Immigration Question

[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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Which would be the definition of force

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.

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.

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?

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.
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.

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.