Europe's Immigration Problems (Greek, Romanian, Sicilian, house)

[jja100]

Originally Posted by azoria

Immigration is a sticky issue. In the US we're all immigrants of one kind or another.

Yes, I am a first generation American. My father and mother came to this country in 1969 from Europe. The difference is that my parents had to wait in line, get health checked, and had to pass basic language and history skills.

Originally Posted by azoria

I think there is really no way to stop immigration anywhere. People have always, and will always, move along to places where they perceive they will have a better life. Who can blame them?

Yes there is a way to stop illegal immigration and that is through controlled legal immigration using quotas like we used to do.

Originally Posted by azoria

I think all kinds of immigration have enriched America. But it isn't a fast process. The first generation of immigrants are often of low education and native speakers of a foreign language, and as adults never manage to master English. They are often a drag on the economy and wages. But their children, first generation Americans, are often very motivated, highly successful, and an enrichment to the the culture and the economy. The second generation, the grandchildren of the immigrants, are usually full-fledged tax-paying standard issue citizens. It takes time. A couple of generations.

It doesn't take time. My parents came from Italy and France respectively and they are both fluent in English. My father is a full tax paying small business owner who employs 10th generation "Americans". Having a quota system allows controlled immigration and filters the productive from the unproductive which America doesn't have anymore. Secondly, there are more social programs to leach off of now in America than ever before which makes the future of our country look gloomy. Every day I hear liberal left wing European rhetoric and the fight to move this country in the direction of Europe. People left Europe because the socialist system doesn't work!

Originally Posted by azoria

Europeans are new to this kind of mass immigration. Europe is now on the first wave. They're seeing the foreign speaking foreign dressing weirdos who don't fit in and seem to be taking taking taking from the system and contributing--nothing but trouble.

You are right, Europe isn't really used to the illegal immigration. It will become worse for them in the future. The reason why people visit Europe is to seek and experience culture that really isn't available in the US. When illegal immigration destoys their culture, tourism will slow down. Too much of Europes economy relies on tourist dollars.

Originally Posted by azoria

It's hard to deal with, but I think all the Muslims and middle easterners and Africans who are flowing unstoppably into Europe now, will be an asset a couple of generations down the line. Unfortunately at present, they look like nothing but a plague of problems. Wait. It will get better.

I seriously doubt this. The "majority" of Africans in the US still take more than contribute and slavery ended in 1865. They still have a "chip" on their shoulder in terms of entitlements and they exploit it to advance themselves.

[jja100]

Originally Posted by bluepacific

This is actually an issue that all industrialized wealthy countries are having a problem with, not just Europe and North America. Like America, Europeans DON'T teach their kids a healthy work ethic at home and hence the attitude of looking down their nose towards the so-called meanial labor jobs. Those jobs have to be done by someone. So ALL governments realize that no matter, legal/illegal , they need the workers badly or the country/economy falls apart. There's nothing wrong with vocational training for trade type jobs. I mean work is work and you just do it. But somehow certain types of work in the wealthy countries is a stench to many sense of smell.

I wouldn't compare the US with Europe in terms of work ethic. Our productivity levels are second to only Norway in the entire world. Secondly, wages are the reason why people don't do menial labour jobs in America and nothing else. If you remove welfare and unemployment, lower taxes, remove illegal immigration and pay US workers $15/hour, people will flock to it. Everyone can't be a doctor, lawyer, or politician.

Some argue that that will drive food prices up. I argue that it is cheaper to pay an American $15/hr than pay for an illegal immigrants 5 children to go to school for free and to birth these children through MediCal dollars.

Originally Posted by bluepacific

They ALL expect to get free government handouts for schooling, then government handouts for job placement, but only in cushy IT/Office Jobs, or even Factory Union jobs with all the mouth watering benefits/handouts.

That is why if you remove socialism, you remove an illegal immigrants incentive to cross the border.

Originally Posted by bluepacific

Then the racist attitudes come out of the woodwork when the Natives of any of these countries notice the cultural differences in various nieghborhoods and they resent it. In the age of the "We Are The World-Multiculturalism" philosophy pimped by secular progressive governments, here's an about face attitude from a Swedish Judge who deals with immigration issues and says 90% of her colleagues feel the same way as she does about multiculturalism as a failure.

The Local - Judge wrote anti-immigrant letters to Prime Minister

The Judge is a one Bodil Schibli who sat on Panels which passed judgements in a number of cases involving immigrants, including twelve cases in 2007.

She's being called on the carpet for writting Anti-Immigrant letters to the Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt imploring the government to "protect it's own people" against, "these fanatical immigrants, who really have no reason to be here, other than to be supported by taxpayers". She also wrote that Islam should be "forbidden from further spreading in our country".

