Muslims

[Infinite Chaos]

Yes, hence we have borders and detention centres.

We don't use them once people have been granted "right of abode" or citizenship - you know darn well I've said "legitimate" or genuine asylum seekers all along. I've never mentioned or included the due process of investigating claimant seekers or illegals.

-- Well extreme lack of a will to integrate could result in deportation but there are ways of removing benefits and incentives and such.

That's very different from stopping people living where they wish or can afford: and we'd have to be damn sure some of the muslim women who might be involved had been given fair opportunity to learn the language. Some are still cowed at home by their spouses.

I don't really think we should take in too many people who are too poor to be able to rent but help could be provided.

I've already said I'm happy with skills / investment / ability quotas. We certainly had an open door policy once but we don't anymore.

As for those who should never have been allowed to come because they had nothing to contribute - they or their descendants have now become citizens and should be engaged with properly.

-- Multiculturalism is a failed policy, it is legitimate to criticise it.

Only if it's the subject under debate. It's too easy and lazy to throw such an accusation around but it wins no argument.

-- No, I maintained I didn't have blueprints which is true. I amply showed why I did not think them necessary, to have indepth blueprints for every political policy smacks of an extreme form of political rationalism and universalism that does not remember the important parts of circumstances in politics.

I didn't ask for a 5 year blueprint - I simply asked you to elaborate and you said you couldn't - thus ending the discussion from my point of view.

At least you have been brave enough to join in properly this time.

Well done!

If they want to live in this nation hen they have to integrate it is simple

Agreed.

implied accusations of racism and authoritarianism aside, this does not mean they are treated like 2nd class citizens or have their basic rights trampled,

You don't have to read Mein Kampf or be a Hitlerite to be racist - however I'm querying the denying of any citizen's Liberty for some perceived common good through authoritarian means. Incentives I'll agree to but movement quotas that are deliberately designed to harm people who cannot afford to live anywhere else are dangerous and stupid.

 

[Wessexman]

We don't use them once people have been granted "right of abode" or citizenship - you know darn well I've said "legitimate" or genuine asylum seekers all along. I've never mentioned or included the due process of investigating claimant seekers or illegals.

Who mentioned asylum seekers? We're talking about immigrants in general or at least I genuinely thought we were. Refugees are slightly different and would take a separate discussion. The point is those coming to our country are treated in this way already, they are under extra conditions and obligations and I don't consider what I'm suggesting an outrageous addition to that.

That's very different from stopping people living where they wish or can afford: and we'd have to be damn sure some of the muslim women who might be involved had been given fair opportunity to learn the language. Some are still cowed at home by their spouses.

I don't mind some forceful encouragement, the force though is simply deportation for those who completely refuse to integrate, as a last resort but I have maintained the above throughout.

I've already said I'm happy with skills / investment / ability quotas. We certainly had an open door policy once but we don't anymore.

I disagree, our borders are far too open for my liking, although a lot of that is this silly EU stuff.

As for those who should never have been allowed to come because they had nothing to contribute - they or their descendants have now become citizens and should be engaged with properly.

If they're 2nd generation then they're no concern of mine in this sphere of this discussion.

Only if it's the subject under debate. It's too easy and lazy to throw such an accusation around but it wins no argument.

Oh the irony.:2razz:

I didn't ask for a 5 year blueprint - I simply asked you to elaborate and you said you couldn't - thus ending the discussion from my point of view.

At least you have been brave enough to join in properly this time.

Well done!

I think you'll find that, before Bolshie vomited all over the conversation, I said pretty much what I have this time if not at the same depth.

You don't have to read Mein Kampf or be a Hitlerite to be racist -

But you have to at least show some sort of dislike to people based on race.

however I'm querying the denying of any citizen's Liberty for some perceived common good through authoritarian means.

It is really very light restrictions and it is about creating long term increases or maintaining of individual liberty. As a social conservative I certainly do not believe that individual liberty could be long maintained outside of a stable and healthy culture and society. Ultimately I think we have very different conceptions of society, I'm socially conservative or traditionalist and you are, and I don't mean this is in a dismissive or insulting way, culturally liberal(in a broad sense.) from what I've gathered. To really get to the bottom of our disagreements on these subjects we'd have to explore our differing views on society in a lot more depth.

Incentives I'll agree to but movement quotas that are deliberately designed to harm people who cannot afford to live anywhere else are dangerous and stupid.

Who is deliberately designing such things? Do you really think that is our specific motivation? The only force I believe in, aside from using tax for incentives and such, is deportation for the extremely recalcitrant when it comes to integration.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Who mentioned asylum seekers? We're talking about immigrants in general or at least I genuinely thought we were. Refugees are slightly different and would take a separate discussion.

I was in a rush - however asylum seekers fall within the same category if they settle here.

Back to legitimate immigrants however - if they have won right of abode or become citizens of the country they have the same legal right to live where they can afford. Putting movement or right of abode restrictions simply to prevent them living among others they feel familiar to may sound nice but it won't work and is discriminatory.

Why won't it work - well, how long do you impose such artificial boundaries? Do you stop the 2nd generation moving into a "ghetto" and why? If we're still with the 1st generation - how long do you ban them from living among others of their kind? 1 week? 10 years? 25 years?

What if they have learned the language, signed up to the culture, learned the language etc - do you stop them living together just to prevent "brown neighbourhoods" forming?

-- The point is those coming to our country are treated in this way already, they are under extra conditions and obligations and I don't consider what I'm suggesting an outrageous addition to that.

They are under extra obligations only to qualify for right of abode or right of citizenship. Once they have become citizens - they gain all rights any other citizen has. You can't enforce ridiculous movement or abode restrictions after this!

-- I don't mind some forceful encouragement, the force though is simply deportation for those who completely refuse to integrate, as a last resort but I have maintained the above throughout.

Again - what if they integrate? What if they learn the language, join our armies, serve in our hospitals and then go and live in a ghetto - are you going to take away their citizenship or put them in prison?

What is the end purpose you really have in mind?

-- I disagree, our borders are far too open for my liking, although a lot of that is this silly EU stuff.

You're missing the point - which is that restrictions can be applied before someone has rights of abode or citizenship - after that, they are... a "citizen" meaning they have as much right to live where they can afford as anyone else - otherwise you create 2nd class citizenship.

-- Oh the irony.:2razz:

No, I don't throw labels like "PC Elite" or multiculturalism around as childish insults or lazy argument.

before Bolshie vomited all over the conversation

A well thought out argument if ever I heard from you. Do you see what I mean about "liberal elite" "PC elite" multiculturalism" etc etc?

Thought not...

But you have to at least show some sort of dislike to people based on race.

No... what do you think a "Black Policemen's Organisation" is?

I consider such racist myself - because people would certainly complain if there was a "White Policemen's Organisation"

It is really very light restrictions

An unjustified restriction of Liberty is still an unjustified restriction of Liberty.

Who is deliberately designing such things? Do you really think that is our specific motivation? The only force I believe in, aside from using tax for incentives and such, is deportation for the extremely recalcitrant when it comes to integration.

How would tax incentives work for poor migrant workers who cannot afford to live anywhere except the worst slums?

:doh

 

[Wessexman]

Back to legitimate immigrants however - if they have won right of abode or become citizens of the country they have the same legal right to live where they can afford. Putting movement or right of abode restrictions simply to prevent them living among others they feel familiar to may sound nice but it won't work and is discriminatory.

I disagree about the absoluteness of this statement. I don't see why some who have the privilege to come here can never have a few restrictions. I'm not sure I'd want any, except deportation for those who are completely recalcitrant when it comes to integration.

Why won't it work - well, how long do you impose such artificial boundaries? Do you stop the 2nd generation moving into a "ghetto" and why? If we're still with the 1st generation - how long do you ban them from living among others of their kind? 1 week? 10 years? 25 years?

Well the 2nd generation are not granted the privileges to be here, the 1st generation is. One can go over board on eithger direction. I could claim that if I recognised your argument then we must recognise no difference between a foreigner and a Brit. Obviously it is possible to see a middle position and to me light restrictions on 1st generation immigrants don't necessarily imply a route to treating immigrants' descendants as 2nd class citizens.

What if they have learned the language, signed up to the culture, learned the language etc - do you stop them living together just to prevent "brown neighbourhoods" forming?

It would depend on circumstances. In general I don't support these restrictions, I just object to the idea they could never be used.

They are under extra obligations only to qualify for right of abode or right of citizenship. Once they have become citizens - they gain all rights any other citizen has. You can't enforce ridiculous movement or abode restrictions after this!

I disagree, I feel a 1st generation immigrant must always show they respect the country they have been given the privilege to stay in.

Again - what if they integrate? What if they learn the language, join our armies, serve in our hospitals and then go and live in a ghetto - are you going to take away their citizenship or put them in prison?

What is the end purpose you really have in mind?

If you refuse to integrate I would take your citizenship away or deport you as a last resort. If you don't break the law then you would not be jailed. Anyone breaking the law, beyond misdemeanours and traffic offenses and such, would of course be deported.

You're missing the point - which is that restrictions can be applied before someone has rights of abode or citizenship - after that, they are... a "citizen" meaning they have as much right to live where they can afford as anyone else - otherwise you create 2nd class citizenship.

Firstly you are only talking of citizenship and not residency. Secondly I don't consider anything wrong with applying light restrictions to 1st generation immigrants, even once they have become citizens, as they have been given the privilege of being here.

No, I don't throw labels like "PC Elite" or multiculturalism around as childish insults or lazy argument.

You have implied racism and authoritarian several times to both me and, I believe, bub and generally have had an aggressive manner of debating; I have had to request we steer clear of personal attacks several times both because it is generally better and because, as you know, I'm easily provoked(even if I do pride myself on trying to avoid starting such things.).So we both are guilty of going overboard sometimes in the heat of the argument.

Multiculturalism is a reality and a failed policy, it is a way of looking at society and migration. I certainly do not consider it childish.

A well thought out argument if ever I heard from you. Do you see what I mean about "liberal elite" "PC elite" multiculturalism" etc etc?

Thought not...

I was referring to BL Zeebub, who has called me many names. We have had a bit of a burying the hatchet so I don't want to push the point, but you can hardly have called his intervention insightful.

No... what do you think a "Black Policemen's Organisation" is?

I consider such racist myself - because people would certainly complain if there was a "White Policemen's Organisation"

Okay, but I thought we were talking about me and bub.

An unjustified restriction of Liberty is still an unjustified restriction of Liberty.

I don't feel it unjustified.

How would tax incentives work for poor migrant workers who cannot afford to live anywhere except the worst slums?

Well i said tax for incentives, as in tax for benefits, support etc. That could be called forceful because it is about tax which comes through coercion but aside from that deportation for the completely recalcitrant is all I'd use.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I disagree about the absoluteness of this statement. I don't see why some who have the privilege to come here can never have a few restrictions. I'm not sure I'd want any, except deportation for those who are completely recalcitrant when it comes to integration.

Maybe you're losing sight of what the point was - living in ghettos. People can and do live in ghettos (little Italy" etc) - that was what bub originally said he wanted to change and then you joined in.

Integrating is something else. People can learn the language and work in our industries and contribute to society - they should also have the right to live where they choose and can afford.

I could claim that if I recognised your argument then we must recognise no difference between a foreigner and a Brit. Obviously it is possible to see a middle position and to me light restrictions on 1st generation immigrants don't necessarily imply a route to treating immigrants' descendants as 2nd class citizens.

And how would you prevent people from living in the only places they can afford? I keep asking but you've shifted to "integration" - and not answered the question!

It would depend on circumstances. In general I don't support these restrictions, I just object to the idea they could never be used.

I disagree, I feel a 1st generation immigrant must always show they respect the country they have been given the privilege to stay in.

That doesn't answer what I asked repeatedly.

-- If you refuse to integrate I would take your citizenship away or deport you as a last resort. If you don't break the law then you would not be jailed. Anyone breaking the law, beyond misdemeanours and traffic offenses and such, would of course be deported.

I have no problem deporting someone who breaks our most important laws (once they've served prison - unless their former country will jail them for us) but this isn't the subject of preventing immigrants living together in ghettos!

I don't consider anything wrong with applying light restrictions to 1st generation immigrants, even once they have become citizens, as they have been given the privilege of being here.

Then they are not "citizens" or you need a new word for it.

You have implied racism and authoritarian several times to both me and, I believe, bub and generally have had an aggressive manner of debating; I have had to request we steer clear of personal attacks several times both because it is generally better and because, as you know, I'm easily provoked(even if I do pride myself on trying to avoid starting such things.).So we both are guilty of going overboard sometimes in the heat of the argument.

Multiculturalism is a reality and a failed policy, it is a way of looking at society and migration. I certainly do not consider it childish.

This and the "multiculturalism" arguement / defense has nothing whatsoever to do with the original subject which is why I wanted you to avoid using that as a lazy answer.

I was referring to BL Zeebub, who has called me many names. We have had a bit of a burying the hatchet so I don't want to push the point, but you can hardly have called his intervention insightful.

OK, to digress a little further - can you say you haven't responded or caused any such argument with him too?

-- Okay, but I thought we were talking about me and bub.

I may be aggressive (your words) but I tend not to make it personal.

I don't feel it unjustified.

In light of what "citizen" and "innocent" currently mean - a restriction of Liberty on any innocent civilian is unjustified.

-- Well i said tax for incentives, as in tax for benefits, support etc. That could be called forceful because it is about tax which comes through coercion but aside from that deportation for the completely recalcitrant is all I'd use.

This doesn't clarify it for me I'm afraid. Maybe I'm tired but I don't see what you mean.

 

[mikeey]

Muslims thro them in the bin Admin,what a load of rubbish.


god bless u admin if u do that.

mikeey

 

[mikeey]

questing time is on just now about that,get back to u in a few min.

mikeey.

Also i like the devil.haha

 

[Wessexman]

Maybe you're losing sight of what the point was - living in ghettos. People can and do live in ghettos (little Italy" etc) - that was what bub originally said he wanted to change and then you joined in.

Integrating is something else. People can learn the language and work in our industries and contribute to society - they should also have the right to live where they choose and can afford.

Well it would have to depend on circumstances such as what the ghetto seemed to be contributing or taking away from integration. I disagree about the absolute right of 1st generation immigrants to live where they want.

And how would you prevent people from living in the only places they can afford? I keep asking but you've shifted to "integration" - and not answered the question!

I think you're working on the false assumption that ghettos only come about because this is the only place these immigrants can afford. If that were true there would be far less experience of the same kind of immigrant living in the same area. But I'd stop it with carrot and stick. Incentives and the taking away of incentives mainly. Integration is important because it is the end goal, not to simply stop those of the same background from living together.

I have no problem deporting someone who breaks our most important laws (once they've served prison - unless their former country will jail them for us) but this isn't the subject of preventing immigrants living together in ghettos!

I'd deport them if they did more than say break traffic laws or committed a misdemeanour. I'd even deport them for doing these too many times.

Then they are not "citizens" or you need a new word for it.

Of course they're citizens, they're just new citizens.

This and the "multiculturalism" arguement / defense has nothing whatsoever to do with the original subject which is why I wanted you to avoid using that as a lazy answer.

Multiculturalism is often important when discussing immigration. It is a way of looking at culture and immigration, often it pursed by western gov'ts.

OK, to digress a little further - can you say you haven't responded or caused any such argument with him too?

I genuinely don't think I've caused one. I certainly have responded, you know me.

I may be aggressive (your words) but I tend not to make it personal.

Well as long as we keep a cordial relationship. I get fed up that you so often can't disagree with someone without it getting both personal and becoming a lasting grudge and dislike on boards like these.

In light of what "citizen" and "innocent" currently mean - a restriction of Liberty on any innocent civilian is unjustified.

Like wearing crucifixes in state schools?

I disagree with you on this, plus liberty is not defined.

This doesn't clarify it for me I'm afraid. Maybe I'm tired but I don't see what you mean.

You were talking about coercion or something I believe and I was just saying the only coercion here I want to see was that used to collect the taxes to give incentives and deportation for the extreme recalcitrants.

 

[Saladin]

the question should rather be "should there be a maximum quota of immigrants" IMO

We have to be open to foreign influences, but we also have to protect our cultures. When the proportion of foreigners reaches 60 or 70% in many districts of our capital cities, and that they start transforming the landscape (by building giant mosques for example) I think that there is a problem.

I'm not against their presence here, but at the condition that they adapt to our customs and integrate our culture. And that is not possible when they're too numerous.

Surely the workforce coming in from Europe and taking over British jobs should be of more concern than muslims, particularly in this troubling economic times?

 

[Saladin]

By making them take local language courses, by making them pass a basic examen about the host country's culture, by making them sign a contract according to which they accept the basic values of the host country (democracy, gender equality...) and by making sure that they don't live in a neighborhoud whose population consists of 50% of newcomers

What makes you think that having them absorb the local culture will solve problems? The local culture's what is giving us gangs of very young kids that go around killing other kids and such.

Muslim immigrants need to go back to their Islamic roots and then the whole country will prosper, because that is what Islam does to people. Their current situation is because they are being deliberately dissuaded from doing so.

 

[alexa]

What makes you think that having them absorb the local culture will solve problems? The local culture's what is giving us gangs of very young kids that go around killing other kids and such.

While it is true that street gangs have been a part of British culture throughout history where there has been disadvantage, I think you are missing a lot to imagine that street gangs are simply a part of British culture.

Clearly things have got a lot worse in the lass 30 years, arguably since Thatcher created an underclass. It does seem to me that we are leaving these people behind.

The part you missed out is that it is generally part of British culture to address these problems and work towards resolving them in a creative way - that is in a way which solves the problems and brings hope back to these people and offers them the same opportunities as the rest of people in society.

That I think is something we should be addressing.

Muslim immigrants need to go back to their Islamic roots and then the whole country will prosper, because that is what Islam does to people. Their current situation is because they are being deliberately dissuaded from doing so.

Which EU country are you speaking of?

Describe the way you are wishing Muslims to go back to their Islamic roots and how this would make the country prosper. Also please describe how you believe Muslims are being deliberately dissuaded from this.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Well it would have to depend on circumstances such as what the ghetto seemed to be contributing or taking away from integration.

And how will you decide that? If the ghetto "investigator" decides a ghetto isn't contributing (how will that be measured?) do you deport the whole ghetto or just the new arrivals who may be completely innocent?

And how long do you keep a watchful eye on new immigrants? 2 days? 2 Years? 20 years?

I disagree about the absolute right of 1st generation immigrants to live where they want.

So do I - I said where they want and can afford. If "Joe immigrant" decided he wanted to live in Buckingham palace I wouldn't support that unless he could afford to buy it and the Queen agreed the sale - for example.

10.. 9.. 8..

-- I think you're working on the false assumption that ghettos only come about because this is the only place these immigrants can afford.

No, it plays a part but I also (please read my replies to bub) comes down to NIMBYism - people move out when migrants move in too. I'm not going to teach you social theory and social history - you should be bright enough to research that yourself.

Integration is important because it is the end goal, not to simply stop those of the same background from living together.

Agreed - but there are better ways to do this than setting up forms that have 20 different languages on them (an example of multiculture) and banning people moving to where they can afford to live (restriction on Liberty)

-- Of course they're citizens, they're just new citizens.

And where do you see any definition that says "new citizens" have less rights than anyone else? Or less liberty than anyone else?

-- Multiculturalism is often important when discussing immigration. It is a way of looking at culture and immigration, often it pursed by western gov'ts.

I'd rather you bothered with actual examples (as I did) than tossing out lazy mantras that show you haven't really thought about what you're trying to say.

-- Like wearing crucifixes in state schools?

No, there is choice. Newly settled immigrants also have a choice - but it is often restricted by funds. I'm sure if many could afford a house in the cotswolds (and if they'd heard of them) they'd live there.

They live where they choose - and as restricted by employment and funds.

plus liberty is not defined

You think there are no bills of rights or legal protections for citizens of the land???? :shock:

-- You were talking about coercion or something I believe and I was just saying the only coercion here I want to see was that used to collect the taxes to give incentives and deportation for the extreme recalcitrants.

Whose taxes?

That last quoted bit of yours still makes no sense. Who pays taxes - what are the incentives and how do the taxes contribute?

 

[B L Zeebub]

What makes you think that having them absorb the local culture will solve problems? The local culture's what is giving us gangs of very young kids that go around killing other kids and such.

Muslim immigrants need to go back to their Islamic roots and then the whole country will prosper, because that is what Islam does to people. Their current situation is because they are being deliberately dissuaded from doing so.

I live by choice in a 90% Pakistani Muslim area, I gave some money to Muslim friends to create a youth club, I visit on occasion to help out with boxing training, I have been call in twice, both times it was for a gang of Indian Muslims wanting to fight with a gang of very willing Pakistani Muslims.

Drugs is another big problem, younger kids are impressed with their BMW driving elder brothers, parents turn a blind eye to their unemployed son who parks his £40K Merc outside their house and keeps £30k in cash under his bed, and why should they (the Parents) Islam has done **** all for them, the same applies to other religions treatment of the poor.
In Sa' Allah

 

[Mira]

I live in a cosmopolitan neighbourhood in Paris.
3 minutes walk up the street is the synagogue, 5 minutes across the boulevard a small mosque, 5 minutes down the street on the opposite side, a church, and in the middle a popular market.

In that market, each Wednesday and Saturday you'll find people from all walks of life. White French, Muslim women wearing hijab or without, Jewish people wearing kipas, Africans with their colourful traditional dresses, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians... you name it.

I moved here in 1999, 10 years and I have not witnessed one single case of violence among the residents of this neighbourhood. On the contrary, all I have seen is a great spirit of cohabitation.

Consider this place as a huge lab of multicultural cohabitation, being one of the subjects of this lab, I can assure you that the experiment is a success.

Ghettos are nests of trouble.

 

[kaya'08]

The gap between the Muslims and the Christians is that the West is educated and funded while the East is underfunded and uneducated. This is the main gap between the Christians and the Muslims, and the gap is widening as the situation in the Islamic world worsens because of these reasons. For as long as that gap widens, the Muslim diaspora will find it harder and harder to assimilate, as ignorance and religious conservatism in the Islamic world becomes the main block stopping the new and recent diaspora from assimilating properly.

 

[kaya'08]

Consider this place as a huge lab of multicultural cohabitation, being one of the subjects of this lab, I can assure you that the experiment is a success.

Ghettos are nests of trouble.

How can one make the conclusion the EU is a multicultural success from the viewpoint of such a local experience? You need to open up your vision a bit more and look beyond the boarders of that localized area. The situation with the Turks in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, the riots, and the general situation with Muslims as a whole, the social and ethnic tensions that are being stirred up because of mass immigration being viewed as a threat, most unsuprisingly, and above all, the destruction of local traditions. I can bet you, if you lived in that area 50 years beforehand, and looked at it now, you'd see the undeniable difference yourself.

 

[Mira]

How can one make the conclusion the EU is a multicultural success from the viewpoint of such a local experience? You need to open up your vision a bit more and look beyond the boarders of that localized area. The situation with the Turks in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, the riots, and the general situation with Muslims as a whole, the social and ethnic tensions that are being stirred up because of mass immigration being viewed as a threat, most unsuprisingly, and above all, the destruction of local traditions. I can bet you, if you lived in that area 50 years beforehand, and looked at it now, you'd see the undeniable difference yourself.

I think you missed the point kaya. I'm not denying any of the problems with immigrants, I'm only saying that if you consider my neighbourhood to be a big experimental lab., it looks to me that the experiment is a success.

Having observed this specific "laboratory" for 10, I cannot see anything but positive.

If I may add, during the riots in the Parisian suburb, not one single car was burned and not one single case of violence was reported in the Muslim neighbourhood across the street.

 

[kaya'08]

I think you missed the point kaya. I'm not denying any of the problems with immigrants, I'm only saying that if you consider my neighbourhood to be a big experimental lab., it looks to me that the experiment is a success.

Having observed this specific "laboratory" for 10, I cannot see anything but positive.

Visiting the parts of Europe i have visited, and speaking to a few friends of mine that live in these Ghettos, things seem far more negative across Europe but its good your area seems to be coping.

If I may add, during the riots in the Parisian suburb, not one single car was burned and not one single case of violence was reported in the Muslim neighbourhood across the street.

Thats great that your area has avoided such tensions, but in places where large numbers of immigrants arrive and fail to assimilate due to local laws and other factors, the story is very different, and id say a large number of European countries are experiencing difficulties because of these immigrants. Almost over a fith of crimes commited in England, for example, are by immigrants, and 20% of all crimes in London are commited by immigrants. Now call these numbers far less compared to the crimes commited by the natives, but considering immigrants are outweighed by large compared to their native friends, id say thats alot of immigrant crime right there.

 

[Mira]

Visiting the parts of Europe i have visited, and speaking to a few friends of mine that live in these Ghettos, things seem far more negative across Europe but its good your area seems to be coping.



Thats great that your area has avoided such tensions, but in places where large numbers of immigrants arrive and fail to assimilate due to local laws and other factors, the story is very different, and id say a large number of European countries are experiencing difficulties because of these immigrants. Almost over a fith of crimes commited in England, for example, are by immigrants, and 20% of all crimes in London are commited by immigrants. Now call these numbers far less compared to the crimes commited by the natives, but considering immigrants are outweighed by large compared to their native friends, id say thats alot of immigrant crime right there.

Euuh Kaya, I'm afraid that you're still not getting my story. I'm speaking of a cosmopolitan neighbourhood not a ghetto. I am Lebanese, my next door neighbour is Tunisian, my neighbour on the 4th floor is Israeli, the one on the other side of the 4th floor is Italian, the consièrge is Portuguese and the rest of the building (about 80%) is the typical French "Français de souche" My whole street is actually very typical French. The synagogue is up the street, the mosque is on the other side of the boulevard and the church down the other side.

Basically what I'm saying is that when immigrants mix with the people of the host country and with each other, they integrate better and the trouble is basically inexistent.

The problems with immigrants are mostly a result of their isolation in ghettos and discrimination against them. I see the difference between my neighbourhood and the ghettos in the suburbs that are just a few train stations away.

 

[Wessexman]

And how will you decide that? If the ghetto "investigator" decides a ghetto isn't contributing (how will that be measured?) do you deport the whole ghetto or just the new arrivals who may be completely innocent?

And how long do you keep a watchful eye on new immigrants? 2 days? 2 Years? 20 years?

Obviously you simply investigate individuals, as a social worker does.

So do I - I said where they want and can afford. If "Joe immigrant" decided he wanted to live in Buckingham palace I wouldn't support that unless he could afford to buy it and the Queen agreed the sale - for example.

10.. 9.. 8..

And I disagree....7...6...5

No, it plays a part but I also (please read my replies to bub) comes down to NIMBYism - people move out when migrants move in too. I'm not going to teach you social theory and social history - you should be bright enough to research that yourself.

It was I who just had to remind you.

