IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

The lack of integration seems more like a long-standing political failure that was apparently never important enough for the public to make politicians to do anything about it.

[...]

As for immigration policy, now that is obviously screwed up but that is not new, it's just that too few people cared about it until rape became more important than the new iPhone.

I'm not so sure such a (non-authoritarian) policy exists.

I can't help but think of a dude jumping of a tall building, swearing that with the right policy, he'll be able to fly with the power of his own bare arms the next time..

You'd think it was important to find evidence for the existence of such policies before we accepted more massive immigration, but nah.

I guess now we need to become police states, too.

It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of thinking actually was at work in the back of the minds of many of those who are pro-mass immigration. There can never be too many immigrants, then - the state will handle everything. There's a legal measure for every problem, you know.

"If this goes really bad, we can just introduce more "pro-tolerance" (read: authoritarian) legal measures. I heard Yugoslavia was a peaceful, authoritarian multiethnic country. We'll be fine."

[Gilrandir]

How do you not notice that what you say is utterly inconsistent with the reference material?

I quoted the same source and you said that I was wrong in identifying apposition. If Chancellor in Chancellor Merkel welcomed the refugees is not an apposition, then do tell me what part of the sentence it is.

[Greyblades]

You know a conversatioon has gone stale when they start debating grammar.

Fragony's statement has nothing to do with the other two quoted. PVC's quote does not impinge on mine, and the reasoning in mine clearly acknowledges and expands on some of the reasoning in PVC's.

I mean that the word multicultural's meaning is so vague and subjective that your statment can be said to be simultaniously right and wrong.

I think most of your trouble comes from difficulty following along.

Hello kettle, I'm pot, have we met?

I think your trouble is that you write like a university student attempting to gain extra credit through rarely used words and long-winded writing patterns. Combined with a habit of failing to connect your rebuttle with the post you are responding to and you have freqently become outright incomprehensable.

[Husar]

Cool story bro!

[Husar]

I'm not so sure such a (non-authoritarian) policy exists.

I can't help but think of a dude jumping of a tall building, swearing that with the right policy, he'll be able to fly with the power of his own bare arms the next time..

You'd think it was important to find evidence for the existence of such policies before we accepted more massive immigration, but nah.

Yes it was, but it was also important not to let half a million Syrians freeze to death in front of a barbed wire fence.
It is not their fault that we failed for decades to weed out the criminals among the immigrants or is it?

It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of thinking actually was at work in the back of the minds of many of those politicians who are pro-mass immigration. There can never be too many immigrants, then - the state will handle everything. There's a legal measure for every problem, you know.

Fixed it. Unless you want to convince me that the far left aka antifa is in favor of being spied upon all the time.

[Fragony]

Why would they freeze to death in the first save country they enter?

[Husar]

Why would they freeze to death in the first save country they enter?

Because it is already full?

If we are full with a million, surely Turkey is already overfilled with three or how many they took already.

Apparently they have so many that they already try to illegally send them back, hardly a country you could stay in even if you wanted to...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35135810

Amnesty International says its research has found that scores - possibly hundreds - of refugees and asylum-seekers have been sent back to Syria and Iraq.
"This is absolutely illegal, both under Turkish and international law, because you cannot forcibly return someone to a place where their lives and rights are in danger," said Andrew Gardner, the head of Amnesty in Turkey.

[AE Bravo]

King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud showed up from somwhere and took a selfie with me. They gave me 2000 dollars so that I can cover my most immediate needs

He's dead, dummy.

[AE Bravo]

Who's this?

The rapist?

You're too Americanised.

Bet your ass i am. You people are full off mishaps and cry about it all the time. You're too limpy.

[Viking]

Yes it was, but it was also important not to let half a million Syrians freeze to death in front of a barbed wire fence.

Then we could just place them in warm camps while we sign deals with different Muslim countries where the refugees could be granted permanent citizenship in return for money and/or services from us; or we just keep them there until the return conditions are met in their home countries.

It is not their fault that we failed for decades to weed out the criminals among the immigrants or is it?

In terms of integration, weeding out criminals is not going to help that much.

Though I think it should be pointed out that part of the problem is that some things that are both criminal and considered unacceptable here might not be criminal, or at least not socially unacceptable, in the places where some immigrants come from. Even without this, we'd often (most of the time?) try to weed out those who might break the law in the future (or rather: the ones who are at least this likely to break the law in the future). Good luck with this.

Fixed it. Unless you want to convince me that the far left aka antifa is in favor of being spied upon all the time.

I wasn't talking about those guys (I haven't accused them of rationality at this point). Rather, I was thinking of more...shall we say, ordinary, people - of whom plenty are in favour of mass immigration.

