IMMIGRATION thread

[Montmorency]

And what do you base this on? I would put my money on nativism or some nebulous cultural maxim.

There is some intersection between what we said.

The 19th c. was driven by European states (and to some extent the US) transitioning to new economic modes while managing internal political activism and the export of ideology.

The 20th c. was about the maturation of super-populous industrial economies in need of resources and markets, the friction they experienced amongst each other as they developed weighty managerial states with both huge powers and huge obligations, and the sparking and steaming that resulted.

What we are seeing so far in the 21st c. is the genuine maturation of nationalism (which is ultimately inextricable from nativism) along increasingly fragmentary and incongruous lines, some being new and some being forged composites of ancient distinctions ...

And even this is but a subset of the 'pluralism saturation'. You see, there are too many identities coexisting at the moment, and in historical terms they are all absurdly powerful in the magnitude and scope of their expression, yet there is no clear way for one identity or its competing constituents (e.g. nerd, feminist, patriot, connoisseur, pervert...) to settle in amongst the rest; in other words, I'm drawing a parallel between national states bursting at the seams in the 20th c. on the way to establishing an international order.

So what we should see now is a culling of identities, including national identities. 'Everyone is queer' is not a stable circumstance, and we will see some kind of process of consolidation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nice to see the backroom still all about the "brown people creeeping up on us."

Immigrationroom imo.

The idea of "Brown People" is an American invention, it's not relevant to European prejudices.

You're too Americanised.

Anyway - we know now that 1,000 men, mostly recent arrivals seeking Asylum or illegals, assaulted several hundred German women. This is a big problem.

The answer is suggesting itself.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Putin is more Sallust than Augustus - he's also doomed.

Ms is a title for a female which doesn't reflect their married status. Thus, a marriage-neutral term, and it was used correctly in both circumstances. PFH was probably referring to the fact a 14-yr old cannot be married, and should be "Miss" anyway.

A girl should be "Miss" and not "Ms" - she's not an adult and should not be treated as such. Merkel should not have treated her as an adult.

[Montmorency]

Anyway - we know now that 1,000 men, mostly recent arrivals seeking Asylum or illegals, assaulted several hundred German women. This is a big problem.

Well, assuming the 30-odd detained suspects were representative of the mob, then we get mostly non-Syrians (primarily North Africans, Afghans, etc.), most of whom have been in Europe for at least a year. That's an important demographic distinction to acknowledge, if correctly-construed.

A girl should be "Miss" and not "Ms" - she's not an adult and should not be treated as such. Merkel should not have treated her as an adult.

No, it's iffy. Nowadays "Miss" is reserved for primary-school age girls or younger. It is not at all unusual to see an adolescent referred to as "Ms".

[Papewaio]

I think the model response is the one from Denmark in WWII. Where all where encouraged to wear the yellow Star of David.

However it might be difficult given the lack of wearing of religious symbols in the public service in France for a French politician to suggest doing this.

[Fragony]

Nothing can be done about it but I don't like this

edit, do like this lmao https://mobile.twitter.com/jellebc/status/687543213750616064/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

[Gilrandir]

Ms is a title for a female which doesn't reflect their married status. Thus, a marriage-neutral term, and it was used correctly in both circumstances. PFH was probably referring to the fact a 14-yr old cannot be married, and should be "Miss" anyway.

The titles (which grammatically are appositions) perform a differentiating/identifying function. For instance, Colonel Smith serves to differentiate him from Major Smith, His Highness is clearly different from His Majesty or His Excellency. Thus, titles presuppose at least a two member opposition. Calling any woman "Miss" cancels this opposition rule and doesn't differentiate the woman from others, so it becomes empty which is contrary to the funtion of the title.

You see, there are too many identities coexisting at the moment, and in historical terms they are all absurdly powerful in the magnitude and scope of their expression, yet there is no clear way for one identity or its competing constituents (e.g. nerd, feminist, patriot, connoisseur, pervert...) to settle in amongst the rest

If you mean that those identities can't coexist in one person, I don't think you are right. There is an idea of possible worlds (suggested by Leibnitz) which in one of its reading says that a person lives in different possible worlds: in one he is a father, in the second he is a teacher, in the third he is a son, in the fourth he is a husband, in the fifth he is a customer, in the sixth he is a lover etc. These epitomes don't exist simultaneously, one of them surfaces at a given moment (say, when you are spending time with your kids your are a father), while others "stand by". When you come to the office you stop being a father and your CEO epitome switches on. Curiously, different epitomes can be axiologically different - one may be a good CEO, but a bad father, a pleasant customer, but a horrible husband.

