. You imposed violence on the inhabitants to get what you wanted - all the very things that you now complain that our grandsons and great-grandsons are perpetrating upon you in your land.

Your visit to our land lasted over 100 years. Should our visit to your land not last as long?

We point out that during your visit, we allowed you to be Managers, Overseers, Owners, Directors, and titles of that sort. During our visit, we seek merely to clean your toilets, cook your food, wash your vehicles, raise your children, and enhance your economy with our cheap labour.

Kindly show some respect.

Sincerely,

Africa, Asia and South America, Inc.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That was the past. This is now.

[rory_20_uk]

Dear Former colonists.

Owe you? Let's review:

Most of your infrastructure we built

We deposed your previous rulers. Let's not get overly rosy eyed about them. Almost without exception they were despots or autocrats. Some of these kingdoms were won in battle in the same way the previous leaders had become king, others were offered to take flight to the West as no longer could their treatment be countenanced. Were the Zulus really peace loving?

You fought and gained freedom. You have then in many cases indulged in an orgy of violence and corruption not seen since... well, before we got there. Should we not fight as hard to keep you out as you fought to get us out?

We managed the railways we built, the roads we build, the schools we built, the hospitals we built the law we imposed (or did you like the Tugees?) You didn't want us, and got rid of us as soon as you could, as apparently genocide, starvation and corruption is only a problem if the person is white.

You were not treated well all that time ago. Since we've addressed how badly you are currently treated by a nice indigenous person, I'd also like to mention how badly the white working class were treated in Europe; similarly occupation of Caribbean islands had death rates that approached 100% of the soldiers who had no vote and no right to leave either. Treating people like scum was truly colour blind: the extremely small minority of rich did it to all - as did the occasional rich former leader.

We don't really need you. You fill in between the time the unemployed masses here are forced to do anything.

You have the independence you so ardently fought for. Rot in it.



Yours,


Europe &tc

[KukriKhan]

That was the past. This is now.

With respect: that is always the answer. "It was my great-grampa, not me!", or "It wasn't even my Grampa. It was my neighbor's Grampa, the scoundrel!" "We're more enlightened nowadays, and would never do that 'colony' thing again."

The other side would say: "You don't any longer need to. The advances wroght to your country and it's people, due to the exploitation of my country and it's people, elevated you and your descendants to such a high level (compared to the rest of the world) that you can afford to sit back and muse on the higher things in life like philosophy, the existance of god, the origin of the universe, the best political system, the cup size of Ms. Spears' brassiere."

[KukriKhan]

... Europe &tc

Dearest Majesties:

Indeed. Ever the apt and eager-to-please pupils, it can be said that we learned well from your example.

Regards,

AA&SA, LLC

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Rory, as much as I am leaning on your side about immigration, I can't agree. What the west did was nothing less than exploitation for centuries. To believe you owe them nothing for what your ancestors did is one thing, but to truthfully deny your nation's past is another, which crosses the line in my book.

[CountArach]

We deposed your previous rulers. Let's not get overly rosy eyed about them. Almost without exception they were despots or autocrats. Some of these kingdoms were won in battle in the same way the previous leaders had become king, others were offered to take flight to the West as no longer could their treatment be countenanced. Were the Zulus really peace loving?
What gave the British the right to topple these people? All they did was replace one oppressive regime with a foreign oppressive regime...

You fought and gained freedom. You have then in many cases indulged in an orgy of violence and corruption not seen since... well, before we got there. Should we not fight as hard to keep you out as you fought to get us out?
:laugh4:

We managed the railways we built, the roads we build, the schools we built, the hospitals we built the law we imposed (or did you like the Tugees?) You didn't want us, and got rid of us as soon as you could, as apparently genocide, starvation and corruption is only a problem if the person is white.
Let's think - why did the people revolt in the first place? Could it be because they had *shock and horro* legitimate grievances!? Paternalism is dead. Get over it.

[Kralizec]

He's got a point though, and a good one. The victims of the original colonisation process are all dead. Current generations in these countries may despice the practice of those days, but any claim that they'd been materially better off if colonisation had never happened is unadulterated BS. The difference would be that the vast majority in those countries wouldn't be able to write "reparations" with a paper and a pen and would have even less cause to demand them.

EDIT:
before any mentions it, I'm aware of recent Dutch history in regards to Indonesia and I think it's a disgrace. In my opinion any victims of that period who are still alive ought to get compensation and fast, unlike what our government seems to think. The above bit is in regards to the colonisation and subsequent administration itself, not to misguided 20th century attempts to hold on to the Dutch Indies, Indochina or whatnot.

[KukriKhan]

... but any claim that they'd been materially better off if colonisation had never happened is unadulterated BS

That's actually speculation, my friend. It can also be successfully argued that the descendants of the western European colonizers have stood to very materially, and substantially, gained an advantage economically from the exploitation of their ancestors.

Nobody here on the org boards "feels" rich, or like some oppressive ogre. But the mere fact that we here all have gaming-capable computers, and the implied wealth and leisure time available that that ownership implies - suggests a rather massive middle-class of europeans, north americans and australians that didn't exist 100 years ago - and still doesn't in the former colonies.

In the race to middle class comfort and security, we had a 50-metre lead.

Just saying.

[Incongruous]

:inquisitive:

Please explain. Because, for me, this seems to indicate you don't believe in any form of immigration to be allowed.

:inquisitive:

I take offence when people like to slip in immigration when talking about Human rights, its rubbish and no such right exists, if you wish to live in a certain country you will have to do better than pull one of those out of thin air.

Red headed Celts? Bloody hell you boys do like trot out the old racism crap fairly early on don't you? If that is the best you can do, you have no argument.

And what an earth does the British Empire have to do with this? I am not on some guilt trip about any Empire. Empires are a part of History, everyone had them, the Zulus and the Indians were some of the most ruthless Imperialists in History, laying the charge of Imperialism upon Britain's and Europe's door only is racism and bollocks.

[Sarmatian]

He's got a point though, and a good one. The victims of the original colonisation process are all dead. Current generations in these countries may despice the practice of those days, but any claim that they'd been materially better off if colonisation had never happened is unadulterated BS. The difference would be that the vast majority in those countries wouldn't be able to write "reparations" with a paper and a pen and would have even less cause to demand them.


If I had a rich peace of land and I'm not growing anything on it that doesn't mean that you are entitled to take it and make millions of it. And it's especially bad and insulting if after making millions, you tell that it's fair because you gave me something worth 10 dollars.

And the story that it was done in the name of civilization and progress is total BS. Any benefit to the natives was purely coincidental. Really, those Chinese and Indians needed Europeans to teach them culture :dizzy2:

[Incongruous]

Again, what does this have to do with immigration? A vengeance trip visited upon us who had nothing to do with any empire? The fact that we are white and western? Or the fact that you can spew nothing but BS about this topic?

[Banquo's Ghost]

NB: The use of acronyms as an MO to indulge bad language is, FYI, discouraged.

PS; EG BS. Warnings TBD.

TIA.

:bow:

[Sarmatian]

Or the fact that you can spew nothing but BS about this topic?

Who? Silly ol' me?

[rory_20_uk]

Rory, as much as I am leaning on your side about immigration, I can't agree. What the west did was nothing less than exploitation for centuries. To believe you owe them nothing for what your ancestors did is one thing, but to truthfully deny your nation's past is another, which crosses the line in my book.

Not denying the past - it was horrible for everyone, whites, blacks and everything in between. We explioted the lands, just like their rulers did. We left and the same thing is happening. How this makes us as blameworthy for everything is what I fail to see.



What gave the British the right to topple these people? All they did was replace one oppressive regime with a foreign oppressive regime...

Let's think - why did the people revolt in the first place? Could it be because they had *shock and horro* legitimate grievances!? Paternalism is dead. Get over it.

Yes, replaced one with another. Not always better, not always worse. No utopia was overturned.

I'm sure they did have grievances. Good for them - it's a shame that so many have done worse since independence.

Paternalism? What? I don't purport to think that we had either the right or the duty to make their lives better now or then. I couldn't care less about them in the slightest.

~:smoking:

[seireikhaan]

:inquisitive:

I take offence when people like to slip in immigration when talking about Human rights, its rubbish and no such right exists, if you wish to live in a certain country you will have to do better than pull one of those out of thin air.

