IMMIGRATION thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...0visits%20gulf

So she visited the UAE - that's not Saudi Arabia.

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet - I don't think there's really any real argument you can put up against that. The fact that she, by convention, will rarely exercise that power is another matter.

I have a feeling the majority went to school in Saudi Arabia or regularly go to wahhabi-funded mosques. There is a distinction between the gulf and Saudi Arabia, different regimes. Oman doesn't care about which sect you belong to, you pray in the same place as shias whether you're a sufi or sunni. UAE is a federation that has cracked down on the brotherhood back in 2011 and is known to oppose Islamist movements or any prospect of wahhabism in the country, we were at war with wahhabis some 60-80 years ago along with Oman. Kuwait isn't known to spawn these people, Bahrain is a Shia-majority so certainly not either.

The gulf takes control of their Islamic institutions and monitor their mosques. Whatever type of people those mosques produce are generally a reflection of the state's worldview, and what you are witnessing in the UK is Saudi-Wahhabi zeal at its finest. Your mosques belong to them.

You are, indeed, correct that we have a big problem with Saudi funded Mosques here, it's taken a few decades but the government here has finally grasped the nature of the problem.

My point, though, and it may not be as apparent in the UAE where there are so many wealthy cities, is that there's a substrate in the Gulf, the Levant, and even in Turkey which when asked to vote will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood or someone reading from the same book. I think it's entirely wrong to write this off as a Saudi problem, if it was IS would have no traction.

I don't know why the steps being taken to solve these issues aren't covered, locals speak about this often and nationals are actually ashamed of this, it's a serious issue. This doesn't change the fact that Dubai is a model for Arabs, that's why it's such a diverse city.

The Emir of Dubai is an absolute monarch and one of the most wealthy individuals in the world, but he has allowed Indian workers to live in shipping containers - and the same is going on in neighbouring Qatar. I knoe steps are being taken to address the issue but the issue should be fixed by now, or it should never have got that way to begin with.

On paper it's supposed to be sharia, conservative Arabs and Muslims might hate Dubai. I was there a few weeks ago and kissing is a minor offense, but pda/public sex can lead to deportation. Homosexuals aren't executed, that is a lie.

Well, having sex in public might get you locked up here, too.

As far as I'm aware the legal code in Dubai proscribes death for homosexual acts, whether people are often prosecuted or not is another matter. Until around 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country but rarely prosecuted, when the government started to crack down in the 50's and 60's there was a public backlash and the law was changed.

See you say these things but there really isn't that much negativity to say about Dubai itself. I can list all of UK's shortcomings and that will blow it out of the water but I understand it. Also because I've actually been to the UK.

Aside from the oppressive legal system, the absolute monarch, the dependence on oil-wealth, the criminalisation of homosexuality and the treatment of foreign labourers, you mean?

I hear it's a great place if you have money and hell on Earth if, as a foreign worker, you lose your job and don't have enough money to pay your debts.

[Husar]

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet - I don't think there's really any real argument you can put up against that. The fact that she, by convention, will rarely exercise that power is another matter.

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

[Papewaio]

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

[AE Bravo]

Papewaio - you're right about the queen long live the sweet old lady :) . All I'm saying is Al Saud currently enjoy more power, both actual power and soft power. This monarchy greenlit the establishment of US bases that enabled the war in Iraq, that is power. To create wars and fund Islamists without other heads of states uttering so much as a word in disapproval. Net worth and the current demand for oil make these guys more important than the queen. Queen does not have actual political power why overcomplicate things... Nobody cares about her potential power.

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet

This is pointless so agree to disagree. Queen is lovely though and much appreciated for paying respects for the best Arab leader ever the benevolent founder of the UAE in the grand mosque. Very classy and no Arabophobia or Islamophobia or mosquephobia see ;)

Cultured lady who travels, you should try it.

My point, though, and it may not be as apparent in the UAE where there are so many wealthy cities, is that there's a substrate in the Gulf, the Levant, and even in Turkey which when asked to vote will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood or someone reading from the same book. I think it's entirely wrong to write this off as a Saudi problem, if it was IS would have no traction.

I have to agree with ole Bashar that isis would not have existed without Abdul Wahhab. The Muslim Brotherhood has a very inconsistent ideology and body of work that can appeal to anyone, that's why they're ridiculous. Their earlier texts differ from now but Wahhabism and MB are both revivalist movements. These are regressive Islamic disciplines adopted by the ignorant.

I knoe steps are being taken to address the issue but the issue should be fixed by now, or it should never have got that way to begin with.

Agreed.

As far as I'm aware the legal code in Dubai proscribes death for homosexual acts, whether people are often prosecuted or not is another matter. Until around 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country but rarely prosecuted, when the government started to crack down in the 50's and 60's there was a public backlash and the law was changed.

Yeah I just don't see it. Not that it matters at all (or made a difference) these anti-homosexual laws were put in place initially by colonial British. Other than that it's normal to see gays out of the closet. Some holding hands in the mall not giving a shit, some related to me, and I know for a fact that every tribe has got to have at least more than one gay person in the family. I'd say this is true for Kuwait more prominently and even Bahrain lesser extent. But you are right about the official law, we are expected to maintain some Sharia as this clearly conflicts with Islam. If it was once okay in Lebanon maybe it will be here.

Maybe you should shift your attention towards homosexuality in Russia, seems more serious even though it's not really a religious grudge. That makes it worse.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.

Like someone mentioned above they didn't.

Initial point was that you cannot call something a victory for liberal interventionism and then proceed to blame the mess on Libyans. You cant invade a country and expect to be absolved of the effects of your interference. By violating the sovereignty of the state nato had dealt a huge blow to regional security. Those tuareg fighters went straight back to mali with the weapons they looted, same with boko haram. Gaddafi had better arms but britain, france, and the us couldn’t help but get involved in the sahel for some reason. Militia leaders in Libya were charged with filling the security vacuum and they had much to loot from nato leftovers.

The fact is either nato were willingly supporting islamists or these militias fooled them by publicly praising the interventionists. Even if an islamist thanks you, his ideology wants its boot up yours. Islamists were previously neglected but they were legitimized by foreign countries.

I wish eu countries would just stop listening to the usa in ME affairs. The usa has a history of overstretched imperialism, imprudent and short-sighted policies mixed with humanitarian militarism bs that lacks any commitment to nation-building. Iran is just so much more pragmatic and prudent than all these countries combined it’s funny. if you can’t handle the costs of restoration DONT INTERVENE.

Of course now that the coalition airstrikes are aimed at iraq and syria these jihadists of various stripes are settled in libya with their own lovely political environment. Lets check up on them a few years from now isis might pale in comparison.

[Husar]

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

[Montmorency]

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?

[AE Bravo]

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?

Can the queen send regular forces anywhere?

[Montmorency]

Well, she already is.

[Papewaio]

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

[Fragony]

Another major fight in a German asylum centre, the thermaphysisists didn't agree with the other physitions apparently, eye-surgions and mathematitions joined in this highly sensative scientific debate.

[Husar]

The power of war lies in the hands of the queen, Parliament is incapable of issuing a declaration without royal concent.

Though keep in mind that Britain hasn't actually declared war since the 40's.

The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

But then how is Britain a democracy as PVC said, if an unelected monarch gets the last say on all the important things?
It sounds like eating your cake and having a fine wine with it.

[Montmorency]

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic?