Immigration/Integration - politics, problems, potential solutions

Remove all ads!

But most of them feel - especially the young - rejected or neglected. It is understandable that they refuse to be called germans.
It is rather ironic that the 'real' turks call them just that: Germans.

 

I dont know why you are pissed. I did not put words into your mouth. It is not you who says these immigrants should be from Asia/Africa. Unfortunately your politicians seem to think so.
Plus, the botton line of all this aging/declining problem, is that these same politicians should be looking for internal solutions, not creating even more problem with those immediate policies.

I think the number of immigrants from Asia/Africa is considerably higher than from Eastern Europe. Still, as I said, they - read politicians mostly - look for (non)solutions - letting in immigrants - which do not solve the problem, but rather create many others. That is why I say it is mostly an ideological stance.
Yes, I dont give a damn. Sorry, but that is me. We did not created their Wars, so it is not our responsability. Plus, we never partake any colonialism in these parts of the world, so no, I dont give a damn.

Two wrongs make one right? I dont think so. The fact we have our problems do not mean yours are non existant.
Both you and we should look for the best solution to the problem, instead of ignoring it by bringing in cheap workforce to mascarade the problem.

Sorry, but I already refuted this BS in the thread about turkey and the EU, so if you want to bring this nonsense again back it up, or dont bother.
-----------------------------------------------------

If I understand you correcty, I will have to agree. In this immigration issue, it all comes down to people who are conservative and in favor of Racial/Culturally homogeneous Nations - me - and as such, giving our own arguments to justify our stance; in the other hand, there are people who look forward multiculturalism/racial mixing etc - you - who will give your own excuses to justify immigration. Thus, it is an ideological matter. There is no reason for us to prettend, and bull**** eachother; being honest about it is the best approach to it - not when trying to convince someone though. Of course there are people who are caught in between the ideological clash, and it is those people we hope to convince with occurrances such as this riot. In the end we shall win.

If you have read my posts since I got here - and I am sure you did - you do know I believe in something like that. I dont think it is a conspitacy though. They do it so in the open. It is so blatantly obvious I would not call it a conspiracy. I rememeber when Incarnate found an internet deffinition for the infamous NWO, most people said they certainly could see the phenomenon coming, but they did not believe it was a huge undercover conspiracy. They are right, it is coming, and it is not a conspiracy, it is perpetrared in the light of the day.

What gap? I dont particularly follow the relation between my reasoning and your claim that most unskilled labourers are of non-Anglo descent. You mean to say it is not only the third world immigrants who are unskilled, but rather the whole bunch of the non-indigeneous population?
-----------------------------------------------------

It is not funny to me. We payed a high price in blood through out History to make Russia the land of Russians - Slavs - and we would wish to remain so, thank you!
-------------------------------------------------

I dont think there are any more points adressed to me, but I will read the other posts, and if I have missed something, I will reply.

 

I agree. And the key word there is they feel rejected/neglected. By all means, this doesnt make it true. If the Turks (or whoever) in question manage to convince themselves they are victims, give us the middle finger and then are in turn pushed away, now that is a different problem altogether. One that we cannot take the blame for.

You get what you give.

I think that the problems other Europeans face with their immigrants evolve around a similar point.

 

It should be taken into consideration that if there's a bias in the US against hispanic immigrants it's due in a large part to the fact that so many are here illegally.

 

Hi Y'll!

Now don't get mad about the size of this post. I would gladly put a link here, but since it was an email I received there is nothing to link to.


More great insites from straticic forcasting, inc. stratfor.com

A Question of Integration
By George Friedman

For more than a week, France has been torn by riots that have been, for the most part, concentrated in the poorer suburbs of Paris. The rioters essentially have been immigrants -- or the children or grandchildren of immigrants -- most of whom had come to France from its former colonies. They are, in many cases, French citizens by right of empire. But what is not clear is whether they ever became, in the fullest sense of the word, French.

And in that question rests an issue that could define European -- and world -- history in the 21st century.

Every country has, from time to time, social unrest. This unrest frequently becomes violent, but that is not necessarily defining. The student uprisings around the world in the 1960s had, in retrospect, little lasting significance, whereas the riots by black Americans during the same period were of enormous importance -- symptomatic of a profound tension within American society. The issue with the French riots is to identify the degree to which they are, or will become, historically significant.

For the most part, the rioters have been citizens of France. But to a great extent, they are not regarded as French. This is not rooted necessarily in racism, although that is not an incidental phenomenon. Rather, it is rooted in the nature of the French nation and, indeed, in that of the European nation-state and European democracy -- an experience that distinguishes Europe from many other regions of the world.

The notion of the European nation stands in opposition to the multinational empires that dominated Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These were not only anti-democratic, dynastic entities, but they were also transnational. The idea of national self-determination as the root of modern democracy depended first on the recognition of the nation as a morally significant category. Why should a nation be permitted to determine its own fate unless the nation was of fundamental importance? Thus, in Europe, the concept of democracy and the concept of the nation developed together.

The guiding principle was that every nation had a right to determine its own fate. All of the nations whose identities had been submerged within the great European empires were encouraged to reassert their historical identities through democratic institutions. As the empires collapsed, the submerged nations re-emerged -- from Ireland to Slovakia, from Macedonia to Estonia. This process of devolution was, in a certain sense, endless: It has encompassed, for instance, not only the restoration or establishment of sovereignty to the European powers' colonial holdings in places like Africa or Latin America, but pressure from groups within the territorial borders of those recognized powers -- such as the Basques in Spain -- that their national identity be recognized and their right to democratic self-determination be accepted.

Europe's definition of a nation was less than crisply clear. In general, it assumed a geographic and cultural base. It was a group of people living in a fairly defined area, sharing a language, a history, a set of values and, in the end, a self-concept: A Frenchman knew himself to be a Frenchman and was known by other Frenchmen to be French. If this appears to be a little circular, it is -- and it demonstrates the limits of logic, for this definition of nationhood worked well in practice. It also could wander off into the near-mysticism of romantic nationalism and, at times, into vicious xenophobia.

The European definition of the nation poses an obvious challenge. Europe has celebrated national self-determination among all principles, and adhered to a theory of the nation that was forged in the battle with dynastic empires. At the heart of its theory of nationalism is the concept that the nation -- national identity -- is something to which one is born. Ideally, every person should be a part of one nation, and his citizenship should coincide with that.

But this is, of course, not always the case. What does one do with the foreigner who comes to your country and wants to be a citizen, for example? Take it a step further: What happens when a foreigner comes to your country and wants not only to be a citizen, but to become part of your nation? It is, of course, difficult to change identity. Citizenship can be granted. National identity is another matter.

Contrast this with the United States, Canada or Australia -- three examples where alternative theories of nationhood have been pursued. If being French or German is rooted in birth, being an American, Canadian or Australian is rooted in choice. The nation can choose who it wants as a citizen, and the immigrant can choose to become a citizen. Citizenship connotes nationality. More important, all of these countries, which were founded on immigration, have created powerful engines designed to assimilate the immigrants over generations. It would not be unreasonable to say that these countries created their theory of nationhood around the practice of migration and assimilation. It is not that the process is not painful on all sides, but there is no theoretical bar to the idea of anyone becoming, for example, an American -- whereas there is a theoretical hurdle to the idea of elective nationalism in Europe.

This obstacle has been compounded by the European imperial experience. France was born of a nationalist impulse, but the nationalism was made compatible with imperialism. France created a massive empire in the 19th century. And as imperialism collided with the French revolutionary tradition, the French had to figure out how to reconcile national self-determination with imperialism. One solution was to make a country like Algeria part of France. In effect, the definition of the French nation was expanded to incorporate wildly different nationalities. It left French-speaking enclaves throughout the world, as well as millions of citoyens who were not French by either culture or history. And it led to waves of immigrants from the former francophone colonies becoming citizens of France without being French.

Adding to this difficulty, the Europeans erected a new multinational entity, the European Union, that was supposed to resurrect the benefits of the old dynastic empires without undermining nationalism. The EU is an experiment in economic cooperation and the suppression of nationalist conflicts, yet one that does not suppress the nations that created it. The Union both recognizes the nation and is indifferent to it. Its immigration policy and the European concept of the nation are deeply at odds.

The results of all of this can be seen in the current riots in France. As evident from this analysis, the riots are far from a trivial event. These have involved, by and large, French citizens expressing dissatisfaction with their condition in life. Their condition stems, to some degree, from the fact that it is one thing to become a French citizen and quite another to become a Frenchman. Nor is this uniquely a French problem: The issue of immigrant assimilation in Europe is a fault line that, under sufficient stress and circumstances, can rip Europe apart. Europe's right-wing parties, and opposition to the EU in Europe, are both driven to a large extent by the immigrant issue.

All societies have problems with immigration. In the United States, there currently is deep concern about the illegal movement of Mexican immigrants across the border. There is concern about the illegality and about the changing demographic characteristics of the United States. But there is no serious movement in the United States interested in halting all immigration. There is a management issue, but in the end, the United States is perpetually changed by immigrants and the immigrants, even more, are changed by the United States. Consider what once was said about the Irish, Italians or Japanese to get a sense of this.

The United States, and a few other nations, are configured to manage and profit from immigration. Their definition of nationhood not only is compatible with immigration, but depends on it. The European states are not configured to deal with immigration and have a definition of nationhood that is, in fundamental ways, incompatible with immigration. Put simply, the Europeans could never quite figure out how to reconcile their empires with their principles, and now can't quite figure out how to reconcile the migrations that resulted from the collapse of their empires with their theory of nationalism. Assimilation is not impossible, but it is enormously more difficult than in countries that subscribe to the American model.

This poses a tremendous economic problem for the Europeans -- and another economic problem is the last thing they need. Europe, like the rest of the advanced industrial world, has an aging population. Over the past generation, there has been a profound shift in reproductive patterns in the developed world. The number of births is declining. People are also living to an older age. Therefore, the question is, how do you sustain economic growth when your population is stable or contracting?

The American answer is relatively straightforward: immigration. Shortages of engineers or scientists? No problem. Import them from India or China, give them advanced education in the United States, keep them there. Their children will be assimilated. Is more menial labor needed? Also not a problem. Workers from Mexico and Central American states are readily available, on a number of terms, legal and illegal. Their children too can be assimilated.

Of course, there have been frictions over immigrants in the United States from the beginning. But there is also a roadmap to assimilation and utilization of immigrants -- it is well-known territory that does not collide with any major cultural taboos. In short, the United States, Australia and Canada have excellent systems for managing and reversing population contractions, which is an underpinning of economic strength. The Europeans -- like the Japanese and others -- do not.

The problem of assimilating immigrants in these countries is quite difficult. It is not simply an institutional problem: A new white paper from Brussels will not solve the issue. It is a problem deeply rooted in European history and liberalism. The European theory of democracy rests on a theory of nationalism that makes integration and assimilation difficult. It can be done, but only with great pain.

It is not coincidental, therefore, that the rates of immigration to European states are rather low in comparison to those of the more dynamic settler-based states. This also places the Europeans at a serious economic disadvantage to the immigrant-based societies. The United States or Canada can mitigate the effects of population shortages with relative ease. The influx of new workers relieves labor market pressures -- encouraging sustained low-inflation economic growth -- and the relative youth of immigrants not only allows for steady population growth but also helps to keep pension outlays manageable. In contrast, the European ideal of nationality almost eliminates this failsafe -- so that while, as a whole, Europe's population is both aging and shrinking, the dearth of young immigrant workers spins its pension commitments out of control.

These are the issues that, over the next few generations, may begin to define the real global divide -- which will be not only between rich and poor nations, but between the rich nations that cannot cope with declining populations and the rich nations that can.

 

You did very clearly give that impression though in your reply.

Hardly, the difference is though that what I call genocide you call just retribution, and what I call imperialism you call legal aquisation of some living space for the Russian people.

There are really no magical wands around that get our people to reproduce a lot more, if you have a better solution than immigration then you might as well share it because I most certainly don't have one.

It largely depends on the country, the colonial nations take a lot people from their former colonies but Finland takes very few. Just some refugees which decide to stay and only a handful of immigrants. From what I remember from my geography people of Russian descent are a lot more common in here than Africans or Asians. And I would like to point out that immigration needs to be moderated somehow, I'm in no way supporting a complete opening of the borders atleast outside EU, a huge intake of refugees or immigrants at a time is bound to cause trouble so one does need to be careful with them.

 

I meant the politicians/intelectuals. If you misunderstood - or if I expressed myself wrongly - then I am sorry.

That is our Lebensraum. LOL! Anyway, I dont think it is a matter of genocide or imperialism. For one, Russians did not exterminate people in the process of expanding it's borders. Secondly, while Russia did conquered many lands, these people have always been hostile and violent against Slavs.

It can certainly be done, as long as the people are indeed interested in changing the tide. I dont think I am up to deciding how to bring solution to this matter, though I can guess some options. For one, welfare state is doing no good. Secondly, the selfish mentality of the population only bring harm. There are also actions the goverment might push to help.
I think a bit of conservatism/traditionalism could change people's mindset into reversing the situation as well.
As long as they keep bringing immigrants, though, there is this illusion the problem is being solved, and as such, people dont care.

Finland is a particular case. Yours us historically Russian land.

 

Depends your point of view but Alexander I himself declared Finland as a nation back in 1809 and that was the first time Finland was occupied by Russia in full. Of course later Tsars would not have an equal respect for that declaration with their attempts of russification. Later Russia payed the Price when the Finnish people decided not to intervene in the Russian Civil War against the Bolsheviks even though Mannerheim so eagerly spoke for it.

It is very unlikely that people will start having more children because they think the national economy needs it. I know I sure as hell would not. I don't think people share any illusions about immigration offering a miracle cure because it does not, it helps the problem a little but not nearly enough to even create an illusion, people know that the population is aging and they know it's inevitable, so blaming that immigration only makes things worse in this regard is just plain wrong.

I don't think traditionalism/conservatism from the government's side will help much either, the government is not really not that influential, there is very little they can do about this. Changing the mindset of people is a very slow process and quite frankly I can't see that mindset changing anytime soon enough to prevent the demographical crisis, not here nor in Russia.

 

On a more serious note, the last part of your post is very relevant. Many Nations during the bolshevik revolution stood neutral - when they should had supported the Whites - or then plainly supported the reds, either directly or indirectly. But then the red plague wanted more and expanded itself, and these people payed a high price for their conivence or plain treason. It suits them well. They may rant anti-Russian BS as long as they want, but they are partly responsable for what happened to them later. You know who you are.

The more religious parts of the US - the Southern red neck - more conservative etc have a higher birth rate than the more liberal regions of the US. I think there is a real interwining between these two things.

 

I don't know where you live. Maybe the people around you are all open-minded, nice and friendliy towards turks.

There is enough racism going around, thank you very much. And no, I am not an immigrant.
These feelings are not all unjustified.

It begins when you are not let into a disco because some other idiots who looked foreign started trouble. And it ends when your children, siblings or cousins get worse grades than german children with equal performance.

These things happen.

What's the point, indeed?

[ November 09, 2005, 01:18: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

Those areas are also more rural and the birth rates in rural areas are higher, that goes for here too so it's not just about being conservative and religious. Also you realize how difficult it would be to change those liberal areas to conservative areas? I just don't see it happening. People usually have quite stable values and changing those is difficult, they may change in time but it won't happen fast and the direction is very difficult if not impossible to control.

 

No, they are not. They behave cautious around them, especially when the Turks (or other groups known for trouble) hang around in a number greater than one.

I live in Köln - and let me tell you Turks arent meek, downtrodden and exactly on the receiving side of abuse dealt here. A friend of mine visits Berlin now and then. She told me that things are not as bad in the capital.

The better clubs have a rather selective policy as far as guests are concerned; I see that being implemented every weekend. Never mind that one of the doormen of my favorite club is a Turk, as are some of the walkers. Turks are also among the regulars. No one cares, cause they are ok. The barkeeper who gives my drinks some extra booze but charges me half the price? He's Turkish. (I must say there are lots of them around it seems )
True, groups of foreigners are often sent away by the doormen. Especiall when they have a "rough" look. It is unfair, yes, but who is to blame for these precautions? Why is it that Turks and others are associated with trouble by the doormen and bouncers? Where you see racism I see people who have learned from experience

I have heard nothing of this. But I would have in case those were incidents that happen often - or even systematically. So please!

You mentioned critical thinking the other day. Use it. For what you are bemoaning there is a cause. Dont single out your own people when there is plenty of blame to be had for all involved.

[ November 09, 2005, 03:13: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

Well, you can believe that if you wish. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you. You'll pardon me for suggesting that this line of reasoning could just be the underpinning for any Dolchstoße-style explanation of the current state of events, if one was inclined to interpret it that way.

No, I mean that in this country (at least, in my experience), immigrants and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds are hugely over-represented in the most menial and unskilled labouring jobs. Ironically, the indigenous populations (Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders) are no better off, in many cases - Australia has been thoroughly remade in an Anglo-European image. The reference to Günther Wallraff's piece (its original title was "Ganz Unten") was there to demonstrate that it's not just something happening in Australia.

The gap I referred to was that the argument that governments in technologically-advanced nations are bringing in poor migrant workers to do these tasks as a way to supplant the local population was tenuous at best. If it was truly part of some massive leftist conspiracy, why would they be bringing in people to do menial work with minimal legal and health protections? The workplace injury and fatality rates in such occupations are typically much higher, the conditions are usually terrible, and offer little more than subsistence wages. I fail to see how that fits with the plans of any supposed New World Order.

 

Oh, there are enough of these guys here as well. Being meek and downtrodden is not in their nature.

I don't want to defend their actions. I just want you to understand why they behave so badly, why they use violence and why an increasingly number of them turns to religion. This is the problem.

Do you think that they were born like that?

 

We have the same thing in mind, and only describe the problem from different perspectives. Both is true, why it is an incomplete picture to draw to go and "accuse" only one side.

Of course they are not born that way. It would be only fair and accurate to remember that Germans arent born with a typical mindset either.

You know it wasnt planned for the Turks to stay here back then. They themselves did not see that coming. So no one bothered with integration. Germany was - still is - ill-prepared to handle such a large group of foreigners. I will readily admit that the Turks did not get much of a chance to a fair start here.
What made our situation even more precarious: Because of recent history, it was deemed unacceptable by some to "impose" German culture on foreigners, which included not giving incentives to learn our language and habits in the opinion of those anti-German ideologists. With that you have the starting point for a totally rotten relationship.
Forgive me, but with that build-up I will not be twiddling thumbs while you say that people here have serious racial issues. In truth, the average German is highly irritated by the insolence (such as calling German women whores, and treating them accordingly) of the Turks and others whose nature does seem to stimulate us in a negative fashion - which would exclude Italians, Greeks, Spanish, Asians.

There is a history to it all, and this whole thing has developed into a downward spiral. I would like to have that recognized for the Germans side too.

 

Off topic for a bit here, but do the doormen in Germany have something against people in jeans and sneakers ? Me and my friends once went to Bochum, to a club called Tark Center, and we were denied entrance because we were dressed casual. Damn, three hours in a car only to hear someone tell you "nein nein, keinen jeans und keine sportschuhe".

On the way out we came through Dortmund and we decided to go for a beer in one of the local bars. The first one we picked had a lady behind the bar, who immediately ran towards the door when she spotted us, and locked the door before we could enter. I was like "what the hell is this...do we look like criminals or something" ?

And that was it, there was nothing left to do then to return homeward again, i didn't have a single beer all night.

 

What, you didn't find another bar/tavern/whatever?

You obviously went to the wrong 'establishments'. I never had someone decline me entrance.

Well, I do look distinguished, no matter what I wear.

I never had the motive to bash germans. I just wanted to counter the onesidedness and generalization found here.

 

It depends, Pac man. On the jeans, the sneaks, your hair style and the club you want to visit.

Some have a certain theme as you probably are aware of. If you dont - for whatever reason - meet the expectations of the doorman/-women, well...
It is just that they want to have the right feeling to their guests, to create a certain party crowd. I dont think its different in the Netherlands.

Saw it many times that people, Germans and foreigners alike, who seemed perfectly ok were sent away just for having the wrong clothes/shoes on. Or somehow would not fit in. The doorpeople are also not that happy about larger groups that women are not a part of.

And fellows that seem of the bunch out for trouble arent allowed in anyway, but that goes without saying.

 

I can't speak about the rest of the world, I just know what happens where I live, for what I see.
I have the feeling that here, in Spain, most of the immigrants don't want to fit; on the other hand, there are many immigrant that are muslim that want that Spain adapt to them. How? Mulsim girls don't do gymnastic as a subject, the food in many school have changed to adapt to the needs of muslim kids, even prision had to adapt.
We have latins also, they started to come here to do the work nobody else wanted to do (domestic servants, bricklayers, etc) so soon they started to bring their kids. Now, much of those kids are making gangs: latinkings, ñetas, etc, and they go around fighting eachother, if you see them you know that they are very extremists, they just care about other gang member being dead.
So there are Eastern immigrant too, lots of them lately. This people just don't want to work, women go around begging, many of them have babies and many of them were caught being violent with the kids. Men have their kids stealing or their women begging. Boys go around stealing, pushing around, etc., and maybe looks like a generalization but regrettable, I or anybody else, have seen any of them wanting to work or to study.
So, many, many of the immigrant, here in Spain, don't want to integrate, insted, many, many of them come to beg, to steal, to live a life where if possible, everything is free of charge. And the fact that kids can't go to jail; or that if you jail a 'black African' or a latinking member because you are called racist, makes this a very dangerous situation.
Many of the immigrant come with no education at all, some barely speak Spanish, so no matter how good person you are, you can't give them a job. I did a Catalan class because I have to learn Catalan to work, and we went to a city search for immigrants that are in the city (Africans, Easterns) and NONE of them wanted the FREE class, we told them that is something you need to get a decent job or even to communicate with other people, but no matter what we said, none of them wanted to learn. Catalonia has a huge work department help, I have been there, you get lot of help to get a job, you get free education for the job you want to do, but there are just few people (and most local) that take advantage of it.
So, if you ask me, here in Spain, immigrand don't want to integrate.

 

To touch on the final part of this thread. Does anyone have any solutions? In my opinion, it appears that the latest attempts at multiculturism have failed miserably. The only solution I can come up with is to start closing borders, deporting and maybe even revoking citizenship, and to be far stricter in who is allowed to immigrate in the future. Possibly make immigration a temporary thing and require a test/evaluation to determine permanent status. If people haven't learned fluency in the languange and embraced the culture, then the nation may soon have a responsibility to remove that person to maintain their nation and standard of living. I admit it is cruel and harsh, but nobody said things were supposed to be easy and fair.