Well as I see it.

[Tribesman]

It's an extreme example but a good one.

Is it ? other countries allow it , whats the big deal .
It is actually a good example of ignorance . Well done for bringing it up Oh sorry that wasn't your intention was it

Errrrrr...

Problem are the multicultists giving her the idea that she can, and sue the bar if they don't hire her.

a bar ?????that would be one of them places that sell alcohol isn't it . Why would someone who feels obliged to follow an extreme version of a religeous dress code apply for a job involving alcohol ?

[Fragony]

It is actually a good example of ignorance . Well done for bringing it up Oh sorry that wasn't your intention was it



a bar ?????that would be one of them places that sell alcohol isn't it . Why would someone who feels obliged to follow an extreme version of a religeous dress code apply for a job involving alcohol ?

Oh aren't you the zing-tiger, ok bad example stripclub then

[Rodion Romanovich]

The main problem is the immigration of non-refugees. It should be limited because:
1. it is known that there's a limited amount of refugees a country can host. This is very evident today, where it has already gone too far, because there are now neither jobs nor housing for most immigrants - we've past that limit. Thus, the limited number of positions we have, should be prioritized for those who truly need it - refugees.
2. foreign aid calculations demonstrate that you can help maybe 100-1,000 times more people, for the same amount of money, by sending foreign aid instead of taking immigrants to your country. Prioritizing foreign aid seems more fair.
3. those who move from their homelands are usually luck seekers. This is a very negative selection out of the population in their home countries. Luck seekers are the most ambitious, who, when failing, also turn into the most depressed and crime burdened. All ethnic groups on earth seem to have approximately the same risk of becoming criminals. But if you make a deliberate selection out of any population group, choosing the most desperate luck-seekers, you will end up with a rather despicable scum. There are many examples of immigrants who are great people, many of which I hold as dear friends, but there are too many selected by not so good measures, which drag the other - the good - immigrants down into the dirt with them, and who - compared to those who would be helped by a well-designed (and earmarked) foreign aid program - deserve this money less. When a bad selection of immigrants come to our countries, it becomes a great source not of tolerance, but of racism, where many tend to judge the foreigners who stayed at home the same as they judge the ghetto-isolated, unemployed, house-less immigrant who starts gang raping our local population girls.
4. massive immigration creates a heterogenous population. Now, if we are to keep majority democracy, it follows that when the immigrants become a majority, a party that wishes to let their culture and/or religious laws rule the country, will have a high risk of becoming the ruling party. This is essentially, more or less by definition, the equivalent to the foreign population conquering the country, though in an (comparatively) unbloody way. Do they have a valid claim for this land? I don't think so, considering that the reason they live on it is because the local population embraced them to help them. But also remember from #3, that it's not the best of the foreigners we embrace, but the worst of them. Will they be merciful and tolerant to thank for the help? Or will they be affected by the religious interest groups in our countries whose leaders preach murder, theft and gang raping of the local population?

In short, we can summarize it into two issues: 1. threat to the continued existence of our own culture and ethnic group, similar to the genocide of the North American Iindians, 2. in the cases where we wish to provide aid, we give it not to those who need it most, or those who deserve it most, but to those who deserve it least and need it least. The poorest foreigners could not afford the ticket to come to our countries. The most righteous and heroic of the foreigners could not leave their country, even in times of extreme misery, for they felt a need to stay to fight for its improvement.

[HoreTore]

The main problem is the immigration of non-refugees. It should be limited because:
1. it is known that there's a limited amount of refugees a country can host. This is very evident today, where it has already gone too far, because there are now neither jobs nor housing for most immigrants - we've past that limit. Thus, the limited number of positions we have, should be prioritized for those who truly need it - refugees.

Doesn't apply to every country you know, some of us have more jobs than people. And more than enough room...

4. massive immigration creates a heterogenous population. Now, if we are to keep majority democracy, it follows that when the immigrants become a majority, a party that wishes to let their culture and/or religious laws rule the country, will have a high risk of becoming the ruling party. This is essentially, more or less by definition, the equivalent to the foreign population conquering the country, though in an (comparatively) unbloody way. Do they have a valid claim for this land? I don't think so, considering that the reason they live on it is because the local population embraced them to help them. But also remember from #3, that it's not the best of the foreigners we embrace, but the worst of them. Will they be merciful and tolerant to thank for the help? Or will they be affected by the religious interest groups in our countries whose leaders preach murder, theft and gang raping of the local population?