If we adopt this approach, the different identities you speak of may not be mutually exclusive - one can be a patriotic feministic nerd who is a connoisseur in pervert games.

[Montmorency]

The titles (which grammatically are appositions)

Appositions are something entirely different. Everything you said afterward is invalid.

If you mean that those identities can't coexist in one person, I don't think you are right. There is an idea of possible worlds (suggested by Leibnitz) which in one of its reading says that a person lives in different possible worlds: in one he is a father, in the second he is a teacher, in the third he is a son, in the fourth he is a husband, in the fifth he is a customer, in the sixth he is a lover etc. These epitomes don't exist simultaneously, one of them surfaces at a given moment (say, when you are spending time with your kids your are a father), while others "stand by". When you come to the office you stop being a father and your CEO epitome switches on. Curiously, different epitomes can be axiologically different - one may be a good CEO, but a bad father, a pleasant customer, but a horrible husband.

If we adopt this approach, the different identities you speak of may not be mutually exclusive - one can be a patriotic feministic nerd who is a connoisseur in pervert games.

What I was saying is that we are presently going through a period in which identity partisanship is intense in magnitude at the same time as there is a proliferation of identities that are similar in cultural importance and influence. What this means is that these identities, especially ones that explicitly conflict with each other, cannot settle easily into equilibrium as they are all too forceful with respect to each other. Furthermore, all of these identities are internally-riven with internecine contest over fundamentals. The world has never been more pluralistic, but the space for identities is too crowded, similarly to typical cases involving population groups/political units.

Think of how many cases we have today of Identity A partisans engaging in a vocal and public, even existential, struggle against partisans of other identities that they consider to be infringing or threatening their broad worldviews and ways of life. These identities are all very powerful in historical terms due to the confluence of population growth (i.e. more partisans), technological innovation (i.e. higher capacity to grow the identity convergently, divergently, or against other identities), and capitalist economics promoting an amenable environment (i.e. labor binds all identities together and lubricates the fault lines). On the other hand, partisans cannot find resolution as opposing identities are comparably powerful in the immediate circumstances. Identities do compete with each other (both within and across individuals), but multiple similarly-strong forces grinding against each other builds tension, so to put it simply we have:

1. Many identities
2. Many partisans
3. Limited capacity for identities in the current environment to dominate or decisively overwhelm each other.

So fear, anger, and other passion will continue to build up. Since the world wars powerful states have generally outsourced many of their powers to multinational corporations, and in return the corporations created an economic framework in which nations and states had incentive to focus on production and service above all else. Thus we see some people claiming that we have seen an unprecedented and perhaps permanent decline in violence and warfare. However, the modern economic framework has become badly frayed and people are left to focus on their identity partisanship and resistance against perceived hostile identities. An obvious outlet of that would be into nationalism and parochialism in general. Moreover, since it would be challenging for the economic and political orders to both recover and assuage tension between identities, the trend is really toward a 'meltdown' and subsequent stabilization. The most simplistic interpretation would be armed ethnic conflict leading to another round of large-scale wars in Europe and elsewhere, but the whole issue is further complicated by the fact that we cannot even begin to factor in the inevitable disruptive effects of climate change and new technologies...

I'm not going to comment on this thesis in the thread anymore - it's making me wince to read it.

[Fragony]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu...edName=topNews

oh look fascists

how wonderfully quaint

Yikes, here as well. I really don't aprove of this but I know who to blame, there's your multiculture.

Symbol is a skull, where did we see that before

[Gilrandir]

Appositions are something entirely different. Everything you said afterward is invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition

Apposition is a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side, with one element serving to identify the other in a different way. The two elements are said to be in apposition.

I may be wrong about many things, but the language (English in particular) is what I consider to be my special province.

However, the modern economic framework has become badly frayed and people are left to focus on their identity partisanship and resistance against perceived hostile identities. An obvious outlet of that would be into nationalism and parochialism in general.

If a nation has had its identity for quite a time, it (the nation) tends to grow acquisitive as to other identities. Thus the tendency towards internationalisation prevails. The nations who have been robbed of their identity and whose identities are in the state of shaping expose an opposite tendency - nationalism. In modern Europe both tendencies are evident within one supernational formation (the EU) which causes tensions were are witnessing.

[Montmorency]

I may be wrong about many things, but the language (English in particular) is what I consider to be my special province.