[Fragony]

The rapist

No, but but the one who wants it to be about us being afraid of brownies creeping up on us, yes.

[Greyblades]

He's dead, dummy.

[Myth]

I translated this text from Bulgarian, and I think it's both hillarious and infuriating.

[Montmorency]

I mean that the word multicultural's meaning is so vague and subjective that your statment can be said to be simultaniously right and wrong.

It shouldn't surprise you that many terms in political discourse have many different meanings that are often used to misleading effect. In the post you quoted, then, I'm talking about the specific policies of multiculturalism that were endorsed by Western European governments after WW2 as part of reconstruction of their drained economies and as part of the broader offloading of some authority and responsibility from governments to business and finance. In the last generation, multiculturalism was co-opted by what Frag used to call (though he dropped it in the past year or so) "Cultural Marxists" who saw it not as an idea justifying the import of foreign labor, but as a sound and desirable ethical principle on its own. Those paleo-rightists who both resented globalized economics and the left-spectrum generally then associated "multiculturalism" with certain leftist groups and leftist social academics because by then the leftists were the only ones who bothered to mention the term.

I think your trouble is that you write like a university student attempting to gain extra credit through rarely used words and long-winded writing patterns.

I usually write on a secondary-school level. In fact, this is basically like my day-to-day speech.

Combined with a habit of failing to connect your rebuttle with the post you are responding to and you have freqently become outright incomprehensable.

When I am giving a specific response to a specific sentence, I do it precisely and step-by-step. But this approach is infrequent in life outside of formal debate settings, since usually people in discussions bring in relevant ideas and arguments rather than lines that are explicitly tailored to a single other line or set of lines, and irrelevant or incomprehensible outside that context.

TLDR: Stop being so self-centered and try to follow what people are actually talking about rather than expecting people to limit themselves only to what little substance you yourself have posted about your own understanding, or otherwise to hold your hand.

I quoted the same source and you said that I was wrong in identifying apposition. If Chancellor in Chancellor Merkel welcomed the refugees is not an apposition, then do tell me what part of the sentence it is.

Apposition involves two separate units with a coreferent. The appositive unit may or may not be necessary in the structure of the utterance. For a phrase like "I would like to honor my favorite poet, Burns, by reading his...", the semantic content can be described abstractly like "I would like to honor A, A, by reading A's..."

For phrases like "Ms. Smith" or "Chancellor Merkel", there is no apposition since both the title and the name are mutually-necessary in combining to form a single unit, rather than two distinct ones. This is the case for any title that is not an actual position or status, but purely a form of address.

Such honorifics can only be involved in apposition indirectly:

1a. I would like to introduce the (German) Chancellor, (Chancellor) Merkel, as the speaker tonight.
2a. I would like to introduce a very important lady, (Ms./Mrs./Dr./Chancellor) Merkel, as the speaker tonight.

The two underlined parts are both in apposition to "(Chancellor) Merkel", and you can include or exclude the title next to "Merkel" as you like, but you cannot by definition create an appositive relationship between "Merkel" and the bolded title thus. Notably, in Sentence 1a "Chancellor" can be involved in apposition in to "Merkel", but only in the instance where it is part of the distinct unit "the (German) Chancellor", and not when it is forming a unit with "Merkel".

Also, if someone is addressed with multiple titles, like "His Majesty King of Swatesia, Lord of all Elephants, Conqueror of the Aphorites...", then the titles can be described as in apposition to each other.

The point is basically that it is not possible for a title standing alone to be in apposition to a name in a format like "TITLE-ENTITLED", because this format creates a single identifying unit and for apposition you need two distinct identifying units with, as per Wiki, "one element serving to identify the other in a different way".

[Montmorency]

Rulebreaking

That was probably the only element of the wild tale worth correcting. What off-the-mark rubbish.

Also, host that image on your own space, it's clogging my intertubes.

[Husar]

I translated this text from Bulgarian, and I think it's both hillarious and infuriating.

Oh, now I get it, you can compare Bulgaria with Saudi Arabia because they are on a similar moral level. For a minute here I thought it was saying that Britain had a similar human rights approach as SA and it was therefore meant to be a valid comparison. My mistake.

[Husar]

Then we could just place them in warm camps while we sign deals with different Muslim countries where the refugees could be granted permanent citizenship in return for money and/or services from us; or we just keep them there until the return conditions are met in their home countries.

That might be feasible if the conflict in their home countries could be reasonably said to be over soon. Keeping people in "temporary" camps for 5+ years may not be the best idea however.