Red headed Celts? Bloody hell you boys do like trot out the old racism crap fairly early on don't you? If that is the best you can do, you have no argument.

And what an earth does the British Empire have to do with this? I am not on some guilt trip about any Empire. Empires are a part of History, everyone had them, the Zulus and the Indians were some of the most ruthless Imperialists in History, laying the charge of Imperialism upon Britain's and Europe's door only is racism and bollocks.
What on earth are you talking about? I stated nothing of the sort which you accuse me, and I find that quite annoying. I never stated that immigration is a human right, nor did I utilize any sort of racial epiteph, nor did I say anything about the days of Empire. If you are attempting to counter different people's points besides mine, than please differentiate those by quoting each person you are refuting.

[Incongruous]

You took issue with what my post said, which was about the fact that immigration is not a Human right, I repeat, you took issue, therefore
I take offence when people like to slip in immigration when talking about Human rights, its rubbish and no such right exists, if you wish to live in a certain country you will have to do better than pull one of those out of thin air.


My remark about racism was directed at another member who presumed I wished to see Britain only inhabited by tall white people, I found it of questionable quantity.

The remark about Empire is of coarse refering to the ongoing discussion about it.

[Strike For The South]

Some people think that the UK owes them something because of the eimpire? That is really ROFLCOPPTERRR. Somebody call the French Scily was reallllllll crappy in the 1200s

[Sarmatian]

You took issue with what my post said, which was about the fact that immigration is not a Human right, I repeat, you took issue, therefore


My remark about racism was directed at another member who presumed I wished to see Britain only inhabited by tall white people, I found it of questionable quantity.

The remark about Empire is of coarse refering to the ongoing discussion about it.

By "another member" I assume you mean me, so I'll allow myself a quick response against my better judgement.

No, immigration is not a human right as such - it is a necessity for all or almost all western nation, UK included. I presume you know why so I'm not going to explain that part.

So if we agree that immigration is a necessity we also have to realize that it means - immigrants (you didn't see this coming, did you? :laugh4:). Now, since immigrants are already there, let's say in UK, just by virtue of being there and being human, they're entitled to certain human rights. Most basic human rights include freedom of speech, religion, thought etc... and those rights can not be taken away, even in the case of immigrants. That's what I trying to say when I mentioned human rights.

Second point, my remark about colonialism was because Kukrikhan tried to offer another way of looking at things. After that some members said it's not a valid point since colonialism brought many joys to the people living in the colonies. My response was that argument how people there used to kill each other before Europeans came and Europeans merely offered them more effective ways to do so, or that Europeans built a couple of schools and hospitals is not an excuse. It is total bollox, in fact.

But, I respect your opinion that no one born outside UK should be allowed to live there. It is an option. It would probably have very serious consequences for any western country (incidentally, that's why all of them are open to some sor of immigration), but it is an option, yes...

[Fragony]

But, I respect your opinion that no one born outside UK should be allowed to live there.

How does your mind manage to keep summoning that? It was never said it's all in your head.

[seireikhaan]

You took issue with what my post said, which was about the fact that immigration is not a Human right, I repeat, you took issue, therefore
I took issue not out of the idea that the ability to immigrate wherever you want is a basic human right; rather, I took issue at the connotation I took away from your statement which was that the UK shouldn't be allow anyone to immigrate to its country and close itself off from the rest of the world. A connotation I think is foolish, narrow-minded, and short sighted.

EDIT: Furthermore, I did not "take issue"; I sought clarification on your position, and offered you how I was interpreting your statement. It was you who accused me of pulling things out of thin air.

My remark about racism was directed at another member who presumed I wished to see Britain only inhabited by tall white people, I found it of questionable quantity.
Very well. In the future, please differentiate discussion by directing arguments directly at those you are arguing with, to avoid confusion. :bow:


The remark about Empire is of coarse refering to the ongoing discussion about it.
Again, it helps to avoid confusion if you can differentiate between discussions, so you don't accidentally end up instigating arguments with people you didn't intend to argue with.

[seireikhaan]

But, I respect your opinion that no one born outside UK should be allowed to live there.

How does your mind manage to keep summoning that? It was never said it's all in your head.

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there....
Umm... :thinking:

[Fragony]

Umm... :thinking:

Can't see the difference between having a right on something and being allowed to do something?

