Another immigration discussion

Remove all ads!

It sure as hell is the same ballgame, not the same league but sure as hell the same game and that it is legal and even advocated in "developed" parts of the world is really sickening. The hypocrasy of people being horrified at the thought of female circumsision (as they should be) and then taking their own little son to slice away parts of his genitalia is sickening which is really why I got so started in this thread in the first place. We universally condemn, and rightly so, female circumsision while we ourselves to a large extent practice a very very similar "tradition".

 

Well, if you're saying that mutilating female genitalia is the same thing as circumcision then your logic is infallible.

Saying so does not however help the cause you've mounted upon one single bit.

Female "circumcision" is putting someone in lethal danger. In the clear majority of every female gone through that mutilation. Male circumcision does not. Oh, such bloody hypocrisy! Isn't it! Harrumph!

 

You really have not read a word of what I have written have you?

 

Please explain, then, why male circumcisions often become medically necessary due to infections caused by hygiene issues but female "circumcision" never does. The current medical rationale for widespread circumcisions is to improve hygiene, to prevent phimosis, and as prophylaxis for infant urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and cancer of the penis/cervix. The STD claims have been largely debunked*, but the rest of the claims regarding male circumcision are still valid. There is nevertheless growing opposition to circumcision as a matter of course in the US medical community, since the benefits are actually quite slight in this age of sound hygiene competent medical care.

My circumcision has not rendered me incapable of masturbation or sex. It has not stopped me from engaging in "deviant" sexual activity. Is it a mutilation? Sure. Does it adversely affect my life? Not even a little. Don't get me wrong, if someone decided to ban all forms of genital mutilation, I'd probably yawn, but to compare male and female circumcision as if they have something in common beyond the word "circumcision" is beyond ridiculous.

* Studies conducted on Africans showed a marked difference between VD infection rates of Circumcised and un-circumcised males. More recent studies conducted on Americans, however, have found no discernible difference.

 

You know, when someone says "illegal immigration" to me, you know what's the first thing I think of?

My foreskin.

much?

 

Well, the way I see it is that:

When you live in a country, any country, you need to obey its laws or pay the price for not doing so. And that definitely applies if you chose to go to a country other than the one you were born in. After all, we can't choose our parents, and we can not choose where we are born, but we certainly can choose where we go. In for a penny, in for a pound - if you chose to make the UK, US, Canada or Bahrain your new home, you also accept the laws they have.

 

Yes! Obey the laws like a mindless slave! Do not question the authority! Do not think that laws could be changed! You owe your servitude to the country that's government is willing to put up with you! All governments are good! No law should ever be changed! Obey!

 

Do not care about the law! Listen to no one but yourself! Demand everything and give nothing! Spout slogans!

See, I can do that too. Ok, maybe not quite as well as you, but that's not the point.

Laws do need to be changed at times, and authority should be questioned, for our and its own good. I honestly do not see what point you have with respect to my post, however. If you choose to go to a country and live there, you also choose the life in this country over the one you had, and that includes the laws that country has. If you do not like them, sure, try to change them - but you are not the only one whose opinion matters. A lot of people live there, and their rights matter as much as yours. Disregarding the law has consequences, and it should, for everyone - otherwise there is no point to having it. Sometimes, braving these consequences is the right thing to do. Sometimes it is not.

 

Right, so an immigrant moves to another country and should be allowed to get away with crimes in the new country because it was allowed in the old one? Or the indiginous populace has to change their laws to accomidate a minority of immigrants from different countries who may have conflicting stances on the law?

Get a grip! No government is perfect and no country has the same issues as another so there will always be neccessary variance in laws based on the ethos and culture of a place. To demand that your new home turns into your old one seems pointless to move - why move to a different country if you want to live in your old one?

If you move to a new country out of neccessity then it is neccessary to learn the new laws in the new country to avoid trouble. It isn't an optional extra, you can't expect to move from America to England and be enraged when you are arrested for having a gun, you can't move to England from Holland and be surprised if you get fined for smoking pot and getting caught. People have the ability to learn and adapt to new environments.

Coming to a new place, talking the old language, complaining how it's nothing like home, caring little for the local population and getting what you can is called being a tourist

 

Hm, you all see how easily a discussion of immigration can get polarized?

I think something should be done about it. In here, when we are the ones having the conversation it might be easy...but it should give a pause for thought how easy it is for us to get (or seem to get) heated up by certain topics, of which immigration is definitely one.

Yes, if it's possible for one to choose not to live in the country where one was born. If one can choose in what country to live in. There is a large number of illegal immigrants however, who do not have that choice, who benefit the private sector financially ("Bloody taxes, let's hire some illegal immigrants!"). It's not a question whether to follow the laws or not like a good citizen if you're not a citizen at all in the first place. And yet there are numbers of people living in a country, perhaps even for years "off the record".

Laws change. That's politics. If there is a massive immigration at least policies if not even some laws might have to be changed to ensure there is no large scale civil unrest. As in Paris few years back, which was mainly due to poor immigration policies.

 

Iku, there is a huge difference between obeying the laws while acting to legally change them and being a blind slave. Anarchists tend to end up in jail and frequently cause more harm to their cause than help, while legal movements can be quite effective in many countries. The two exceptions I see are:
1.) when the law as it is actually threatens your life or safety. I will never obey the law that I must bicycle in the street, not the sidewalk, if the streets are even a little busy.
2.) if the law blatantly opposes your religious beliefs and you are strongly religious. If prayer to Yaweh were ever illegalized, I'd become a criminal that same day.

For example, the Civil Rights movement often faced situations where their lives were actually in danger (not due to the law per-se, but rather execution of the law), and so breaking the law was acceptable (though still non-violent means were FAR more effective than violent ones), but I can't think of many women who were arrested for trying to vote, or that those arrests really helped their cause much. Legal protests tend to be far more effective.

Name me a company that drives into Mexico, kidnaps people off the street, and forces them to work in America at gun-point, and I'll give you this point.

 

My view on immigration is that I'd love for the GOP to continue harping on it indefinitely. Every time the party opens its collective mouth to spout about the subject, it further alienates the socially conservative Hispanics who might otherwise vote Republican. Keep on keeping on, you crazy kids.

 

So it'd have to be Mexico, and the working would have to be in America, otherwise there's no problem

Of course human trafficking does not exist, or it is blatantly exagerrated problem even in the remote possibility that it might actually happen.

And refugees are of course completely different matter altogether. We are speaking of immigrants here, not refugees. There is a big difference.

And no, I have no interest to advocate anarchism, anarchists are idiots, but the argument "When in Rome do as the romans do, or get the frag out." tends to bug me since it's most commonly used by people who tend to spout a lot of nonsense in the lines of "Well, I'm not a racist, but..." as well.

Not that I'd be implying that there'd be any racism here in SP, it's not the people who've said it in here, but the use if that specific or similar argument in this context that I'm opposing. It's not the laws of the society or the society as it currently is I'm opposing either, but to see our societies as immutable, or to see to that the status quo should never change, and to see that immigration is a threat to the society as it is now and always should be is something quite foolish.

Name a modern country or a culture which would not have benefited from immigration. I'm sure there's plenty of problems in which the direct cause of the problems are immigrants with their funny customs and their unwillingess to be assimilated by the indigenous population. If we of the people are worse off right now, it is not due to the poor economic situation, it is not due for the mistakes we of pure blood have made, it is not due to the poor management we have chosen for our selves, it is not due to poor policies. All the bad things are definitely due because of a convenient scapegoat, the immigrants, with their strange and outright offensive traditions. They take our jobs, bleed our economies dry, live off on our welfare and expense, are the major cause of all crime. Yammer, yammer,

The current political situation, especially here in Europe being that the extreme right is on the rise, I have no interest to go along with any traditional extreme right-wing rhetorical cantrips. Snip it at the bud before that weed gains too much ground...

