IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

Poland is not ex-Soviet.

Yeah, well.

But it doesn't really matter. All of those have a far more ancient history than, say, the USA and their previous spell of independece was not that long ago. So their traditions of statehood (especially the Baltic ones) had just to be restored.

From an organisational point of view, there doesn't have to be much difference at all between regaining independence and establishing it.

Islam (as well as any religion in any post-Soviet state) isn't really that important in secular Middle-Asian countries. And except for it Arabs won't have anything in common with the Turkic (in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan) or Iranean (in Tadjikistan) population with their own unrelated languages and different cultures. Besides, there is a sizable Slavic population (especially in Khazakhstan) who will have still less in common (and will consequently display less welcoming attitude) with the would-be immigrants than the locals of other ethnicities.

This is beside the point, as should be obvious when I just wrote that Syrians ≠ Kazakhs. The point is that Syria has something in common with Kazakhstan, namely Islam as the dominant religion (Syria is/was a relatively secular state, anyway).

In non-Muslim Europe, there is even less in common. Still no language, still no ethnicity - and no religion, in common. There's almost nothing. In Kazakhstan, there is something; something not insignificant.

That's a rather low bar, isn't it?

Given the context, it isn't. We could set the bar so high that no existing country would qualify; but there would be no point in that, either.

Religion is not the key here. Inasmuch as they would be quicker or more likely to integrate, it would be because of, for instance, similar institutional culture and economic development. Indonesia is Muslim but it is demonstrably easier for Europeans to assimilate in Indonesia than it is for most continental Muslims.

Any group with a high level of education (relative to the rest of the world) could integrate almost anywhere. Assimilation is another matter.

I have never heard of Europeans assimilating in Indonesia; could you elaborate?

They could not have accomplished in Libya what they did in Syria.

Bold statement. There are many scenarios I don't think you are giving serious consideration. Returning to this below.

There are also a lot of inter-state projects that will aim to further unify the GCC as an economic force

Will this prove adequate to bribe the population from having political opinions?

All a sham

Not a sham, but the militias had most of the brute force power; not any government institution, including the military.

All the weapons are in Islamist hands since NATO got involved.

That's certainly not the case, but even a milder version of this statement is likely to be inaccurate, at best.

Turkey had a lot to do with it and the weapons fell into Islamist hands anyway with or without foreign training of these militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wo...ands.html?_r=0

They were Islamists right from the get-go and have been infesting eastern Libya for years with pent-up aggression for the regime. LIFG and AQIM affiliates/admirers saw the spring as an opportunity to hijack everything mid-revolution rather than Egypt’s post-revolution hijacking. These are armed Islamists that were trained by Turkey and funded by pretty much everyone including ksa and qatar. Everyone turned against Ghaddafi in support of Islamist militias that were entrusted with regime change.

Then blame these countries for the arming, not NATO in general. One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.

Ghaddafi could have cracked down on these movements if not for nato advocating total regime change, as if anything can possibly be guaranteed in a movement filled with affiliates of known transnational jihadi movements.

Gaddafi didn't manage to prevent half of the country from slipping out of his control in the first place - without any foreign intervention. The faith in this deluded narcissist seems rather misplaced.

Actually, ISIS is already in multiple fronts including yemen, sinai, tunisia, algeria, and libya.

Yes, they have smaller presences there. Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory, and the original war in Libya kept going on in parallel to IS' growth in Syria. IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner; now IS doesn't have much to offer in Libya in comparison.

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

[Montmorency]

I have never heard of Europeans assimilating in Malaysia; could you elaborate?

The Dutch language in Indonesia died shortly after independence. In fact, there is no longer a native ethnic-Dutch population in Indonesia. This is not the case simply because some native ethnic-Dutch left the region after the war and independence. It is because they mixed and assimilated so thoroughly that they simply stopped passing on their Dutch language and culture within a single generation.

Admittedly, the role played by population proportions is large. After independence, only a few tens of thousands of "full-blooded" Dutch remained in the long-term. There were already some hundreds of thousands of Indo-Dutch (i.e. "mixed"), but their assimilated identity had already been forming for centuries. Nevertheless, it is one of a few notable cases of entire European colonial populations 'going native', so to speak.

IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner

They could do that in Libya, even though they never even accomplished it in Syria - their backyard?

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

Islamists and jihadists have and have had a relatively-negligible presence in Libya. The conflict there is far more tribal than even one such as Syria's.

[Fragony]

Dutch language died because almost all were killed, read up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bersiap

bwana blanka, white monkey

[AE Bravo]

Will this prove adequate to bribe the population from having political opinions?

No. But then you have Jordan.

Not a sham, but the militias had most of the brute force power; not any government institution, including the military.

Before they started getting funded by nato? No. When you arm islamists you best believe they’re gonna run with it forever. In Libya everyone and their dog knew who's boss as soon as it happened - Islamists, taking over your neighborhood and telling you its time to atone for the country's sins.

That's certainly not the case, but even a milder version of this statement is likely to be inaccurate, at best.

Islamists were the most organized armed groups, they were trained in turkey, and had the support of nato and its lackeys. Denying that this is a failed NATO operation is laughable at this point.

Then blame these countries for the arming, not NATO in general. One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.

NATO in general. they wanted Gaddafi out:

1. Saudi Arabia always had a personal grudge, he hurt their pride. This was a dictator that was a huge threat to Iran, so for Saudi to cater to Iranian interest is a sign of imprudence and nato exploited this utter lack of political pragmatism by funding wahhabi islamists that al saud perpetuates. Here's an eerily foreshadowing verbal example of said grudge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYY_ws6axKo

2. You forget no-fly zones, BOMBING a sovereign state, publicly advocating for the removal of a sovereign, and arming of local insurgents and/or creating a situation where your weapons would fall into insurgent hands. NATO was at war with a regime and had a tactical alliance with islamist insurgents. Bashar Al Assad opposed this intervention might i add, despite his Iranian allies he recognized the aggressiveness of Turkey and Saudi, who have been constantly empowering Islamism in the region.

3. Those weapons made a huge difference just like the airstrikes made a huge difference. What also made a huge difference was the decision to internationally condemn qaddafi without highlighting the impending Islamist threat that oozed from this “revolution.” A sovereign was betrayed and on what basis that concerns any nato member or any other arab country?

Yes, they have smaller presences there. Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory, and the original war in Libya kept going on in parallel to IS' growth in Syria. IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner; now IS doesn't have much to offer in Libya in comparison.

Uniting Libyans? I don’t see any of this happening. You have to understand that Libya is a different animal.

Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.

Even if western media would still fail by showing these Islamists as freedom fighters it wouldn’t be a complete state of emergency with the regime being targeted domestically and internationally. When the president comes out and says “you have to go,” the political implications of that are dangerous as hell and you’ll find your neighbors start clowning on you/kicking you while your down until you fall. The west empowered these movements you're overestimating their influence prior to that.

Nonsense.