In terms of integration, weeding out criminals is not going to help that much.

Though I think it should be pointed out that part of the problem is that some things that are both criminal and considered unacceptable here might not be criminal, or at least not socially unacceptable, in the places where some immigrants come from. Even without this, we'd often (most of the time?) try to weed out those who might break the law in the future (or rather: the ones who are at least this likely to break the law in the future). Good luck with this.

Well, with proper integration, fewer of them may turn into criminals in the first place. At the moment they're not allowed to do anything for several months after arrival, unemployment etc. can drive people crazy, especially if it made them go on a crazy journey in the first place in the hopes of getting a job. One idea I liked was that they will be instructed upon arrival that the German courses are mandatory, that they have to take care of their homes here, including cleaning the toilets etc. and are required to do certain community work in return for the shelter etc. they receive here. Failure to comply would lead to a swift deportation.

Deportation is difficult because deportation to a war zone is illegal, but then again if you actually did deport them to Syria, maybe fewer north africans would claim to be from there and then misbehave...

As for weeding out future misbehavers, you usually do most of that by integrating them properly as said above.

And yes, this is hard to do because we already create more poor of our own every year whom we slowly disintegrate from our own society, that doesn't make it easier to integrate new poor people as there are no jobs etc. to be taken.
Then again, if the world were a fair place, maybe they'd see no need to migrate here in the first place.

[Myth]

Your weak attempts at wounding my (non existent) sense of national pride are pitiful and will not work on me young padawan.

I think it's a very good piece of satire that highlights some of the issues faced by your very own countrymen. And it also shows that if the situations were inverse the muslim/arabic world would not show europeans the same kind of benevolent tolerance.

Can I grab a group of 50 25 year old christian males and go and demand democracy and women in bathing suits in Saudi Arabia? No, we'd probably get beheaded. Then why is the opposite tolerated and any who voice against it branded islamophobes and whatnot?

[Husar]

I think it's a very good piece of satire that highlights some of the issues faced by your very own countrymen. And it also shows that if the situations were inverse the muslim/arabic world would not show europeans the same kind of benevolent tolerance.

And that is why they are usually criticized by all the liberal leftist human rights organizations, no?
Isn't it the more conservative side that is usually so enraged about them potentially hurting the feelings of our most valuable allies?
When our tank export to SA was stopped, people were angry about the potential for job losses because "someone else will sell them the tanks instead anyway". The wonders of market liberalism that also fights for personal liberalism. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Can I grab a group of 50 25 year old christian males and go and demand democracy and women in bathing suits in Saudi Arabia? No, we'd probably get beheaded. Then why is the opposite tolerated and any who voice against it branded islamophobes and whatnot?

What exactly is the opposite and why do you want my/your country to be more like a christian/atheist version of Saudi Arabia?

[Pannonian]

And that is why they are usually criticized by all the liberal leftist human rights organizations, no?
Isn't it the more conservative side that is usually so enraged about them potentially hurting the feelings of our most valuable allies?
When our tank export to SA was stopped, people were angry about the potential for job losses because "someone else will sell them the tanks instead anyway". The wonders of market liberalism that also fights for personal liberalism. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

What exactly is the opposite and why do you want my/your country to be more like a christian/atheist version of Saudi Arabia?

At least my position is consistent then. I don't criticise the Saudis on their human rights record, other than being thankful that I live here and not over there. And I have no tolerance of anyone arguing that we should go softly on their disciples over here. The scumbags who advocate Islamism here should be expelled, if they are citizens of another country, or marginalised, if they're not. But bleeding heart liberalism is a self-inflicted wound. Asymmetrical debate occurs when two sides argue according to certain principles, but only one side practically abides by them.

Also, personal liberalism is separate from free market capitalist liberalism, at least in England. The Levellers were communists.

[Greyblades]

It shouldn't surprise you that many terms in political discourse have many different meanings that are often used to misleading effect. In the post you quoted, then, I'm talking about the specific policies of multiculturalism that were endorsed by Western European governments after WW2 as part of reconstruction of their drained economies and as part of the broader offloading of some authority and responsibility from governments to business and finance. In the last generation, multiculturalism was co-opted by what Frag used to call (though he dropped it in the past year or so) "Cultural Marxists" who saw it not as an idea justifying the import of foreign labor, but as a sound and desirable ethical principle on its own. Those paleo-rightists who both resented globalized economics and the left-spectrum generally then associated "multiculturalism" with certain leftist groups and leftist social academics because by then the leftists were the only ones who bothered to mention the term.

