A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

Gennaro · 2004-08-10 16:10:53

The only "war on terror" worth fighting is a demographic one. But since I don't see the United States shutting off immigration from the mid-east and north Africa, I can only conclude it doesn't take the war it says it's fighting that very seriously.

La douce France:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_t … rians.html

This isn't some isolated symptom. After a gang rape in Sweden that for some reason got the attention of the media (actually some 40 of these are carried out every year in Stockholm for a population of about 1 million), the following comments, made by people of foreign descent, could be read in the national newspapers ("Dagens Nyheter" 11 feb 2000):

"If I'd rape a girl I'd rape a Swedish girl."
"It's not equally wrong to rape a Swedish girl as an Arabian one."
"I haven't got so much respect for Swedish girls."
"The only thing that happens if you rape a Swedish girl is that you'll have to talk to some social woman" [meaning social offial].

Now, as US citizens you may ask, what's this got to do with us? Well, you are making wars in the native countries of these people and, if nothing drastic has happened rather lately, you allow a considerable number of their citizens into the States every year. If you are afraid of terrorist acts how does such a policy conform to current immigration practices?
Besides, the PC-forces that for decades have been advocated liberalized immigration into the United States are identical to the ones having suceeded so brilliantly in pressing it through in nearly every European country.

Trebuchet · 2004-08-10 16:57:53

Two reasons:

One, immigrants to the US are overwhelmingly from other areas in the Americas or from Europe, China, India, and Japan. Our immigrant sources are much different than Europe's.

Two, people who commit those kinds of crimes in the US tend to meet a violent end, either on the streets, from the courts, or in prison.

In reality, this "demographic terrorism" is a far more pressing problem for Europe than for the US. If you are having immigrant troubles in Europe, try changing things at home.

Gennaro · 2004-08-10 18:02:06

In reality, this "demographic terrorism" is a far more pressing problem for Europe than for the US. If you are having immigrant troubles in Europe, try changing things at home.

I'm not saying this isn't true and, yes, I would certainly like to do so if I could.

Yet it could also be valuable to understand that when the war in Iraq isn't popular in say, France, it's not because people have a glorified view of Muslims or Islam (well, outside the political and media establishments that is). Rather, it's because constant meddling in the mideast and imperialist crusades for democracy, oil or whatever appear frivolous and wanton since they appear to potentially merely aggreveate an already unstable situation.

Frenhmen generally don't hate you, but many Europeans find you ill-advised.

If "we" can't even refrain from interfering in their domestic matters, how can "we" stop them from feeling justified in interfering with ours?

Okay, space provided for bashing European incompetence, military weakness, immorality and general inability to take care of our own problems here: _

Palomar · 2004-08-10 18:52:54

Now, as US citizens you may ask, what's this got to do with us? Well, you are making wars in the native countries of these people and, if nothing drastic has happened rather lately, you allow a considerable number of their citizens into the States every year. If you are afraid of terrorist acts how does such a policy conform to current immigration practices?
Besides, the PC-forces that for decades have been advocated liberalized immigration into the United States are identical to the ones having suceeded so brilliantly in pressing it through in nearly every European country.

*I agree with you Gennaro. You're right; it doesn't make sense. Now we hear reports of worrying about terrorists immigrating who are NOT native to the Middle East.

I do have a question, however. Something I honestly do not understand.

Why does Europe -- particularly some portions of Europe -- have this dilemma about immigration?

In the United States it is next to impossible to raise the issue without a lot of emotion. The Native Americans (aka "Indians") were here first of course: Hundreds of tribes. Europeans came conquering. Africans were brought here as slaves. So it is tremendously difficult in the U.S. to raise the issue because everyone BUT the Native Americans are immigrants (willingly or forced) since 1492.

However, as we know: Swedish, Norweigan, Irish, Scottish, English, German, Polish, French, Danish, etc., etc., etc. peoples are -the- Natives to those areas. The tribes of the Celts, Gauls, Picts, Jutes, Saxons, Angles, Nords, Teutonic peoples are native to those regions, i.e. they were there first. And not all European nations were involved in the nasty colonization business of the 16th through 19th centuries nor did all of these European nations partake in the slave trade.

I don't understand the "where" and "why" of the guilt induction your countrymen face nor how this is an issue for some European nations especially. It seems like altruism and appeasement run amok. But of course I don't know, which is why I ask.