The article has no connection to anything you wrote. Which is why I pointed out that what you said was invalid...

[Gilrandir]

The article has no connection to anything you wrote. Which is why I pointed out that what you said was invalid...

If you didn't find any connection (though the definition of apposition was quite explicit), here's one more definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apposition

a grammatical construction in which two usually adjacent nouns having the same referent stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of a sentence (as the poet and Burns in “a biography of the poet Burns”)

Ms in Ms Merkel performs the same identifying function as poet in poet Burns. It is true that they identify the person according to a different criterion (marital satus in the former and occupation in the latter), but the type of criteria doesn't change its identifying/differentiating nature.

[Montmorency]

No. Not at all.

You said this:

The titles (which grammatically are appositions) perform a differentiating/identifying function. For instance, Colonel Smith serves to differentiate him from Major Smith, His Highness is clearly different from His Majesty or His Excellency. Thus, titles presuppose at least a two member opposition. Calling any woman "Miss" cancels this opposition rule and doesn't differentiate the woman from others, so it becomes empty which is contrary to the funtion of the title.

What you said has nothing to do with apposition as you have cited it. Moreover, what you said is invalid. Titles and honorifics (indeed, any noun phrase) denote something in themselves, and their usage is not predicated on the existence of similar-but-distinct phrases. If that were the case, then a sentence like "The entity Angela Merkel is leader of Germany today" would invoke a paradox. I think you may be confusing yourself with some kind of distortion of Saussure's claim that "in language there are only differences without positive terms".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, assuming the 30-odd detained suspects were representative of the mob, then we get mostly non-Syrians (primarily North Africans, Afghans, etc.), most of whom have been in Europe for at least a year. That's an important demographic distinction to acknowledge, if correctly-construed.

Apparently they have only detained 19 now. Nine are thought to be illegals, and irrc four or six of the remainder arrived since September last year.

Apparently this particular cultural behaviour has a name and was used in Egypt during the revolution. The fact that no Syrians were involved does not mean they do not pose a problem - just that they may not pose this problem.

To be clear - if you currently transplant a million Englishmen into Germany you'll have a problem too. We know this, in fact, because British Servicemen caused constant problems when they were garrisoned in Germany during the cold war, and the "Ex-Pats" cause constant problems for the Spanish.

No, it's iffy. Nowadays "Miss" is reserved for primary-school age girls or younger. It is not at all unusual to see an adolescent referred to as "Ms".

It's not iffy, an unmarried woman should be referred to a s "Miss", that's very clearly still the rule in the UK. Admittedly the practice of calling an unmarried man "Master" has mostly fallen out of favour but you still see it used. In the context of juveniles there's no reason to use "Ms" because you know they can't be married. Ms was invented for diverced women, so that people didn't have to tip-toe around asking if a woman in her forties was still married.

I would say use of "Ms" is pretty clear cut, in the UK at least, it denotes either a divorced woman or a woman who is married but has not changed her name. I have never seen an unmarried woman under the age of 30 use the title "Ms".

[Montmorency]

The fact that no Syrians were involved does not mean they do not pose a problem - just that they may not pose this problem.

The idea is to correctly diagnose the threads in the problem. Obviously it depends on what the particular argument is, but if it's that Syrian refugees pose an immediate criminal risk then it's not evidenced and at the very least we can hope there is time and room to work on averting it coming about.

I have never seen an unmarried woman under the age of 30 use the title "Ms".

It's almost universal here.

[Beskar]

I would say use of "Ms" is pretty clear cut, in the UK at least, it denotes either a divorced woman or a woman who is married but has not changed her name. I have never seen an unmarried woman under the age of 30 use the title "Ms".

My understanding is that, Ms was revived from an older form for mistresses due to feminist belief in representing that women should not be defined by their martial status. It is not to do with divorced or unchanged women, though they might choose to use this form of address. It is also a good title to use as you don't have to ask whether or not they are married to apply the 'correct term'. I also seen the title "Ms" in under 30 quite a lot, as many prefer it to "Miss".

Quick search shows this is supported by wikipedia definition too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's entirely possible that it's my social class and/or geographic location. Certainly, in the South of England Miss is still prevalent, certainly for juveniles, whilst Ms is used if you don't know the correct form of address - which might indeed be Ms.

Usage is generally as outlined, young women use "Miss" until married, after which they use Mrs if they take their husband's name of Ms is they don't - divorced women may or may not use Ms depending on whether they keep their husband's name.