Aside from being mildy interesting to hear once again what you think multiculturalism means, I am left wondering at the near alien thought process that gives such responses to what I write. I was not disputing what was being said I was commenting on the futility of arguing the meaning of a term that was vague to begin with and now is so disputed as to mean wildly different things to many different people.

I usually write on a secondary-school level.

I admit I was being a bit overly generous when I implied university level writing but I wouldnt go that far.

In fact, this is basically like my day-to-day speech.

Why does that not surprise me.

When I am giving a specific response to a specific sentence, I do it precisely and step-by-step. But this approach is infrequent in life outside of formal debate settings, since usually people in discussions bring in relevant ideas and arguments rather than lines that are explicitly tailored to a single other line or set of lines, and irrelevant or incomprehensible outside that context.

TLDR: Stop being so self-centered and try to follow what people are actually talking about rather than expecting people to limit themselves only to what little substance you yourself have posted about your own understanding, or otherwise to hold your hand.

So let me get this straight; you cant differentiate between more that one interlocutor besides yourself and need to impose a general overarching argument on everyone who contributes to the conversation on an opposing side, regardless of if they actually agree with that argument or not.

Additionally you are occasionally incapable of framing your individual posts to conform with the direction the conversation was going, to the point where instead of saying something along the lines of "I was thinking about what you were saying earlier and this is what I think" you just blurt out what you have to say with little regard of what was said before or how jarring and confusing the transition is and how much it impares any attempt to respond to it.

...I dont know if that is 100% accurate but it's certainly the only explanation I can think of that makes sense with both what you just said and your behavior previously.
I must admit I can sympathise with the former, threads do get confusing after a month or so, keeping track of who said what becomes confusing especially when they use the same avatars. Once or twice I have found myself mixing up you and pannonian, gets embarrasing quickly.

[Greyblades]

That was probably the only element of the wild tale worth correcting. What off-the-mark rubbish.

Also, host that image on your own space, it's clogging my intertubes.

What are you running on, dial up? Fine, here's the same point for the previous generations.

[Sarmatian]

I think it's a very good piece of satire that highlights some of the issues faced by your very own countrymen. And it also shows that if the situations were inverse the muslim/arabic world would not show europeans the same kind of benevolent tolerance.

So, we throw out civilized behaviour, everything we've achieved as a society and adopt social norms based on lowest possible value.

Can I grab a group of 50 25 year old christian males and go and demand democracy and women in bathing suits in Saudi Arabia? No, we'd probably get beheaded. Then why is the opposite tolerated and any who voice against it branded islamophobes and whatnot?

Who said the opposite is tolerated?

You, and many others, are seeing imaginary threats, just because refugees are muslims.

[Sarmatian]

No, because one is a government policy and the other is a personal wardrobe choice.

Multiculturalism is a fundamentally contradictory policy - on the one hand incomers are not required to integrate, on the other the host culture is expected to adapt to the immigrants.

This breads resentment, which breeds Fascists.

If there weren't any black people, racism wouldn't exist.

[Pannonian]

So, we throw out civilized behaviour, everything we've achieved as a society and adopt social norms based on lowest possible value.

Who said the opposite is tolerated?

You, and many others, are seeing imaginary threats, just because refugees are muslims.

See the s who were born here, were raised here at state expense, who exploit our history of religious tolerance to push for Islamism. And see those uber-liberal idiots who argue that it's all our fault and none of theirs, because they're somehow discriminated against by society (even though their parents who weren't born here don't feel the same way that they do).

[Pannonian]

If there weren't any black people, racism wouldn't exist.

If there is any wrong in the world, it is the fault of the Anglo-Americans. Or so I keep getting told.

[Husar]

See the s who were born here, were raised here at state expense, who exploit our history of religious tolerance to push for Islamism. And see those uber-liberal idiots who argue that it's all our fault and none of theirs, because they're somehow discriminated against by society (even though their parents who weren't born here don't feel the same way that they do).

And that means we should strive to be more of a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia and make life hell for their parents, too?

[Pannonian]

And that means we should strive to be more of a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia and make life hell for their parents, too?

I concur with that jihadist's dad who said his son was a traitor to his country (UK).

[Husar]

If there is any wrong in the world, it is the fault of the Anglo-Americans. Or so I keep getting told.

Not quite, the Americans used to be fine and noble people, it's just too bad that most of them were genocided and replaced by the Anglos.

[Montmorency]

No, @Greyblades, those images seem to be hosted on Reddit (or Reddit is an intermediary).

Long-standing ORG rules against hotlinking are that all posted images must be off your own bandwidth, whether the forum-provided attachment space or some third-party hosting site.

You're lucky I didn't condemn you to Beskar.