--Cindy

Trebuchet · 2004-08-10 20:22:17

If "we" can't even refrain from interfering in their domestic matters, how can "we" stop them from feeling justified in interfering with ours?

Well, that seems simple enough. We can't. However, we can stop them from interfering. That's merely a question of power and will, no philosophizing needed.

BWhite · 2004-08-10 21:54:23

If "we" can't even refrain from interfering in their domestic matters, how can "we" stop them from feeling justified in interfering with ours?
Well, that seems simple enough. We can't. However, we can stop them from interfering. That's merely a question of power and will, no philosophizing needed.

But unless we establish a consensus (within the US) about doing what you suggest - - we will prove unable to sustain such a policy indefinitely.

Besides, our leaders go to great pains to say that the policy you describe is not our official policy.

Trebuchet · 2004-08-10 22:23:41

See my first post in this thread.

But if we were facing what Gennaro was facing, it would come up and have politcal legs. We're not, so it doesn't.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 05:57:27

Gennaro raises a very good point, one that it's high time we began having a very serious and sometimes loud discussion over. Certainly the situation in Europe is worse than here in this regard, Europe is often about a decade ahead of us in these sorts of ill-advised policies, not to mention that European nations have much smaller populations and are therefore easier to make a large impact on.

But on both continents we are allowing, sometimes encouraging representatives of a hostile and alien culture to live among us while making no effort to assimilate them, in fact bending over ourselves to accomodate them.

But there are several ways we can handle this. We can completely disengage from the politics of the MidEast and North Africa (assuming we replace that bubblin' crude) and completely close our borders to immigrants from the region. Brown man need not apply. I personally don't like this idea, as I've known many muslims who are not raping jihadist swine and to follow such a course would only build chaos and resentment in those countries, postponing the day when we must fight them. Though it would sure make airport security easy wouldn't it...

Another approach involves three main factors. Tightening the flow of immigrants from the region, actively working to assimilate them into our culture (no more welfare applications in Arabic) and working to mold that culture in its homelands, a process involving many angles on its own, only rarely resorting to military force.

Fighting terrorists and terrorist states in the MidEast is part of the problem. Managing our own transplanted population is another. Neither can work alone. At any rate, we in the West need to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and apologizing to the world every time some transplanted Muslim hoodlum rapes a Swedish, French, English, Australian, American, etc girl. I don't particualrly give a rats ass if it's permissable under their culture to violate an infidel woman, in my culture those are grounds for life in prison if the family of the victim doesn't get to the perp first and hide the mangled body parts in a municipal waste disposal facility after a severe 'discussion' with baseball bats and razorblades. In these cases as in terrorism, we are dealing with people who do not respect our culture, our lives, our very existence. In both cases we'll need a mix of assimilation and brutal elimination.

bolbuyk · 2004-08-11 06:23:57

"If I'd rape a girl I'd rape a Swedish girl."
"It's not equally wrong to rape a Swedish girl as an Arabian one."
"I haven't got so much respect for Swedish girls."
"The only thing that happens if you rape a Swedish girl is that you'll have to talk to some social woman" [meaning social offial].

In the Netherlands, I see also some Muslims (not all) show an astouningly low respect for 'european' (meanly blond) females. I cannot imagine this is totally apart from the religious ideas. What I consider really flabbergasting is that left-winged politicians, who consider in most cases the equal rights of men and women important, also try the most to defend and even promote the development of Islam. OK, freedom of religizion is very important, but the problems existing between this point and the ideas about women need more. At that point, I think it's right France decided to forbid something on the head on schools. It's quite symbolic, maybe even not 'really' freedom, but I think concessions have to be made to prevent nasty visions on women.

Gennaro · 2004-08-11 07:30:38

Cindy, I'll try to formulate a reply and get back to you as soon as I can. Merely because I think it's such an interesting issue all by itself, but it's also a very complicated one. I need time to think it through or else there's a risk I'll just ramble on and on without possibly ever reaching the core of the problem.

Cobra, I don't see what's the problem with simply building a huge wall around that region and let them get along as best they wish. What are they going to do without western countries feeding them technology and sophisticated weaponry? There is nothing there but sand. We are talking about a culture that hasn't contributed to the advance of civilization since at least the middle ages and even then it primarily forwarded the discoveries of others. Moreover, this tended to happen in conflict with orthodoxy. Only in decadence could they create. Islam is that stultifying.
Iraq was only a military power because 'the west' wanted them that way, for example in the 80's. They couldn't design a single artillery shell on their own.

About immigration. We don't need these people for the well being of our society and neither do you. Refugees (I mean the real kind), of course you can give shelter to them, but it's part of the nature of being a refugee that as soon as trouble stops at home you lose that status. It's logical to return home, but nowhere in the western world has the concept of repatriation seemingly even occured to decision makers.

If they want to cast off the Islamic yoke and get into the game, like Egypt, Iraq and a number of countries have tried to do at various points last century and before, that's perfectly fine by me. We can even offer our assistance. Secular development is the best remedy against terrorist breeding in the long run anyway, but they'll have to do it themselves for themselves.
Not least because of the cold war, such efforts were often shattered in the past, but the cold war is no longer.
What does it help them if we continue interfering in their affairs, regard their natural resources as ours and imposing Mc Demonald's on them while simultaneously robbing them off their intelligence reserves (which is the only type of immigrants that would have a chance of contributing to the west anyway).
Those guys are needed back home, not here.

I cannot imagine this is totally apart from the religious ideas.

Neither can I. We see this pattern repeating over and over in various countries. It can't all be due to social factors (our fault). There must be some relation to religion and culture that mainly is at work here.
Yet the bottomline is that to me it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Unless they are actual refugees, there is simply no reason for us accepting them moving here in the first place.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 07:42:11

Gennaro raises a very good point, one that it's high time we began having a very serious and sometimes loud discussion over. Certainly the situation in Europe is worse than here in this regard, Europe is often about a decade ahead of us in these sorts of ill-advised policies, not to mention that European nations have much smaller populations and are therefore easier to make a large impact on.
But on both continents we are allowing, sometimes encouraging representatives of a hostile and alien culture to live among us while making no effort to assimilate them, in fact bending over ourselves to accomodate them.
At any rate, we in the West need to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and apologizing to the world every time some transplanted Muslim hoodlum rapes a Swedish, French, English, Australian, American, etc girl. I don't particualrly give a rats ass if it's permissable under their culture to violate an infidel woman, in my culture those are grounds for life in prison if the family of the victim doesn't get to the perp first and hide the mangled body parts in a municipal waste disposal facility after a severe 'discussion' with baseball bats and razorblades. In these cases as in terrorism, we are dealing with people who do not respect our culture, our lives, our very existence. In both cases we'll need a mix of assimilation and brutal elimination.

*I can't help wondering, particularly as Europe goes, if it'll prove the first time in history -- or one of the rare times in history -- when a civilization and culture ALLOWS itself to be overtaken. :-\

As for the rape thing: Any civilization/culture which seeks to excuse and appease the immigrant criminal at the expense of the native victim...that's beyond pathetic. If men won't help to protect the women of their clan...well, need I comment more?

It's a pretty sorry people (here or in Europe) who would jeopardize the freedoms and human rights we enjoy, especially in the context of some absurd sort of appeasement (which is nothing short of cowardice).

If immigrants don't like their new home they can always turn around and go back. Assimilate or go home.

And to say "It's not equally wrong to rape a Swedish girl as an Arabian one" is RACISM pure and simple. They're so quick to scream and cry "racism" -- well, that charge can certainly go both ways.

Another concern is (in the U.S. anyway) some Arab leaders seeming to wish to identify with African-Americans. I don't recall ever hearing of Arabs being dragged over here on slave ships. Those sorts are doing what they can to further antagonize the issue of White Man vs Brown/Black Man.

There certainly HAS been a lot of wrong and injustices in the past...but I'll be damned if I'm willing to forego my freedoms and rights, or be bullied into submission by hostile racists with a cultural agenda, because of it.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Forgot to mention: Last week on Bill O'Reilly, a Muslim academician was interviewed, who is also an American. I didn't catch his name, but the interview/info is probably at O'Reilly's web site. This Muslim American is integrated, values American ideals, etc. O'Reilly asked him to give an approximation (opinion, based on his familiarity) of how many (percentage-wise) Muslims -- here in the U.S. and globally -- would like to see all nations under Islamic theocratic rule. He estimated 50% would like to see all democratic nations overthrown and under a theocratic Muslim government.

Of course there are plenty of Christians out there who'd also like to establish a theocratic-based gov't. No thanks to any rule by religion.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 08:27:30

Cobra, I don't see what's the problem with simply building a huge wall around that region and let them get along as best they wish. What are they going to do without western countries feeding them technology and sophisticated weaponry? There is nothing there but sand.