My Cousin has seperated from her husband, she's actually gone back to "Miss" I believe.

[Sarmatian]

Yikes, here as well. I really don't aprove of this but I know who to blame, there's your multiculture.

Symbol is a skull, where did we see that before

And we should also blame the rape victim for wearing the short skirt, right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Husar]

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.

I feel like I've hardly ever seen anyone who wanted this type of multiculture and yet everybody here says we have it.
The lack of integration seems more like a long-standing political failure that was apparently never important enough for the public to make politicians do anything about it.
Even the most liberal people I know seem to think that immigrants should learn the language, not become criminals etc., they just embrace multiculturalism as a form of cultural exchange where you don't force all immigrants to dance the waltz but also learn the dances from their homeland instead or exchange painting techniques and other artsy stuff.

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. You get what you (repeatedly) vote for.
By the way, saving everyone's internet data did apparently not prevent it or maybe it was because noone mentioned a bomb when they coordinated this. Some already say the answer is more surveillance.

There was also a talk on TV where they mentioned that most of them were north africans (especially from Morocco). Their asylum papers had them down as Syrians but by now it seems clear they were pseudo-syrians. The theory that France has more muslim problems because they have more Moroccans and we have more Turks and Kurds was thrown around as well as the one that ISIS is mostly joined by people from Saudi Arabia and Morocco and other North African countries, Egypt and another one notably excluded as hotspots. So it appears that for some reason some countries that we use as tourists and that are safe because they are police states (let me guess, supported by us?) export the most violent migrants. Not to forget that we already have a whole lot of criminals from that area who probably gladly offer the newcomers to "show them around"... Couple that with completely inadequate laws where they can easily exploit our judicial system and it seems obvious that we slept for too long and now have to run behind them to catch up. I guess now we need to become police states, too.

[Beskar]

I feel like I've hardly ever seen anyone who wanted this type of multiculture and yet everybody here says we have it.

It is a strawman as it is easier to defeat the concept if you say that is the intention of it. I agree that failures in implementing the policy correctly has seen that result.

[Montmorency]

Do people still not realize that "multiculturalism" is a political football used from the 1950's on to convince native Europeans that 'you don't need to worry about all those foreigners we're importing, we don't have to include them in our society, they'll just be here to work and make us rich and then they'll return whence they came'?

It's much more a union of nativism and free market lobbying than any sort of leftist cosmopolitan impulse.

[Fragony]

You never respond to me anyway so I will just say that you are wrong

[Greyblades]

Do people still not realize that "multiculturalism" is a political football used from the 1950's on to convince native Europeans that 'you don't need to worry about all those foreigners we're importing, we don't have to include them in our society, they'll just be here to work and make us rich and then they'll return whence they came'?

It's much more a union of nativism and free market lobbying than any sort of leftist cosmopolitan impulse.

You never respond to me anyway so I will just say that you are wrong

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.

Considering this forum's standard of evidence and the nebulous-ness of the term are such that as far as we are concerned all of these statments may as well be simultaneously correct.

[Montmorency]

all of these statments may as well be simultaneously correct.

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 think most of your trouble comes from difficulty following along.

[Myth]

Today I crossed the border illegally and entered Saudi Arabia. On the way I threw away my identity card, issued by the police department of Burgas and I told the border patrol that I'm a refugee from Donbass who is looking for salvation from the terror of Putin. They believed me immmediately and put me on the train to Riyadh. They provided accomodations for me in a 3 star hotel, even though there was a 5 star hotel nearby and they told me that tomorrow they will provide a flat for me. On the morning they started apologizing that my moving in the new apartament will be delayed for an entire day. That infuriated me. I stomped on the food some teary eyed human rights activists brought to me, I splashed the water bottle in their faces, I vandalized the stupid hotel room and the couch and armchairs I threw directly out of the balcony. Some people on the street started yelling at me but the hotel manager told them that I have come from a war zone, that I bear in my soul the scars of war and that I have been deeply traumatized, and as such they have to show compassion and understanding. They bought it.

On Thursday they threw out an elderly arabian couple out of the flat provided to them by the municipality so that I may move in. The old folks had the audacity to protest against this so the police had to step in and now they will be tried for misdemeanor. I however, was greeted by children bearing boquets of flowers in front of the apartment building. 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.

On Friday a social worker visited me. He brought me a pamphlet with the first 10 amendments of the Arabic constitution, translated to my native ukranian tongue and he asked me if I need anything. "Tell that guy who keeps shouting every morning from the minaret to keep it down, he is interfering with my sleep" I told him and he diligently wrote it down. On Sunday I walked around to look at the local girls, but they were all wrapped tightly like mummies. I was enraged and on Monday I issued an offical complaint to the mayor. On the same day the principal of the local high school issued a proclamation towards the school girls to refrain from waring burqas, because they are hurting my feelings. He suggested that in the future they should dress witih tank tops and mini skirts, becasue my European culture demands that I look at breasts and thighs. This was made into a pamphlet and was issused to the parents so that they may infrom themselves and take action.

I also complained about the food to the social worker. Lamb is too greasy for my delicate stomach and beef is too tough and it wears out my teeth. I explained that I preffer tender pork - steaks, fillet or at the very least, rump. He promissed me that he would take action. Now all the kebab shops in the neighborhood have been instructed not to shove lamb so openly in my face so that they don't cause me distress.

It's not easy being a migrant! Now I had to drag myself 300 meters to get my social benefits - not even a full 2000 dollars! That threw me into a rage and I took it out on a school girl. "Why are you wearing a burqa you whore, I told you to wear a mini skirt!" I yelled at her. She had the audacity to talk back to me so I slapped her around a bit. I considered dragging her to the nearby bushes and raping her but when I thoguht how much work it would be to unwrap her from her clothes I gave up. I later learned that her brothers had issues with me slapping her around and they filed a complaint with the police and started collecting signatures against my person. The minister of internal affairs had to step in and defend me publicly on TV. "We have to be tolerant of the christians and we must hope that tomorrow, when they ar the majority in Saudi Arabia, they will show similar compassion for us." he stated.

This morning I told the social worker that I'm bored to death and I ordered him to get a move on and to organize some entertainment for me - a gay parade or something. He oggled me but I explained that we are living in the 21st century and that new values must be enforced. "Every marriage should be a same sex marriage and every man - a mother!" I stated matter-of-factly. I'm not sure he understood me, but he wrote it down.

After lunch some people from a social research company came over to interview me. I was honest and I told hem that I deeply despise the country which has sheltered me, but I have nothing against being fed and given wellfare. Not at all.

The issue with the school girl started gaining popularity again and the national television invited members of America for Saudi Arabia, Open Society and the Arabian Helsinki Commitee. They all agreed that I have been unjustly slandered and that my enemies are xenophobes, racists, facists, cannibals and christianophobes. Half of them have been raped by their fathers as children or they have slept with their mothers. I calmed down because I learned that only the scum of this society hates me and that the progressive part of it stands behind me. Today, the social worker asked me if I want to start working, but I replied that I still don't feel quite integrated yet, so I will stay on state benefits. True, it's only a mesely 2000 dollars but I'll have to endure!

[Gilrandir]

What you said has nothing to do with apposition as you have cited it. Moreover, what you said is invalid. Titles and honorifics (indeed, any noun phrase) denote something in themselves, and their usage is not predicated on the existence of similar-but-distinct phrases.

They do have their own meaning, but being used appositively they perfrom the function(s) I mentioned. If you deny that Chancellor in Chancellor Merkel is an apposition, I'm afraid it is you who run contrary to long-established grammatical traditions. Well, it is your call.

In the context of juveniles there's no reason to use "Ms" because you know they can't be married.

Maybe we should dig deeper and remember that it was used referring to a 14 year old MUSLIM girl - and in that culture females of this age are eligible for marriage. With that in mind the journalists may have been quite aware and indeed intentional of the word they used.

[Gilrandir]

Today I crossed the border illegally and entered Saudi Arabia. On the way I threw away my identity card, issued by the police department of Burgas and I told the border patrol that I'm a refugee from Donbass who is looking for salvation from the terror of Putin. They believed me immmediately and put me on the train to Riyadh.

They should have hired Sarmatian as a border guard. He can tell a Ukrainian from a Bulgarian by sight so you would have never been let in and it would have saved them all the trouble.

[Fragony]

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 think most of your trouble comes from difficulty following along.

Yeah it has everything to do with not being able to keep up, but maybe your orghan is broken

[Montmorency]

If you deny that Chancellor in Chancellor Merkel is an apposition, I'm afraid it is you who run contrary to long-established grammatical traditions.

Apposition is a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side, with one element serving to identify the other in a different way. The two elements are said to be in apposition.

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

[Pannonian]

Do you have a link to the source article?