[Papewaio]

My remark about racism was directed at another member who presumed I wished to see Britain only inhabited by tall white people, I found it of questionable quantity.

My question wasn't aimed at them being white, my question was which. At what point do you choose the dial back point. A year for instance: 2008, 1958, 1888, 1068, -2008?

My question is what is your definition of reasonable limits of descent?

Also what is the point of only allowing those who have forebears in a country to immigrate back?

And do you block just genes and not memes?

[seireikhaan]

Can't see the difference between having a right on something and being allowed to do something?
Not particularly. Please explain.

[Fragony]

Not particularly. Please explain.

Well, let's put it this way, I might be allowed to make a dump on your head but that's really up to you wether or not you allow it, for whatever reason. But it is not my right to make a dump on your head just because I like your haircut.

[seireikhaan]

Well, let's put it this way, I might be allowed to make a dump on your head but that's really up to you wether or not you allow it, for whatever reason. But it is not my right to make a dump on your head just because I like your haircut.
No, I'm afraid you're quite wrong. If you were to take a dump on my head, I could quite likely get you thrown in jail, as I'm fairly sure that there is some sort of law against depositing fecal matter on another person, such as assault/public indecency or some such. Your example is quite faulty.

[Papewaio]

What he was saying is that he doesn't have the right to do it.

But with your (kinky) consent, he could be allowed to do it.

The right to something =/= being allowed to do something.

[Fragony]

^-well what the ozzy said

No one born outside UK should be allowed to live there.

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there....


Look at these two statements. You really can't see the difference?

[seireikhaan]

^-well what the ozzy said

No one born outside UK should be allowed to live there.

Any person not born within the UK or within the reasonable limits of descent has no right to live there....


Look at these two statements. You really can't see the difference?
Ah, we're delving into issues of permission? Ok, I see what the point is. In that case, I you are quite accurate in that (legal) immigration is purely a country allowing other citizens into their borders to change nationalities. I will point out that without such clarification, just issuing such statements can lead to confusion.

EDIT: I will also point out the whole idea of permission is itself a bit of a sticky issue as well. I could give you written permission to kill me, and you'd very likely still be charged with murder. :shrug:


Of course, this really does depend on whether or not you believe humans have inherent rights, and if so, where the line is drawn.

I believe I am coming to a better understanding of Bopa's first statement- indeed, nobody is entitled to transfer nationalities at will from a legal perspective(at least in my view, and generally legally). I was mis-interpreting it as being anti-immigrationist. Apologies. :bow:

[Incongruous]

My question wasn't aimed at them being white, my question was which. At what point do you choose the dial back point. A year for instance: 2008, 1958, 1888, 1068, -2008?

My question is what is your definition of reasonable limits of descent?

Also what is the point of only allowing those who have forebears in a country to immigrate back?

And do you block just genes and not memes?

Ok, lets take a step back and consider the dates which you have used and the peoples involved. The last large and meaningful influx of people upon the Island of Great Britain before the end of the War was the Norman (hold onto your hats) INVASION. Now, I am fairly sure this rules out any form of Anglo-Saxon/ English immigration policy being taken into consideration much, much less the actual consent of the English.

People like to point to the various waves of previous mas immigration to the Island and how they have changed the ethnic and cultural shape of Britain, nicely leaving out the part that they carried the Sword not the Passport before them, unless you fall for the modernist rubbish of men like Mr. Prior (sp?).

As we have all agreed upon, these "immigrants" read violent conquerers drmatically altered the lands society. This was not in fact due to some arrangement with the locals about cultural enrichment and multiculturalism as is rather pathetically pointed to but never drawn plain in these analogies, because it occured after generations of repression, mass murder and enslavement. Lets please keep modernist fantasies of The Brotherhood of Man out of this, we are all smarter than that.

Now, with this historical context of Britain "multiculturalism" prior to the mass immigration of the 50's, we can see any comparison between the two is bollocks save one factor. The social and cultural conflict and upheaval it causes.

You can decray this point all you want but I would call you a liar if you say it is not true. It is an ever present part of my and your nature that we seek to form groups with kindred folk, we enrich and strengthen these through actual historical toil, and fanciful narratives. This is a concept as old as Humanity.
It is the case that when these groups are disrupted by newcomers and their culture, usually, in history it is due to violence or conflict of some nature.

Therefore, to sit back and expect a nation steeped within a long running national narrative to calmly accept an intrusion of external peoples whom posess a different narrative of identity and culture, is absurd.
It is a product of absurdity and it will end badly.

I hope thsi outlines a my beliefs, however repugnent to you, in a light of thoughtfullness and not reactionary emotions or racism.

[Fragony]

Now, with this historical context of Britain "multiculturalism" prior to the mass immigration of the 50's, we can see any comparison between the two is bollocks save one factor. The social and cultural conflict and upheaval it causes.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you but that is a rather poor historical context you picked the norman invasion was more like norman settling, it wasn't nearly as violent as people believe and not nearly as acute, it took centuries.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'm glad some of you don't control immigration policies of your countries. :laugh4::book:

[seireikhaan]

Bopa, I guess I'm going to sum up my feelings in a single question:

What causes social unrest due to immigration? The immigrants trying to alter local culture, or the reaction of the native citizens(/governmental reaction as part of this)?

[Fragony]

edit lol huh?

[seireikhaan]

And I am going to answer are you kidding me??

answer, not that much, but a good living
Again, Fragony, you must consider I am an American, and hence my experiences with immigration are going to be quite different than that of Europeans.

[Fragony]

Again, Fragony, you must consider I am an American, and hence my experiences with immigration are going to be quite different than that of Europeans.

Well it ain't that bad really. But when there are problems people insist on being polite.

[Papewaio]

Ok, lets take a step back and consider the dates which you have used and the peoples involved. The last large and meaningful influx of people upon the Island of Great Britain before the end of the War was the Norman (hold onto your hats) INVASION. Now, I am fairly sure this rules out any form of Anglo-Saxon/ English immigration policy being taken into consideration much, much less the actual consent of the English.

People like to point to the various waves of previous mas immigration to the Island and how they have changed the ethnic and cultural shape of Britain, nicely leaving out the part that they carried the Sword not the Passport before them, unless you fall for the modernist rubbish of men like Mr. Prior (sp?).

Warfare certainly changes the ruling class. But with the Normans in particular they were know to assimilate in a couple of generations. They were also know as very accepting of other cultures. Just look at what happened in Sicily. So they are not the best choice of Sword =/= integration.



As we have all agreed upon, these "immigrants" read violent conquerers drmatically altered the lands society. This was not in fact due to some arrangement with the locals about cultural enrichment and multiculturalism as is rather pathetically pointed to but never drawn plain in these analogies, because it occured after generations of repression, mass murder and enslavement. Lets please keep modernist fantasies of The Brotherhood of Man out of this, we are all smarter than that.

A lot did change but as with most Norman lands the flux went both ways. Warfare is the easiest points to see changes, but there was steady changes all along. Yes there is violence in all societies, it does not mean that all social change has been promoted by violence or violence in isolation. Yes we do have violent histories and they should not be ignored, they should not be looked at in isolation either.



Now, with this historical context of Britain "multiculturalism" prior to the mass immigration of the 50's, we can see any comparison between the two is bollocks save one factor. The social and cultural conflict and upheaval it causes.

I think you will find that warfare has more of an upheaval then mass immigration. Also you might in fact be fight mass immigration vs source of immigration. After all the colonies have been supplying people back to Britain as long as colonies have existed. I'm so sure that it is part of the cultural mix that you can even find title characters of mass media outlets describing this very phenomena. Colonial migration has been occurring as long as Britain has been colonising.



You can decray this point all you want but I would call you a liar if you say it is not true. It is an ever present part of my and your nature that we seek to form groups with kindred folk, we enrich and strengthen these through actual historical toil, and fanciful narratives. This is a concept as old as Humanity.
It is the case that when these groups are disrupted by newcomers and their culture, usually, in history it is due to violence or conflict of some nature.

Not even remotely correct for every person. Something like 80%+ of second generation Asian immigrants to Australia marry outside their 'kindred folk'. Probably because by the time they are second generation their kindred is any other Aussie.

Consider that I am Welsh/Swedish. Or more accurately: Welsh (+Scottish, + Irish, +French) / Swedish (+English) while my son has all that + Taiwan + China. I am a walking, talking gene soup of proof positive that your statement is incorrect.