Agreed - but there are better ways to do this than setting up forms that have 20 different languages on them (an example of multiculture) and banning people moving to where they can afford to live (restriction on Liberty)

Perhaps but I disagree that you cannot do the latter absolutely.

And where do you see any definition that says "new citizens" have less rights than anyone else? Or less liberty than anyone else?

This is about real politics not about writing dictionaries.

I'd rather you bothered with actual examples (as I did) than tossing out lazy mantras that show you haven't really thought about what you're trying to say.

Lucky for you I don't do that.

No, there is choice. Newly settled immigrants also have a choice - but it is often restricted by funds. I'm sure if many could afford a house in the cotswolds (and if they'd heard of them) they'd live there.

They live where they choose - and as restricted by employment and funds.

Indeed.

You think there are no bills of rights or legal protections for citizens of the land???? :shock:

That does not address my point.

Whose taxes?

That last quoted bit of yours still makes no sense. Who pays taxes - what are the incentives and how do the taxes contribute?

Everyone pays the taxes. The incentives would depend on circumstances but they could be rent assistance, benefits and such.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Obviously you simply investigate individuals, as a social worker does.

So, coming back to the original point of discussion - preventing immigrants who have been granted domicile or citizenship - we are to have a social worker investigate each one? Expensive idea..

-- It was I who just had to remind you.

No, you thought I was operating under an assumption.

-- Perhaps but I disagree that you cannot do the latter absolutely

Obviously no, in a totalitarian state you can do such things. Thankfully, the UK is still relatively "Liberty minded"

This is about real politics not about writing dictionaries.

Nice, but you're trying to argue for 2nd class citizenship. That's real world politics.

-- That does not address my point

As above, you're "trying to argue for 2nd class citizenship." I won't explain to you what the bill of rights was about or even the modern unwritten understanding - however you won't find "categories" of citizenship.

-- Everyone pays the taxes. The incentives would depend on circumstances but they could be rent assistance, benefits and such.

Thank you for explaining.

 

[Wessexman]

So, coming back to the original point of discussion - preventing immigrants who have been granted domicile or citizenship - we are to have a social worker investigate each one? Expensive idea..

Not necessarily, it would depend on circumstances.

No, you thought I was operating under an assumption.

All men operate most of the time under assumptions.

Obviously no, in a totalitarian state you can do such things. Thankfully, the UK is still relatively "Liberty minded"

Bollocks. The idea that it is totalitarian is as much a random attack on labels as your accusations about my use of the label multiculturalism. Try and be consistent.

Nice, but you're trying to argue for 2nd class citizenship. That's real world politics.

I'm trying to argue that someone who is a 1st generation citizen is on probation sure. They apply for it, we don't have to accept it. When they get it through birth that is different.

As above, you're "trying to argue for 2nd class citizenship." I won't explain to you what the bill of rights was about or even the modern unwritten understanding - however you won't find "categories" of citizenship.

Of course you won't because I understand these far more than you do.

Thank you for explaining.

Thank you for listening.

Seriously I don't want to not get on with you. You know me I was always willing to fight it out in a slanging match but I'm over that. I'd much rather keep it civil.

 

[Gardener]

Basically what I'm saying is that when immigrants mix with the people of the host country and with each other, they integrate better and the trouble is basically inexistent.

The problems with immigrants are mostly a result of their isolation in ghettos and discrimination against them. I see the difference between my neighbourhood and the ghettos in the suburbs that are just a few train stations away.

You are arguing against Multiculturalism.


good.

 

[Mira]

You are arguing against Multiculturalism.


good.

No, I'm argueing FOR multiculturalism and against the isolation of immigrants in ghettos and discrimination against them.

 

[Gardener]

No, I'm argueing FOR multiculturalism and against the isolation of immigrants in ghettos and discrimination against them.

You obviously don't know what the term multiculturalism means, then.

Multiculturalism is the political doctrine that seeks to preserve immigrant culture rather than encourage assimilation. Ghettoization is the most useful tool in preserving such immigrant culture since it isolates them and provides less contacct with the host culture.