 

I think that you have misunderstood some of what has been posted here Iku-Turso.
I don't think anyone is advocating making everybody look and act just like everybody else. What they are saying is that immigrants should act more like immigrants did in the past centuries. An example, most immigrant small business owners are & have been some of the hardest working people you will ever meet.
You don't see anyone protesting the little Italy's or Chinatowns in big cities as they don't try to force their beliefs on others.
However, it seems whenever there is a large immigrant population of certain nationalties, that they seem to want the gov't to take care of all of their needs & when that doesn't happen they cry discrinination.
So what, if in your home country, you can beat a woman for not being covered head to toe or for driving a car unaccompanied or for being out in public alone. It's not illegal here & you will be put in jail for exercising your "right" to beat her.
It doesn't matter what your rights were in your country as you are NOT in that country.
I wouldn't expect to be able to go to china & start protesting that i don't have the same rights as here in the usa, just because i was an american & get anywhere with my argument.

 

Yeah, there must be abundant information about this happening, the media's practically full of it what with the millions of petitions of implementing sharia into our justice system for instance. Definitely an oversight on my part, since I can't seem find any data on this...

 

The Sharia thing happened here in Canada a few years ago. It got kaiboshed.

There's plenty of evidence, both in terms of scientific studies and firsthand stories, that immigrants can face significant challenges in their new homes. There is also evidence that their own actions, particularily actions that indicate to the established culture that no respect exists for that established culture, that those actions can make those challenges worse than they would be if the immigrant made an effort to show respect for the country he came to.

While I think it is intellectually lazy and unreasonable for the established culture to expect perfect integration by newcomers, I also believe it is just as intellectually lazy and unreasonable to expect the established culture to not have some basic expectations of the people who immigrate.

 

I definitely agree on this. A lot of work should be done by all participants.

Finding scapegoats might be convenient, but far too easy and it does not fix any problems. There's always a scapegoat to be found no matter where you are or what the problem is and yes, that is intellectually very lazy indeed.

I think our societies and the western world is coming to a situation in which we have to ask ourselves what we can do, as societies, as best as we can, to improve the immigrants conditions and to integrate them into our societies as efficiently as possible.

 

You know, Iku-Turso, what you said reminds me of my manager when I worked at a convenience store. She said "do what you have to to make sure each customer leaves the store happy --- without giving away the store!"

I am very much aware that people from the established culture also need to make concessions. The term I've heard used in Canada is "reasonable accomodation." As I have said before, this works with most immigrants. But with the small percentage if immigrants for whom it does not work, for whom if you give them an inch they will take a mile and accuse you of being selfish when you protest, a line must be drawn in the sand. Martaug's comment about China is, IMHO, and excellent litmus test -- "Mr. Immigrant, If I were the one immigrating to your country, would your society be willing to bend on this issue, or would I be bent over in a stadium and flogged on national television for questioning your society's norms?" If the answer is "flogging" or anything like unto it, Mr. Immigrant should be grateful that we do not do that <crap> here and perhaps couch his efforts to make a change more politely.

I don't think immigrants should be servile, fawning, or obsequious(sic), but expecting some degree of gratitude is not unreasonable.

 

Around here it's mostly refugees and not immigrants that cause the fuss. Most immigrants come from Russia I think and they mainly come after work which they acquire either legally or illegally. Too often eastern european workforce is used illegally especially in construction.

The situation with refugees is quite a lot more problematic though. They come from wartorn areas, very difficult conditions, have a different cultural background and don't know the language. Their integration is somewhat difficult to say the least. The processing of refuge applications are slow, overly beurocratic and frequently abused (adults are known to pretend to be minors in order to influence the decision).

I don't have strong opinions about taking refugees (immigration I see as more or less necessary). I think they should obviously follow national laws or face possible deportation (if certain humanitarian conditions are met, it would be imo immoral to send a person somewhere where they would be likely to face the death penalty or war). Other than that I lack strong feelings about the issue. In an ideal world we'd have no refugees and this would not be a problem but other than that it's difficult to say what to do. I certainly don't think that we should take all refugees that seek asylum and neither do I think that we should turn away people fleeing war from our borders. The line however is quite thin and I'm not very sure where exactly it should be drawn.