And oil. Unfortunately, we in the West need copious amounts of it, and they're sitting on a huge pool of it. In a way, I'd rather use up theirs first. But that's where our main interest in the region lies.

But a wall only goes so far. They've already demonstrated that they don't need to make sophisticated weaponry, their greatest success (in attacking the 'West' ) utilized our own machines. Very much a parasitic enemy, rather than a truly formidable, external adversary. If we wall them in, they'll breed hate and anger toward us until the day when they break free from sheer numbers and try to drag us down. We have three possible outcomes here: We can change them to be more like us, they can overwhelm us and the survivors will be more like them, or we can wipe them out. Simply segregating them to their little corner of the world and pretending they no longer exist is not a viable long-term solution.

Iraq was only a military power because 'the west' wanted them that way, for example in the 80's. They couldn't design a single artillery shell on their own.

To reinforce my previous point, we made certain nations military powers for the purpose of fighting other opposing interests in the region. As Westernized military powers the Arab states are a dismal failure, they only compare favorably to each other. It is when the fighting becomes asymmetrical and they resort to parasitic tactics that they can have true successful attacks, which even then lack any real prospects for a victory since causing damage is an end unto itself, not a means to an end. The warfare we are used to is the employment of violence to achieve specific ends. What we are facing now is more like a culture exhibiting psychotic behavior. In some cases we can 'treat' it, in others we'll need more drastic means.

About immigration. We don't need these people for the well being of our society and neither do you. Refugees (I mean the real kind), of course you can give shelter to them, but it's part of the nature of being a refugee that as soon as trouble stops at home you lose that status.

I agree that "refugee" has become another term for "immigrant" for practical purposes. And no, we don't need immigrants from these parts of the world. As developed nations we don't need immigrants at all when you get down to it. But what sort of society do we want to be, is the question. In America, immigration is a cornerstone of who we are. Perhaps wrongly revered now that the bulk of immigration is no longer from European nations. The major difference here now is that when we once expected immigrants to assimilate and they wanted to, we now conform to those who do not wish to be Americans, but to recreate the place they left here. It's really kind of sick, and we have our own dementia that plays into it.

Europeans must choose their own way and I'd say they would certainly be justified in saying "no more," but as for America I would say that we can afford to let people from all corners of the globe come here, but only if they truly plan to live here. Not just reside here while trying to recreate what they've left behind.

*I can't help wondering, particularly as Europe goes, if it'll prove the first time in history -- or one of the rare times in history -- when a civilization and culture ALLOWS itself to be overtaken. :-\

I don't think so, simply because... people of European descent are capable of valiant fighting and truly horrific acts against an enemy, as history well shows. Things will get pushed much farther than they are at present, but a breaking point will be reached. Much of the best elements of our culture may well die or become dormant in this, however. If current trends are allowed to go too much farther, it will get very ugly for a generation. Better to deal with these hard issues now, before it comes to that.

As for the rape thing: Any civilization/culture which seeks to excuse and appease the immigrant criminal at the expense of the native victim...that's beyond pathetic. If men won't help to protect the women of their clan...well, need I comment more?

Damn right. Such people are beyond contempt in my estimation.

What it really comes down to on both sides of the Atlantic (and Australia as well) is that addressing these issues doesn't mean we have to become Nazis. We can be free, open and inclusive and still preserve our culture. We can be tolerant and still have rules. Just because someone else's values are different than ours doesn't mean that we're wrong, particularly in our own lands!

clark · 2004-08-11 08:59:46

Europe isn't America. We have vastly different histories, and experiences. But I digress...

I subscribe to a basic premise, a man is a man, no matter his skin color, his god, or his language. Some are good men, some are bad. Look to your own prisons and you will see the common denominator among those who have committed violent crime is their level of intelligence, and their socio-economic background. Basically, their lack of choice and opportunity that causes them to turn towards violence.

One, the people that immigrate to our country, legally, who naturalize, they have to learn our history. They have to be proficient enough to pass a test in English (Cobra, I suggest you do your homework), and they have to agree to the basic underlying principles of our society.

After all of that, guess what, they get to go live their life as they choose. Not as you or I may choose, but their own choice. If that means they celebrate strange holidays or observe weird things, so much the better. I routinely paint hard boiled eggs every year and pretend an imaginary bunny hides them. Whose crazy?

Now, I see talk of integration and assimilation, and you know what, that would be great. But I doubt any of you have the stomach for what that would require. It would require the subsidization and forced integration of entire neighborhoods.

When you're an immigrant, to anywhere, you generally don't know the lay of the land. You end up gravitating towards places that speak your native tongue, or that you can afford. Presto! Instant ghetto. Instant reinforcement of cultural values based on proximity within a specific geographical location that prevents full cultural assimilation.

It's an economic problem because American's, natural born, end up with more choices, ergo, they end up with more socio-economic prosperity by and large, which leads to them living on one side of town, and those with less socio-economic prosperity living on the other side of town.

It isn't religion that is doing this, it's life. And just because the media throws you a few hot-button quotes from some ignorant jack asses to grab your eyeballs, you feel justified in generalizing this attitude to a religion and culture that encompasses millions upon millions. Brilliant deducing Watson. :laugh:

If you read your history, which it seems some do not, you might realize that "immigration" has been an issue that is routinely used by the media and by politicans to drive a wedge between people. Just like playing one color off another, or one class off another. Divide and conquer.

The immigrants are not the problem. Some bad people are. Them's the breaks. You can either give in to the knee jerk reaction, and never actually solve anything- or, you can say, "hey, maybe we need some more cops, or we need some more politicans to work on bringing jobs into the community."

Whatever, the choice is yours. But most end up taking the easy one. The one that does nothing, but makes you feel like you did.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 09:01:50

Part of my porblem with an all-American "Us vs Them" mentality is that a large percentage of GWB's supporters would consider me, as a Roman Catholic, to be one of the 'thems" to be assimiliated or destroyed.

Part of the reason "we" in the West have trouble confronting the radical Islamicists is that our society hasn't clearly decided "who we really are" - - lacking a shared core consensus on the "identity" of America we are weak in the face of radical Islamicists.

Remember, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell are both American Baptist preachers. Unless they can find common ground as "Americans" without the need for one to defeat the other the US ability to confront global threats is weakened.

And here is a question I would very much like to ask GWB:

Do you and Prince Bandar pray to the same God?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/images/08/28/to … .jpg]Photo

= = =

Why do we see growing divergence between America and Europe?

If we follow Samuel Huntington's theories (Clash of Civilizations) these two branches of western cultures are developing increasing different conceptions of God and the role God plays in daily life.

= = =

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.j … 996272]U.K. to allow cloning human embyros for stem cell research. Okay its not Europe, but tis close.

Years ago, in an on-line discussion, I made the mistake of referring to a Brit as "European" - - the bloke told me to 'naff off and if he could have reached his hands through cyber-space, he'd a throttled me.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 09:05:40

And here is a question I would very much like to ask GWB:
Do you and Prince Bandar pray to the same God?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/images/08/28/to … .jpg]Photo

IMHO? Yup

$ $ $ $

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 09:41:20

I subscribe to a basic premise, a man is a man, no matter his skin color, his god, or his language. Some are good men, some are bad.

Agree so far...

Look to your own prisons and you will see the common denominator among those who have committed violent crime is their level of intelligence, and their socio-economic background. Basically, their lack of choice and opportunity that causes them to turn towards violence.

You're over-simplifying things. Yes, the majority of people in prison are from lower-income backgrounds. As are most people depending on where you draw your lines. Similarities in background are certainly there. But that doesn't mean the one casues the other, they are all tied together, sysmptoms. Just because there's concurrence doesn't mean there's cause.

In other words, I once ran a statistical analysis on a criminal database showing that people with satellite dishes are far less likely to have their car stolen.

One, the people that immigrate to our country, legally, who naturalize, they have to learn our history. They have to be proficient enough to pass a test in English (Cobra, I suggest you do your homework), and they have to agree to the basic underlying principles of our society.

They are tested on our history, many immigrants know it better than nativeborn citizens. To pass the English proficiency test you don't have to be terribly proficient, and some immigrants stop using it immediately thereafter. It's not needed because they can get whatever they want without it for the most part. I don't know how they do things out in California, but here the welfare applications are written in English, Spanish, Arabic, and two or three others. If you want social services you can get them in whatever language you're comfortable with. If you want a job, you have to speak passable English. Conversationally, not what they have on the test. As for agreeing to basic principles of our society... ooh, repeat a few words. Everything's okay then.

Again, I'm not against immigration. If someone wants to live here, come on down. But we need to have rules and we need some common qualities. A nation cannot long endure unless it has at least a common core culture and a common language. We are undermining both.

Now, I see talk of integration and assimilation, and you know what, that would be great. But I doubt any of you have the stomach for what that would require. It would require the subsidization and forced integration of entire neighborhoods.

No it wouldn't. We could simply go back to how we did it before. No foreign-language assistance, no pandering to the hostile elements within the immigrant community, no drivel about all cultures being equally valid and openness to other people's values. I would think people come here because they like our values. Welcome to America! But when they want to impose theirs, hey, there's plenty of other places in the world for that. No one forced you to come here and you knew what we're about. People can keep their roots and still become American. Cultural assimilation doesn't mean homogeneity, just some basic common ground. Core values, language. Respect for each others differences within that framework.

The immigrants are not the problem. Some bad people are. Them's the breaks. You can either give in to the knee jerk reaction, and never actually solve anything- or, you can say, "hey, maybe we need some more cops, or we need some more politicans to work on bringing jobs into the community."

The criminal aspect is only a symptom. We are talking about the potential subversion and destruction of Western culture. That would be a great loss for humanity.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 09:51:56

Respect for each others differences within that framework.

Respect between the political parties would be a great place to start.

51-49 shouldn't mean that the 51 get to lock the 49 out of the room.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 09:58:54

Part of my porblem with an all-American "Us vs Them" mentality

*Sometimes it does come down to "us versus them" -- whether we like it or not. The Islamic Jihadists are definitely "us versus them." And I'd rather not knuckle under, thanks.

But I'm surprised at your comment, " a large percentage of GWB's supporters would consider me, as a Roman Catholic, to be one of the 'thems" to be assimiliated or destroyed." :hm: I do recall antagonisms between Protestants and Catholics in my hometown, in the 1970s and 1980s. Nothing drastic though. I don't want to get off-topic, but perhaps the recent child abuse scandals are raising new hostilities between P's and C's?

Part of the reason "we" in the West have trouble confronting the radical Islamicists is that our society hasn't clearly decided "who we really are" - - lacking a shared core consensus on the "identity" of America we are weak in the face of radical Islamicists.

*Which might also be a problem on the other side of the ocean. Apparently there is frustration at disunity and calls for greater unity in the other camp.

If we follow Samuel Huntington's theories (Clash of Civilizations) these two branches of western cultures are developing increasing different conceptions of God and the role God plays in daily life.

*Hmmmm. God isn't important to me, so I dislike the religious aspect taking such precedence. There are such things as "us and them." Some folks are religious and I am not. How to reconcile that? Can't. Of course it doesn't have to go to "us VERSUS them" unless someone starts getting hostile, aggressive and attempts to trample on the others' rights.

I think Gennaro is right about his statements pertaining to a secular society. "Secular development is the best remedy against terrorist breeding in the long run..."

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 10:03:51

Respect between the political parties would be a great place to start.

I don't respect either one! :laugh:

But yes, it would help. But then too much 'warm and fuzzy' would defeat the purpose of parties. Though when it gets enmeshed with the bigger cultural conflicts, the potential for some serious mayhem arises...

In essence, calling someone a "pinko commie" or "lying warmonger" is very different from raping their women and blowing up their buildings.

But in a way we're in an odd transitional phase, globally speaking. RAMBLE WARNING:: this might take a while.

When some white guy commits a crime it's "he must be punished." When a black guy commits the same crime some people ask "why is our society so unjust that he had no other choice" and when an immigrant of non-white ethnicity commits that same crime he becomes a symbol and an indicator of the behavior of "those people." Fair, no. But it's how human beings work. We're essentially tribal creatures, those within our 'tribe' are individuals, those outside it are merely instanced examples of "them."

We have reached a point where the boundaries, be it economic, geographic or communication are essentially gone, yet we have not had the time, conditions nor inclination to sufficiently blend and become a single "tribe." So when an immigrant commits a crime it will always weigh heavier on that group as a whole. Sometimes it's just stone-age carryover bullshit.

But sometimes, it's rooted in very real "tribal" differences in values. And that's where we are now.

clark · 2004-08-11 10:07:45

Similarities in background are certainly there. But that doesn't mean the one casues the other, they are all tied together, sysmptoms. Just because there's concurrence doesn't mean there's cause.

When most people are faced with a choice of getting ahead in the world through hard work, or through cheating another, they choose hard work. Most people are good. People choose the alternative when they feel they can't get ahead, when they see that they don't have choices.

I am more inclined to believe that socio-economic status and intelligence, which dictate opportunity, plays a larger role than ones culture or religion in determing who will commit a crime.

They are tested on our history, many immigrants know it better than nativeborn citizens. To pass the English proficiency test you don't have to be terribly proficient, and some immigrants stop using it immediately thereafter. It's not needed because they can get whatever they want without it for the most part. I don't know how they do things out in California, but here the welfare applications are written in English, Spanish, Arabic, and two or three others. If you want social services you can get them in whatever language you're comfortable with. If you want a job, you have to speak passable English. Conversationally, not what they have on the test.

Cobra, when they naturalize, they are Americans. They are equals. They are peers. You can't demand that they be what you want them to be unless you allow them to force that upon you. You make mention of respecting each others differences, well, this is one of em.

As for agreeing to basic principles of our society... ooh, repeat a few words. Everything's okay then.

We can have loyalty tests administered every year to all Americans. Swear an oath of fealty to our Emperor too.

. But we need to have rules and we need some common qualities. A nation cannot long endure unless it has at least a common core culture and a common language. We are undermining both.

India has several dominant languages. Canada has two. China, several dozen. The EU is developing into a giant conglomeration of different languages, yet they survive. Language is not the bond that unites us. It's just grease. Our common culture is a combination of every culture on Earth, and it is one of our greatest strenghts. It's what allows us to avoid the stagnant problems that Europe faces. We are dynamic, not static. I fail to see why we should be less dynamic.

No foreign-language assistance, no pandering to the hostile elements within the immigrant community, no drivel about all cultures being equally valid and openness to other people's values.

So we should do away with sign language too? We don't have a declared national language, so how do we choose? English as defacto? Well, that's an easy choice for you. If we cement a national language, we cement the possibility for that national language to change in the future. How about Spansih (given the demographic switch). And what the hell right does the government have in telling me what language I must conduct myself in? I don't see that in the Constution anywhere.

I would think people come here because they like our values. Welcome to America! But when they want to impose theirs, hey, there's plenty of other places in the world for that.

How are their views being imposed upon you? It seems that you want to impose far more of your views on them.

The criminal aspect is only a symptom. We are talking about the potential subversion and destruction of Western culture.

More police, more jobs, more immigration officers. That is a solution to a problem. Stopping immigration from here or there, or all together is just sticking your head in the sand.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 10:24:45

We have reached a point where the boundaries, be it economic, geographic or communication are essentially gone, yet we have not had the time, conditions nor inclination to sufficiently blend and become a single "tribe." So when an immigrant commits a crime it will always weigh heavier on that group as a whole. Sometimes it's just stone-age carryover bullshit.

True.

Its is happening within America - - how important a role should religion and "God" take in US society is a hotly debated question - - and it is happening globally.

Part of why bin Laden hates us is that he know a pluralistic secular society will crush the 13th century variant of Islam he advocates. And Jerry Falwell knows that secular society threatens his vision of an evangelical America.

I agree with Bill Maher that the American right fails to realize that a significant percentage of Islamic males might well choose Saddam if the alternative was permitting their wives, sisters and daughters to walk down the street in mini-skirts, along with everything else that image entails.

= = =

al Qaeda is not a "Marxist" movement. Its not about up-lifting the Muslim poor. Its about maintaining a patriarchal society where women wear veils and are not allowed to drive.

clark · 2004-08-11 10:28:02

Its is happening within America - - how important a role should religion and "God" take in US society is a hotly debated question - - and it is happening globally.

Secular is individual choice.

The choice to wear a mini skirt, or not. The choice to worship, or not. The choice to speak what you want, or not.

Choice.

Theocracy is about limited choices. Allowable choices. Preapproved choices.

We all like to have choices, but we fear the choices others might make.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 10:30:58

Its is happening within America - - how important a role should religion and "God" take in US society is a hotly debated question - - and it is happening globally.
Secular is individual choice.

The choice to wear a mini skirt, or not. The choice to worship, or not. The choice to speak what you want, or not.
Choice.
Theocracy is about limited choices. Allowable choices. Preapproved choices.
We all like to have choices, but we fear the choices others might make.

Abortion

Cloning

GWB is not the secular choice.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 10:35:56

When most people are faced with a choice of getting ahead in the world through hard work, or through cheating another, they choose hard work. Most people are good. People choose the alternative when they feel they can't get ahead, when they see that they don't have choices.

Or when it's easier, or they think they can get away with it, or they don't like the people that they're cheating, or...

I am more inclined to believe that socio-economic status and intelligence, which dictate opportunity, plays a larger role than ones culture or religion in determing who will commit a crime.

They're all factors. Ignoring a set because you don't like the implications isn't an answer.

Cobra, when they naturalize, they are Americans. They are equals. They are peers. You can't demand that they be what you want them to be unless you allow them to force that upon you. You make mention of respecting each others differences, well, this is one of em.

Yes, all well and good. Then reality kicks in. If you're an employer, you want people who can speak English, since the bulk of your customers are likely to speak English. If someone can't, you don't hire them. I don't hire them either. Then Bill doesn't hire them. Oh no, they can't get a job! So by your own reasonign they resort to crime because it's the only way, then end up in prison. Oh, it's all our fault, we should have given this poor soul a chance.

Or realisitically prepare them for life in this country by making it very clear that English is the language spoken by the vast bulk of the popualtion and is vital from an economic standpoint.

India has several dominant languages. Canada has two. China, several dozen. The EU is developing into a giant conglomeration of different languages, yet they survive. Language is not the bond that unites us.

India is largely an artificial entity, created by the British Empire through force. And it has fragmented. We call one of the pieces Pakistan. Canada has problems with the Francophiles in Quebec constantly, every few years they have a referendum on secession over the language issue. China has cultural bonds to unite it. The EU is not now nor has it ever been a nation.

Our common culture is a combination of every culture on Earth, and it is one of our greatest strenghts. It's what allows us to avoid the stagnant problems that Europe faces. We are dynamic, not static. I fail to see why we should be less dynamic.

American common culture has at it's foundation a set of values. When we allow those to be eroded, we risk losing the culture as a whole. A common respect for the principles behind our Constitution is far more important than the certainty that some immigrants from Sudan know who Britney Spears is and that La Shish is open next to Taco Bell.

In order to remain dynamic we need to preserve the core, otherwise the whole thing crumbles.

So we should do away with sign language too? We don't have a declared national language, so how do we choose? English as defacto? Well, that's an easy choice for you.

Whatever the overwhelming majority of people in a nation speak is the language of that land. If Congress wants to make our official language Togalog it's meaningless. What we need is to acknowledge that English is the de facto language of this country an stop pretending that encouraging new arrivals to learn it is racist or some kind of cultural imperialism.

And what the hell right does the government have in telling me what language I must conduct myself in? I don't see that in the Constution anywhere.

It's written in English, take the hint.

How are their views being imposed upon you? It seems that you want to impose far more of your views on them.

When someone comes here and demands that I change for them it's imposing on me. If I moved to Saudi Arabia and demanded that they let me drink liquor outside the mosque and hand out porno mags I'd be imposing on them. It's a function of who's going into who's home.

More police, more jobs, more immigration officers. That is a solution to a problem. Stopping immigration from here or there, or all together is just sticking your head in the sand.

Again, I'm not saying we should stop immigration, even from the areas in question. But we need to understand that there are profound cultural differences that can't be reconciled, and that for our own safety and their prospects for success here, we should make some effort to assimilate those that come here.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 10:40:12

And what the hell right does the government have in telling me what language I must conduct myself in? I don't see that in the Constution anywhere.
It's written in English, take the hint.

:laugh:

Some people live for debate, I guess.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-10 16:10:53

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#2 2004-08-10 16:57:53

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#3 2004-08-10 18:02:06

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#4 2004-08-10 18:52:54

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#5 2004-08-10 20:22:17

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#6 2004-08-10 21:54:23

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#7 2004-08-10 22:23:41

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#8 2004-08-11 05:57:27

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#9 2004-08-11 06:23:57

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#10 2004-08-11 07:30:38

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#11 2004-08-11 07:42:11

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#12 2004-08-11 08:27:30

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#13 2004-08-11 08:59:46

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#14 2004-08-11 09:01:50

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#15 2004-08-11 09:05:40

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#16 2004-08-11 09:41:20

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#17 2004-08-11 09:51:56

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#18 2004-08-11 09:58:54

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#19 2004-08-11 10:03:51

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#20 2004-08-11 10:07:45

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#21 2004-08-11 10:24:45

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#22 2004-08-11 10:28:02

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#23 2004-08-11 10:30:58

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#24 2004-08-11 10:35:56

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#25 2004-08-11 10:40:12

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

Board footer