Wow! How interesting! And we have been told this is the typical United States attitude. But lets be fair and honest here, it's the attitude inside of every well off country

I don't see how multiculturalism helps a society. The sake of diversity for diversity's sake benefits no one. Advocates of "multiculturalism" are those who believe that if you somehow homogenise the nation or world you will remove prejudice and discrimination. There is and always will be prejudice and discrimination. Some will always be lighter or darker than others. There will always be rich and poor no matter how hard a government tries to control it. There will always be people that have something to envy. There can never be an absolute "Utopia". Advocates for multiculturalism are advocates for no culture at all. If the whole world turned into one big melting pot, it would be really boring.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by jja100

I don't see how multiculturalism helps a society. The sake of diversity for diversity's sake benefits no one. Advocates of "multiculturalism" are those who believe that if you somehow homogenise the nation or world you will remove prejudice and discrimination. There is and always will be prejudice and discrimination. Some will always be lighter or darker than others. There will always be rich and poor no matter how hard a government tries to control it. There will always be people that have something to envy. There can never be an absolute "Utopia". Advocates for multiculturalism are advocates for no culture at all. If the whole world turned into one big melting pot, it would be really boring.

Multiculturalism isn't about homogenization. It's about tolerance.

[jja100]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Multiculturalism isn't about homogenization. It's about tolerance.

Homogenisation is the inevitable by-product of multiculturalism. As our economy worsens, people are going to look around and wonder if uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration helped or hurt our economy. We need to be careful on how far we go with this. Look at how "tolerant" Germany was during the Weimar Republic when the economy was in the tank. Look what happened afterward.

[ABQConvict]

I disagree with the above statement that multiculturalism is about 'tolerance'.

The terms 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' are often bound together but I believe they are different approaches to how societies with different cultural elements operate.

Diversity is in my opinion a 'passive' approach wherein the host culture 'tolerates' without special accomodation, incoming extra-cultural populations. This is where we find such 'X'-towns such as Chinatown, Little Italy and other cultural enclaves. People are encouraged to practice their culture and beliefs but are not prohibited from assimilating. The host culture remains intact while the incomers only gradually or in part become like the hosts (by the terms of the host).

Multiculturalism is an 'active' paradigm wherein the host culture seeks to overtly merge the incoming culture into its own under the notion that since every culture has its good points, through cultural homogenization, a superior hybrid culture will form. Unfortunately, this is not always the case especially when undertaken rapidly in conditions of mass immigration.

For example, medieval Europe is a classic case of gradual multiculturalism where through the christianization of native Europeans led to a merging of Hebrew mores and cultural proscriptions merged with the pre-christian European culture. This was effected through a more or less gradual movement of ideas.

A riskier approach to multiculturalism can be seen where certain Muslim factions are trying to create Euro-Muslim states in Europe, not through the transmission of ideas, but through mass-immigration of Muslims into Europe leading to an increase in Muslims in government in these states thus creating a new 'merged' culture.

The former example created a relatively stable culture (minus the resistance to conversion and Protestant reformation) while the latter... Well, we shall see.


ABQConvict

[jja100]

Originally Posted by ABQConvict

I disagree with the above statement that multiculturalism is about 'tolerance'.

The terms 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' are often bound together but I believe they are different approaches to how societies with different cultural elements operate.

Diversity is in my opinion a 'passive' approach wherein the host culture 'tolerates' without special accommodation, incoming extra-cultural populations. This is where we find such 'X'-towns such as Chinatown, Little Italy and other cultural enclaves. People are encouraged to practice their culture and beliefs but are not prohibited from assimilating. The host culture remains intact while the incomers only gradually or in part become like the hosts (by the terms of the host).

Multiculturalism is an 'active' paradigm wherein the host culture seeks to overtly merge the incoming culture into its own under the notion that since every culture has its good points, through cultural homogenization, a superior hybrid culture will form. Unfortunately, this is not always the case especially when undertaken rapidly in conditions of mass immigration.

For example, medieval Europe is a classic case of gradual multiculturalism where through the christianization of native Europeans led to a merging of Hebrew mores and cultural proscriptions merged with the pre-christian European culture. This was effected through a more or less gradual movement of ideas.

A riskier approach to multiculturalism can be seen where certain Muslim factions are trying to create Euro-Muslim states in Europe, not through the transmission of ideas, but through mass-immigration of Muslims into Europe leading to an increase in Muslims in government in these states thus creating a new 'merged' culture.

The former example created a relatively stable culture (minus the resistance to conversion and Protestant reformation) while the latter... Well, we shall see.


ABQConvict

I mostly agree, this is why I stress controlled legal immigration. I believe that immigration, especially illegal immigration will always hurt Europe more than the US. I remember the days when Europeans used to scoff at Americans for our diverse infrastructure... now it looks like they are up the same creek. Why I believe this will hurt Europe is because a lot of Europe's GDP is generated from tourism. When I go to travel to Sweden, I don't want to be experiencing middle-eastern or African foods. I am going to see the Swedish people and the Swedish way of life. This can be said for many other countries. I like the fact that we are all different so we can learn from one another and experience new things. The only reason why I am in America with my parents is to make money... not to experience culture... there isn't much left of one. Now with the socialist rhetoric that I hear on TV it sounds much like the place my parents tried to get away from.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by ABQConvict

A riskier approach to multiculturalism can be seen where certain Muslim factions are trying to create Euro-Muslim states in Europe, not through the transmission of ideas, but through mass-immigration of Muslims into Europe leading to an increase in Muslims in government in these states thus creating a new 'merged' culture.

Sounds like what happened when Euro-Christians flooded North America.

Not sure I understand the issue of increased Muslims in government. As a society changes, so does, should, its representation in Government (in democracies, at least). The key is a framework that preserves rights, not who represents. The fact that the world around me changes matters less as long as my rights stay in tact. Just MHO.

[Eduardo983]

European countries use the "Jus Sanguinis" (right of blood) social policy by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state.

Apart from France, Jus Sanguinis still is the preferred means of passing on citizenship in many continental European countries, with benefits of maintaining culture and national identity as well as ethnic homogeneity.

For example: If Fabio was born to Italian parents in Argentina or Australia, he can claim the EuroItalian citizenship and relocate to Italy (if he wishes) (Immigration based on blood).

Fabio is Italian blooded and Italy would assimilate an immigrant who is not genetically different to their population.

On the other hand, if two U.S. citizens visit Italy during spring break and they have a child in Rome while vacationing, that child (little Joe) won`t be granted the Italian citizenship. Why? because the child is not Italian blooded and European nationalities are not recognized to any individual born in European territories.

Fabio was not born in Italy and little Joe was born in Italy. Joe is not Italian blooded and Fabio has Italian genes. Therefore, Fabio is the one who is granted the Italian citizenship and Little Joe goes back to the U.S. without the Italian citizenship.

This helps European countries maintain its homogenous population.

Now, on the other hand, United States uses both Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) and Jus Soli (birthright citizenship). The U.S. citizenship can be recognised to any individual born in the U.S. territory.

Why the U.S. uses this method?

Because this is the method used by countries who sought to increase their populations through settlement. ("New world" countries)

Example, Xing li was born in the U.S to Chinese parents (tourists/immigrants/whatever they are). She is an automatic U.S. citizen.
A real example would be Nicole Kidman, born in Hawaii to Australian non-immigrant parents. Her parents live in Australia and she is a dual citizen (Australia/U.S.)

This is why United States is a multiracial/multiethnic country composed by immigrants from all over the world, and currently has an undocumented population (over 20 million ...a number similar to the total population of Australia or Canada). These immigrants sooner or later will find a way to acquire their legal status, and their children born in the U.S. are as U.S. Americans as the very same founding fathers.

In conclusion, you can`t compare the immigration problem in Europe and the United States. Why? Because any person who wishes to relocate to Europe without being Euro blooded will basically have no opportunities to acquire a nationality in Europe (it`s dead-end).

This is why the immigration problem in Europe is nothing compared to the immigration problem in the U.S. Both regions use different methods to legalize their immigrants and grant their citizenships.

[pigeonhole]

All those pro immigrant people should open their doors and welcome home those immigrants, don't they see our societies can't cope with this massive influx of people, it's obvious, but soon you won't even have the right to say so, you will be branded "racist", "fascist", and so on.
Our civilization is on the verge of collapse : mass immigration, economic crisis, climate change, pollution, overpopulation, increasing violence, here are some of the woes that afflict us today . What wonderful times are we living! (here I'm kidding of course, awful times really!)

[jja100]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Sounds like what happened when Euro-Christians flooded North America.

Not sure I understand the issue of increased Muslims in government. As a society changes, so does, should, its representation in Government (in democracies, at least). The key is a framework that preserves rights, not who represents. The fact that the world around me changes matters less as long as my rights stay in tact. Just MHO.

Yeah, reread what you said and tell me this isn't a problem.

Euro-Christians flooded North America and killed the majority of its inhabitants... the Native American Indians. The issue of increased Muslims in European government can lead to theocratic laws based on Islamic faith. Who knows, maybe they will just start killing Europeans?

And what makes you think that if Muslims enter European governments that they won't infringe upon your rights?