You seem to think of immigrants as one group. Do you really believe that a guy from Nigeria and a guy from Iran has the same view of things? And do remember that refugees from islamic theocracies tend to be those hating it, not those loving it. If they loved their system, why would they want to leave? If they hate it, why would they want to have the system in their new home?

I work with too many foreigners in the socialist movement to ever consider them a political threat.

[Fragony]

Member of the Norwegian(lol almost typed national, that would have been unfortunate since I have no edit) movement or international socialists Horetore?

[HoreTore]

Member of the Norwegian(lol almost typed national, that would have been unfortunate since I have no edit) movement or international socialists Horetore?

Norwegian, I don't work with filthy foreigners.



But I don't see why things should be any different other places... A lot of Iranian immigrants for example, are communist refugees from either the Shah or the islamic revolution... A lot of islamic countries had a communist revolution thingy going in the 70's, and as all of them failed, they either had to flee to europe or get whacked...

[Fragony]

Just asking, these creeps from the international socialists are sometimes bouncing around on my university they creep me out.

Iranians, something about them. One of my heroes is from there. Yeah, having to run from socialism first and islam after that, toughens you up I guess

[Rodion Romanovich]

Doesn't apply to every country you know, some of us have more jobs than people. And more than enough room...

Norway perhaps, but I guess not many want to come there because of the cold and high mountains that block all the sunlight

You seem to think of immigrants as one group. Do you really believe that a guy from Nigeria and a guy from Iran has the same view of things?

This varies between countries, of course. But things such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have increased unity among muslims in a way that could be dangerous in the long term, seeing as most immigrants to European countries at the moment are muslims. The involvement of smaller military forces from a lot of different European countries, Spain for example, may potentially reinforce the disrespect and dislike from muslim immigrants to the local population. Just as George Bush can't see the difference between a good, harmless muslim, and a terrorist, there's a risk the muslims won't judge in a divinely inspired and 100% fair way. Plus: a lot of immigrants DO cooperate in certain political questions, for instance, many immigrants want all their relatives to come, so they cooperate against all attempts to decrease immigration. And that even though they know there aren't jobs or houses for many of those who come...

And do remember that refugees from islamic theocracies tend to be those hating it, not those loving it.

Quite interesting, a lot of those who come, who never wore burkah is there home countries, START wearing it when they come here. Many find out that they hate the country they came to and its people more than what they fled from.

If they loved their system, why would they want to leave?

There are many who come for more money, and rumors of not having to work but still get money.

If they hate it, why would they want to have the system in their new home?

They may flee from a Islamic dictatorship, but that doesn't mean they don't want an islamic democracy.

I work with too many foreigners in the socialist movement to ever consider them a political threat.

It is a threat, if you're not socialist, if all the foreigners are socialists. It is also an increasing threat, due to George Bush's policy in the Middle East. Finally, many of the socialist parties of Europe were the ones who created the mass immigration situation, so they can't admit it was a mistake without calling themselves idiots. Besides, I'm not talking about a threat towards the local population at present. At present, the only problems are the lack of housing, work and money to prevent the formation of ghettoes, give support to help integration and life strategy of the immigrants (learning the language to boost chances of jobs, and learn how the bueureaucracy works - I'd not mind going such a course myself btw), and have a strong enough police force to provide the other end (other than avoidance of crime by never letting the situation that makes someone become criminal arise) of fighting crime among newcomers. The serious threat towards ourselves will not really arise until in around 10-50 years from now, if the current policy of mass immigration continues. The problem is that the lack of recognition of the threat is preventing any changes in the current policy from happening, so 10-50 years is a much shorter time than it seems. To avoid either of the two dangerous scenarios (extinction or subjugation of the local population, or repression and persecution of one or more groups among the immigrants), the policy needs to be changed now. The level of mistrust between Europeans and immigrants is high, for instance due to the inability to avoid ghettoes and flourishing crime. Solving the crimes, and the economical and logistical problems, is necessary for both the local population and the immigrants, or there's a risk that either group or both will suffer tremendously in a not too distant future. The whole "I see no symptoms now, therefore the cause of later symptoms can't exist" is what has created most of the worst atrocies in the history of mankind. The only way to avoid it is to recognize the threat, and recognize the unwillingness and slowness of the system, which will prevent a rapid response to the problems once the symptoms become visible, and thus recognize that action has to be taken before it results in atrocies. The second step is to discuss the ethics of the situation, to decide which of the often multiple possible solutions to the threat should be chosen, and how a solution can be found that takes the interests and rights of all parts into account (rather than waiting until all become desperate and unable to think clear, so that they choose an unnecessarily brutal option), and the third step is to act. This process will take much longer than is healthy as it is. Denying the problem and pushing it ahead will make matters worse.

There is a lack of trust between the local population and the immigrants, caused by events which are not all causalities but to incorrect perceptions, but the lack of trust is enough to create a dangerous situation. When there's a situation of lack of trust, the trust must be guaranteed not by the trust in the other part's desire to act good, but in arranging it so neither part has the strength to hurt the other much, and definitely more to lose than to gain from trying to hurt the other part to reach some believed own goal. As long as there's a potential capability of hurting someone, mistrust is sound, as history has shown man to be a creature prepared to lose all respect of human value once she thinks she has strength enough to reach an egoistic goal by means of using brutality. I only trust those who have no reason to hurt me, no benefit from doing so, and barely the strength to succeed in it. I don't trust those who have reason to, benefit from, or strength to hurt me. Nor do I trust those who, in case events that I judge will take place in the future with very high probability, would suddenly end up in a situation where they feel they have reason to, benefit from, or strength to hurt me.

The key to peace is mutual trust, and that trust can not be gained from anything but real things being arranged in such a matter that cooperation is far more beneficial than competition. A mere belief in the goodness of another human being can take you far in avoiding war, but alas, it will also prevent you from reacting to an arising situation in which it becomes more beneficial to break the peace. I've experimented in many situations and found clearly that showing 100% open distrust toward another person, but skillfully arranging so it is always more beneficial to maintain peace than to fight, ALWAYS beat the option of showing great trust on the surface to encourage friendliness, while caring less about the real, abstract situation. So, contrary to common misconception, it's NOT the way you talk to each other and communicate, but the reality of the situation, and how you manage to arrange it by your talks, that matters.

In short, if two groups with very different political ideas and approximately equal strength/numbers are created, the situation will become a time bomb that will eventually explode. The only way countries can work is to have a majority cultural group whose majority position feels unthreatened both in the long and short term, so they have no reason to fear any of the minorities taking over their politics, and therefore have no reason to fight or repress them. In the few cases where some total maniac leader actually gets the idea to persecute a group, it can flee to another country or the country where their own group is in majority, because the immigration is kept low by default, allowing buffer space so that the country has some monetary reserves, free jobs, and houses for refugees when they need to come. Such is not a perfect system, but I haven't yet seen any alternative suggestion that works better for keeping violence, bloodshed, atrocities and other nasty things as uncommon as possible. For definition of "group", I use any entity that recognizes a set of ethical or political ideas which it isn't prepared to part from. That is usually a mix of religious, cultural, philosophical and scientific heritage. The most common example today I hear people complaining about (like Fragony - if I understood his posts on the subject correctly!) is that many Europeans don't want sharia, but a more secular form of law, and don't want their women to be forced to wear burkahs. They consider it VERY important that a sharia based party doesn't win the election, or that laws are passed that going outside without burkah is punishable by law. Similarly, a lot of muslims are opposed to anti-burkah laws such as those in France, and of women being pressured by mass media into wearing too tight and revealing clothes and being forced into being promiscuous. As both cultures have their merits and faults, the solution is not to try and subjugate either culture, but that there are places on earth for both cultures, and that all threats that one of these places will come under rule by the other culture is limited.

In short we need to prevent the situation where the immigrants have 3 times more children than the local population so they can become majority and subjugate the local culture which results in those who like the local culture not having anywhere to live where their culture is respected (preferably by decreasing immigration and increasing programs to send back immigrants whose home countries are safe again, but I fear future maniacs will as usual in history become desperate and prefer murder or racism-based birth control - typically these guys will be the sons and daughters of those short sighted people who advocated continued immigration), and by solving the logistical problems of being able to afford to prevent the formation of ghettoes and second degree citizens who turn into criminals and become hated by the rest of the population. The lack of integration risks creating a situation where hatred is directed towards the ghetto populations. Usually when that happens, the people make up some kind of non-causality such as race which they, in their lack of rationality, consider a good enough approximation of the set of individuals that they really dislike (which is usually a group defined by the fact that it carries out certain actions or hold certain opinions, which they for some reason consider unethical). It can be a race, a religion, or a culture, they choose as group to repress. Often the accuracy of their set approximation can lie below 10%, and when they have discussed "solutions" long enough, they forgot what the grouping was based on, and the accuracy in terms of who really deserved the treatment that ensues, goes lower than 1% or maybe 0.000001%... That situation can only be avoided by proper integration - NOW. In 10-50 years, it WILL be too late. I don't trust mankind to suddenly become more rational than it has ever been before in history.