End of the day there is a bigger gene step between man and woman then there is between any other grouping of humans.



Therefore, to sit back and expect a nation steeped within a long running national narrative to calmly accept an intrusion of external peoples whom posess a different narrative of identity and culture, is absurd.
It is a product of absurdity and it will end badly.

What like finally being able to beat Australia at the Olympics?

A country that is a third of the size but has a quarter of its citizens born overseas. Yet we seem to be bubbling along quite nicely. Sure we have idiots from around the globe, we also have some very nice people of all cultures.



I hope thsi outlines a my beliefs, however repugnent to you, in a light of thoughtfullness and not reactionary emotions or racism.

What I think you need to do is not just look at the loud negatives. Look at the positives of immigration. Food for me is the best starting point to get to know another culture. Generally I start with the pastries and sweets, then the alcohol. Belgium how I love thee.

[Incongruous]

I am always bombarded by the BBC, the Government and my friends about the positives of immigration, I have decided that they are mostly rose tinted views.

With the Norman invasion I was talking about the massive impact it had upon the culture of England, which was massive, you must admit. The only way that came about was through conquest, not pasive immigration policy on the part of the English. Thus comparing historical influxes to modern immigration is often a bogus analogy.

I don't care what happens in the Olympics, they are a farce and the fact that they ahve been held in Nazi Germany and Communist China gives plenty evidence that they are bollocks.

As for my statement about "kindred folk", well I will say it to myself.
A nation like Aussie (or even NZ) is young and founded upon the memory of recent immigration and colonisation. England has national and social narrative older than Hungary. It is much harder to dislodge it through passive mass immigration, indeed it seems to cause friction.

Britain will soon be striggling under the weight of its population, and yet some here think that it is a good idea to let more people in. Why? An absurd modernist belief in multiculturalism, something which the British people from the start had no say in, and when they dared talk about it "Racialist! Racialist!" was thrown at them. Enoch Powell, a man who is now seen a racist bigot (although he adored Indian people and culture), saw the problem with multiculturalism, he was thrown to the dogs for it.

[KukriKhan]

Over here, we thrive on immigration. Our whole concept of being derives from a constant influx of newcomers willing to work hard and play by the rules, contribute your 'old country' 's wisdom, while adapting to this new place - a nation-wide bus terminal, as it were.

But I see no reason for other countries to imitate that plan (aside from Oz and Canada, maybe). Let the Dutch, German, Brits, French, Belgians... Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Cambodian... be Dutch, German, Brit, French, Belgian, Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Cambodian.

It's commendable that you open your borders and purses to war-refugees, and other folks in temporarily dire straights. I myself might be one of those guys someday. But, eventually, those folks - by definition, want to return home. Hunkering down in a ghetto, building resentment against the hand that feeds just seems silly.

[rory_20_uk]

"Thrive" is that the same place that is building a wall to keep Mexicans out, has several barriers to get a green card and even has some people acting as Militias at the Mexican border? :inquisitive:

Look at the UK - or indeed Europe's - population density compared to your own. When you are approaching ours, then we'll see how keen you are.

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

"Thrive" is that the same place that is building a wall to keep Mexicans out, has several barriers to get a green card and even has some people acting as Militias at the Mexican border? :inquisitive:

Look at the UK - or indeed Europe's - population density compared to your own. When you are approaching ours, then we'll see how keen you are.

~:smoking:

Yeah, I admit the two phrases are separated by lots of other words, but 'thrive' does go hand-in-glove with 'play by the rules'. Jumping the queue, to push ahead of the other guys wanting in (who played by the rules) is as wrong at the border as it is in the cafeteria line.

And I agree: we'll hit a saturation point eventually. I just think we're a generation or 4 away from that point today.

[CountArach]

Immigrants built this country - we need more of them...

[Incongruous]

Immigrants built this country - we need more of them...

That is your perogotive, however do not make the same mistake as the Kwiws did in letting in half of Samoa for no good reason, only to discover too late what the consequences would be.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That is your perogotive, however do not make the same mistake as the Kwiws did in letting in half of Samoa for no good reason, only to discover too late what the consequences would be.

Even tougher All Blacks? :inquisitive: