Immigration/Integration - politics, problems, potential solutions

Remove all ads!

Removing? Where to? Where do you want to send people who were born in our countries, for example? In the homeland of their parents? They are strangers there as well, even more so. What about people who came from countries where they were persecuted or hunted out of political or other reasons? Or where they have no chance of survival?

No. They are here. We got to live with them. They are part of our societies, even if we don't want that or if they don't feel like that.

Spain is a good example. As far as I know, the ius sanguinis is still in effect there. That means an immigrant cannot become a spanish citizen, as long as he has no spanish ancestors.

This is part of the problem. Demanding integration is okay (if no one has to assimilate, which is what france demands, by the way). But you got to offer the inmmigrants something. This can be free language classes, the possibility of becoming a citizen, etc. Think about it: Why should you integrate in a society which demands you to fit in, but does nothing to make that happen?

If the classes are free and they don't come, make them mandatory. But perhaps the don't know about them?
Since the immgration law is in effect here, the new (mandatory) free language classes are overrun with applicants who, for the most part, lived here for years. Even the few and unfree classes before were constantly overly full.

There is also the possibility of integration courses. Bremen in north Germany is currently adapting an turkish(!) integration program for people who come from the rural areas in east anatolia.

Stuttgart walks another way: It activly helps young people with an immigrant background in searching a job or an education. Old people help them. The politicians speak with the immigrants. It works. Sttugart has more immigrants than Hamburg, for example, a city with no integration policies. And the crime rate in the category "young immigrants" did sink. Very much so.
And in Hamburg? Nope.

There are ways. But it is essential that state and society make offers and engage in fitting policies. Just saying: "You've come here. No integrate!" does not work, obviously.

 

it is not a matter of being rural. It is deeply related to the mindset of the people, as in religious and more conservative. If you want to go deeper into this, Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West" talks about it in more detail.
------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but I dont speak german. Regardless, it is not really a matter or agreeing or disagreeing. Unless you want do deny the following is happening in the world: Universalism; relativisation of property; disregard of borders and National lines; downplaying of Christianity and traditional European Culture/society; growing totalitarian States; one world goverment; loss of civil society autonomy in face of UN resolutions; attempt to restrict un-PC points of view - and consequently loss of free speech - etc. If you admit these things are happening in the world - and I dont see how an honest person could deny they are - then the NWO is being pushed. If it is a big conspiracy, as I said, it is another matter, but the actual development of the NWO is plain fact.

I see, but that does not refute my point. First of all, they are uneducated and unskilled, which is why the cant get good jobs. Second of all, the fact they are not fully accepted, yet, is because they may still face resistance from the common citzen, who is not all that happy to see his own contry turn into a multicultural hellhole. That does not mean, however, the intellectuals and politicians pushing for this phenomenon dont have a clear and firm ideological stance they are trying to push. For every politician/intellectual with anti-immigration, conservative agenda, there are like what, 100 with the exact opposite ideological position.
Just see the whole French riots. These intellectual posers and deceivers, instead of being honest about the whole situation, already maskarade the whole situation, by blaming "evil European bigots" for the mess and violence they are suffering. Not only that, but instead of focusing on discussing the grave occurrances, they keep Bull****ting about the danger of the "extreme right wing radicals" taking advantage of the riot, and the growing of Xenophobia. No matter what happens, they will never be honest and decent about it, because they are committed to their socialist agenda, and as such, they will always twist the meaning of whatever to push even more their ideology. Even if Paris is burned to the ground, they will still stick to the immigrants, and will change the subject of the actual problem and mention rising Xenophobia. A bunch of immoral deceivers they are.

 

Multiculturalism has not failed, as TGS has stated. There are a number of countries which provide examples where it has worked, or is at least stable. However, the critical factors in achieving a stable, workable multicultural society seem to be:

- encouraging integration without forcing assimilation;
- limiting or preventing ghettoisation of groups along racial or cultural lines (which requires awareness of potential inherent biases in law and policy);
- controlling the influx of immigrants (it can't be an "open-border" situation); and
- not having a large local population which holds strong nationalist tendencies or is hostile to those from racial or cultural groups outside their own.

That's not to suggest that we'll end up with a utopian paradise by doing all of this, merely that these are a few ways to make a multicultural society work. I think Australia is exceptionally lucky in that respect - the dominant group does not have a sense of entitlement to the land, since we are aware that the Australian Aborigines were here first several thousand years before we were. We have no land borders with other countries.

In that respect, our situation is remarkably different from those in France, or Spain, or Germany, or Russia. I can't say I favour deportation or aggressive racial profiling as solutions, but hey, my country is hardly above such practices (even if it's only at an informal, departmental level). Controlling the influx of immigrants is crucial to maintaining a balance.

As an aside - I find a certain sad irony in the fact that the primary criterion for immigration to Australia as a skilled immigrant is the Skilled Occupations List (or SOL). Essentially, if your area of expertise isn't on there, you're SOL (the other one).

Given the fact that a university-level educator is not covered on the list, but a hairdresser is, I wonder who is writing our foreign policy.

 

Multi-culturalism works fine in NZ. No riots here.

 

The same guys who inter unwanted immigrants in camps in the middle of nowhere, perhaps? Or who turn back a ship full of fugitives?

*sigh* Here we go again. The old "intellectuals-are-a-bunch-of-blind-lying-socialist-extremists-and-only-we-conservatives-know-the-absolute-and-whole-truth-about-everything" sermon.

Don't you ever get tired of this?

 

Maybe the secret is to be an island so there is a natural barrier to immigration.

Are you trying to say that it isn't true?

 

Given that NZ was pretty much the last place in the world to be settled by humans, pretty much everyone here is an immigrant.

 

@ Svyatoslav,

The Dolchstoße ("stab in the back") myth came out of the "defeat" of Germany in WW1. It was one of the primary social myths which led to the demonisation of particular groups in post-Versailles Germany. It was a contributor to the success of the Nazi Party and ultimately, to the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust. Essentially, it's the same tactic: blame your problems on outsiders, rather than taking a hard look at the matter and potentially how screwed up your own policies are. I've seen where that sentiment leads, time and time again, and it's never a good thing.

Re: NWO - I won't deny that some of those things are occurring, Svy - but sadly, I think you'll find that you can't blame seditious conspiratorial leftist bastards for all of them. In fact, I can string up plenty of right-wing groups and organisations on most of those points, too. The simple fact is that you can't trust anybody with power to do what's right or in the interests of anybody but themselves, no matter what they believe.

First point - well, I'll concede that. However, it shouldn't preclude them from accessing educational and/or employment opportunities and improve their employability. Admittedly, you can't accept everybody, and people would be kidding themselves to think otherwise. That's not what I was arguing about, and it's a bit off-topic, so I'll leave it there.

Second point - I must confess, it's amazing how you turn bigotry into an acceptable practice and then launch into an ideological rant against leftists. Call me crazy for thinking this, but everyone deserves the opportunity to improve their lot, regardless of race. There are enough impediments to success without attempting to justify the bigotry of the existing citizenry. Of course, religious groups and conservatives have NEVER been responsible for anything like that kind of prejudice and ill-treatment of people in recent history... no sir!

I will not defend France's policies without knowing them, but there is obviously a need for a balance to be struck, since neither open borders nor virulent xenophobia are desirable in a civilised society. Race is obviously an issue, and it can't be ignored under the banner of political correctness (one of the most insidious and undesirable creations of modern times, right up there with reality TV). But in the long run, it helps nobody to pathologise social harms as being the sole responsibility of a racial group (or as completely absent if only one group exists).

Did you ever stop to consider, Svy, that perhaps one of the reasons why these riots are occurring is precisely because of the sort of bitter contempt that you seem to be praising as a virtue? This informal racism and its influence in the structures and corridors of power? It wouldn't be the sole reason, and certainly wouldn't justify the riots. It would go some way towards explaining them - which is what needs to be done, as soon as order can be restored. Unless, of course, it's just because those ungrateful immigrants are just trouble-makers and there's nothing else wrong at all... but I'd be betting against that.

@ Fabius:

For the record, you left out "deporting and/or incarcerating its own mentally-ill citizens in detention centres". It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic and the people responsible had been fired for their incompetence.

 

First of all, I dont know how much multicultural New Zealand is to comment, but the situation is quite different. As someone else has mentioned, it is a new country made of immigrants. One can argue it was a country of European immigrants till, well, I dont know how long ago, but I digress. Anyway, my point is that we can not use NZ example and apply to Europe. I think the "new" countries could be an option for people who would wish to live in a multicultural society, but then there are the people who dont want that, and I think Europe should be the option for them, since Europe is the craddle of European Civilization. It is the same with Russia to Russians.
-------------------------------------------------

No, I dont. As long as there are people who are blindly following multiculturalism for merely ideological reasons, disregarding all kinds of collateral and negative effects. That seems to be your case; and considering I have not read a single post from you in this thread which has not being apologetic to the despicable behaviour of these rioters, with the typical "it is all the fault of European racists", then I see no reason to further discuss any point with you, because quite frankly, I dont like people who think like you, and there is no way to maintain a discussion without breaking all the Forum rules.
---------------------------------------------------

I see what you mean. Well, all I can say is that blaming others is always an easy escape, but it is also true people think pointing out "you are blaming others for your own problems" is also an easy way to avoid discussing the responsability of the others - in this case foreigners. The same goes for labelling others racist, xenophobes, thus avoiding bringing up solutions for immigration problems.
I guess the botton line is, we should not a priori deny foreign harm on the bases that this is an easy way out, but rather investigate if indeed the outsiders are bringing harm or not.

I dont think real right wing people are pushing for these phenomena. Unless you mean some bastardized version of pseudo right wingers, because it certainly does not apply for traditional right minded individuals.
I dont think it is a conspiracy, because conspiracy implies undercover activity, and these are happening for anyone to see. I dont see what is the big fuss about blaming leftists. Arent they universalists? Arent they against property? Arent they for PC thinking? Arent they for the idea of a unique world goverment based upon UN ideals? Arent they against traditional European Christianity? And etc? Who else should I blame, if they are the ones who support all these things, and yet we can actually see them happening?

Do you think these people work hard to educate themselves? I have read many testimonies of people here, whose ancestors were European immigrants to the US, and worked their asses hard to accomplish something, instead of waiting for the goverment to give everything to them with no effort. I have also read many people complaining about these new third world immigrants refusing to take classes, learning the language etc.
I dont think this is an exclusivity of these immigrants by the way. People are each passing day more pathetic, weak, lazy, plain sissies for a matter of fact. They want everything easy, and the notion that the State should secure them no matter what just worses the problem. The leftist idea of removing individual responsability, and putting it in the colletive instead only contributes to the problem. The world turns itself into a hippie hell hole ever more, daily. But then I am getting off topic. What I wanted to say is that it is worse with the immigrants.

Bigotry? Because I say some people are refusing multiculturalism? I can not agree with that. I agree, though, that everyone should have an opportunity to improve their lot, I just want they to improve a lot, OUT of Russia, Ukraine or Belarus for the matter. First of all, as anyone can see for themselves, Russia faces many problems as it is now. Secondly, even when Russia gets back on her feet again - and I am positive it will, it is just a matter of time - it has responsabilities with her Slavic brethren first and foremost, like the Serbians, Ukes, Bulgarians etc. I was never into internationalism, and I like the idea of each taking care of their own. I just dont give a damn for the others. I dont see why any well off country should bring itself lots of problems, endanger it's own Cultual/ethnical composition in the name of "humanistic" values. I dont wish no one harm, but then I dont want to help them either.
As for ill treatment, in recent History none can surpass commies.

There would be no Xenophobia if there was no outsiders to begin with. Now that the situation is already grave in the West, well, I dont have a magical solution to begin with, and it is not my atributtion anyway, but I do know and wish to prevent this **** from happening in Slavic lands, by whatever means at hand, with borders shut and no allowance of these NWO unvalues to infiltrate our countries. It is not like I am harming anyone. Can't they be happy in their own Nations? I repeat, Russia never took part in any colonialism in these parts of the world, and holds no responsability whatsoever. It is Russian's full right to keep Russian land for the Russians only.

The problem is that people assume there can be no Racial difference between Races, and then when these things occur they will always be blamed upon "informal racism" or "bitter contempt that I support".
The thing is, if there was not the minimal of what you call "racism" or "xenophobia", Races would mix themselves into oblivion. I think you realised already I would not support such scenario.
There are millions of immigrants already in the West, if they would be fully integrated, as you seem to wish, then sooner than later Europe would be no longer Culturally and Racially European. All ethnical groups who perseverated till these days did so because they had self deffense urges and "weapons". If you remove it from them, they cease to exist. of course, if this is pointless to you, you could not care at all, but I do care for this, so...

 

True - avoiding the issue achieves nothing. I'd argue that it goes further than that question, and encompasses a lot more than just the autonomous actions of any distinct ethno-culturally distinct groups. Moreover, it becomes important to investigate what else is relevant if it's not (or not just) tied to those groups - and certainly in the case of France, I'd say it's definitely a question that needs an answer.

And I'd quote the same line about Communists or purely anti-establishment anarchists not being representative of "proper" leftists. In truth, I think it's more an issue of moderation - fanatics on any part of the political spectrum are always going to cause problems. Commentary and action on an issue as contested as this always requires a certain grounding in reality.

No, because in my experience, they're too busy working to keep up with the cost of living, put their kids through school, et cetera to worry about education.

A state should always have a responsibility to maintain a basic level of survival for its citizens, IMO. Of course, that responsibility is paired up with a duty to support oneself as far as possible. While I'm not keen on removing responsibility or social positivism, neither am I a fan of pure rational-choice theories or bio-/psycho-positivist explanations which ignore the socio-economic reality that some populations live in.

Like a friend of mine is fond of saying - you're only guaranteed a right to the pursuit of happiness; catching it is your business.

I'm not calling you a bigot, Svy. I'm saying that your argument reads like you think it's a good thing that people want foreigners out of "their" territory. If that's the case, then I'd say you're in favour of it, or at least, against being open-minded about immigrants. I'm sorry if I've misread it; I'm sure you'll correct me if that's the case.

Ah... well, I won't argue that it's important to have one's own house in order before inviting others in. However, I would argue that any nation has the same basic responsibilities to its citizens, irrespective of their race. That isn't a one-way street, but neither should it be bounded or dictated along racial lines.

Because they don't feel bound to a Hobbesian view of the world and believe in some sort of moral imperative to assist the less fortunate and/or less capable? The basic Christian principle that whatsoever you do unto the lowest, you also do unto God?

Out of curiosity - where do you stand on refugees and asylum seekers, Svy? Don't feel compelled to answer - I'm just interested in knowing.

No, it'd still be there - it's just that the problems would manifest across borders, rather than just within them.

No-one has a magical solution, because there isn't one - that's why we haven't fixed it yet! I do think, though, that any perception that any land is the sovereign property of a particular people is one of the reasons why it's difficult at all. That's easy for me to say, given Australia's colonial legacy; I can understand your possessiveness, given WW2 alone (to say nothing of other matters).

To be frank, I don't see such great differences between races as you'd have me believe. More often than not, it's other issues that get projected onto a racial setting/stereotype, not the traits of a race itself. If by "these things" you're referring to the riots in France, to an extent, they are rightly blamed on structural racism - but not entirely, and those perpetrating the acts should be held responsible for them as well.

In short: race alone should not determine anything. Once it does, the process is overtly racist by definition.

When processes do not discriminate on the basis of race in wording but do so in practice or effect, serious questions (like the one at the top of this post) need to be asked. It is not enough to find a scapegoat and start heaping blame onto it.

And you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. I don't understand why it's so important - I've been branded a race traitor before for dating outside my race, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Culture is far more of a defining trait than race, IMO.

Racially? Well, I didn't know that there was a European "race", as such - and are there some racial traits that are utterly definitive? There are none that I am aware of, and certainly none that I would racially pathologise. Culturally? "Culture" is hardly immutable and will change on its own. It's worth preserving if you hold the view that it's better than other cultures. It's fine if you do; change for its own sake isn't to be embraced whole-heartedly, but neither is anachronism.

You're right - to me, it does seem pointless to cling to a notion of land and lifestyle as uniquely belonging to a racial group. I have said before that I view nationalism as little more than institutionalised racism, and I will stick to that conviction - I believe it has caused more conflict and strife than just about anything over human history (many things done in the name of religion have had such nationalist "justifications" as well). I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one and leave it at that.

 

No, you can become Spanish citizen after 5 years living here, take Roberto Carlos (Real Madrid player) case, he is Spanish citizen (no double-nationalized like many other players). And with the new laws, after 2 years living in Spain, you can get married with a natural born Spanish and you are automatic a Spanish - UE citizen.
That's why many men and women pay for a husband-wife.

So what solutions do we have for the problem?
Send them back to their countries? Lots of Africans come to Spain in boats or jumping Celta / Merilla fence because they say that where they live they starve to death, so they walk thousands of miles (many cases take 2 - 4 months of walk) to get 2 - 4 weeks of asylum in the care center and then walk around the streets searching for wasting for food or commiting crimes to survive?
IMHO, we are trying to cure cancer with an aspirine; first, why everybody come to Spain, England, France, etc.,? Because they can't live in their own countries, they starve, they have riots of their own, they are persecuted because they race/religion etc.,. And BECAUSE, they have corrupted rulers who accumulate wealth endlessly. Few weeks back, Nigerian first lady died after cosmetic surgery; another top story few months back said that many of the kings / princes spent thousands dollars to sleep one night at some expensive hotel or have expensive cars/houses while people are starving in the streets. So, is more important to spend money in a cosmetic surgery or to buy a Mercedez than to take care their own people? Thousands of Africans die in mines or other resource exploits in hand of foreing companies that pay them miserably and leave everything in ruins.

So, IMHO, the solution is to stop these people from killing their own people.

 

It seems my question was missed the first time (or maybe I just missed your reply - it's on the first page if you want to find it) - but Svy (and any other anti-immigration people), how many immigrants do you actually know? Personally, that is.

I just can't see immigration as a bad thing when I know so many immigrants who are enriching my life.

 

You see the problem? You cannot differ between 'explaining' and 'being apologetic'. I try to explain the phenomena coming with migration. I try to offer possible solutions.

I do not apologize them.

Now, that's clearly bigot. You accuse intellectuals of blindly following ideology. And now you are using racist arguments, which are ideologically based themselves.

Cultures change. Ethnics change. Even if you'd try really hard, you could not find an ethnically 'clean' individual in Europe. We are all mixtures. Same with our cultures.
You could say that change is our nature. We can only try to shape it, not stop it.


@Sydax:

If they changed the law, I apologize. Seems my information about spain was a little behind.
But there are still countries that still use 'blood law'.

There is that, also. Helping the immigrants' countries of origin to overcome their problems is another part. But it takes a lot of time.

 

No need to apologize, just updating information

And yes, maybe helping to immigrants' countries to overcome their problems takes lot of time, but hey, someday it has to start! I don't see anyone trying to start.
Lots of campaigns and organizations ask us money for the poor in Africa but that money always seems to end in few already-rich pockets or in another anti-etnia war. Yes, I know that there are lots of people working there helping poor people, but with the millions of dollars/euros some organizations gather, I think that there should be more than the few little hopitals than realy are.

I am an immigrant here in Spain and I know lots of others from different countries and I see that there's a lot of people that came here to have a new and improved life and works hard to have it, but regreattably there are much more that don't seem to want to improve their lifes and those are the one who make local people react in a negative way about all immigrants.

 

just wanted to add my 2 cents, so here i goes:

my father is of african origin and came to germany with a scholarship to study agriculture in the 60's. at the university he met my german mother, but has been working in his homeland, mali (westafrica), many years, before finally settling down with his family (read: us, my two sisters and my mother) here in germany. even in his university-time, he worked hard, and harder still post-exams to learn german and to assimilate german culture. in fact, if you talked to him nowadays, you'd think he was a conservative if not for his skin, being middle-class an all.

so basically, this makes me a second-generation immigrant with no roots except my father's brother in africa. i think myself as german, but i am obviously open-minded towards "race-mixing" as Svyatoslav would probably put it. i have made friends with "proper" germans and immigrants both, my brother-in-law is from jamaica, and i get along well with most people, regardless of the so-called race.
i have also had clashes with people from all origins, e.g. in frankfurt, where i lived prior to moving to cologne because of the job, i wasn't admitted to some clubs, because the doormen seemed to think i wouldn't fit. the doormen where from the former jugoslavia or even northern africa, but there were germans, too. so where does that put me? do i look dangerous or behave threateningly? all right, you can't judge that, but i tell you i don't

IMHO, building enclaves inside another culture leads to enstrangement. to flesh this statement out, building enclaves is what happened, when there was a rush of late-immigrants from kazachstan back to germany in the 90s. they all moved to regions, where there already were large groups of so-called (german slang) "russians". same with turks, afghans or whatever, you name it. if you have an enclave and don't absolutely HAVE to mix, people just WON'T. language programs are a great improvement, no question. if you can communicate with people, they instantly become "real", instead of faceless individuals blabbering something you can't make out or don't care to.

on a personal note to Svytalov, it doesn't help to shout for closed boarders, as no government can afford to do this economically in modern globalization. and with partially open borders, there will always be immigrants. the milk is spilled, no need to blame someone just because humans tend to seek out scapegoats. you will have to deal with it, or else you have to move to sibiria or whereever you need to go to not be confronted with non-slavs. i say try to judge each person on its own, don't generalize them (what a perfect generalization ). prejudices don't help! suppose you met me on the streets of moscow and we started to discuss baldur's gate or whatever drew you to sorcerer's place and we got on well, would you still think it bad, if i permanently to "your" country, mixing with "pure" slvas, learning russian, working for a russion it-company?

 

Yes, but how can we expect an honest answer, if the least mention of blaming immigrants gets labelled "racist"?
I once heard - well, it was not me who have heard, but someone close to me - from a Dutch the problem with the third world children, is that they could not keep up with the Dutch children in schools. He might be wrong on that account, but then he could be right as well. But with the current mindset "we" have nowadays, his opinion is a priori disregarded on that bases that it is "racist".

We have to determine who is extremist or not though. I take Le Pen is a radical to you? Well, he is not to me.

The ones who want to work that is. And why someone can not work and study at the same time? I know it is a tough thing to do, but with the proper sacrificies it can be done.

I always liked social Darwinism. There is a Russian schoolar - who actually is the first supporter of the theory of the Clash of Civilizations and social Darwinism - Danilevsky. I am afraid his works are not translated though.

No need to correct you actually. Being against foreigners is the only way to prevent immigration, no? I am positive about people wanting to stick to their own, as that is what Nationalism is all about.
Also, I dont see what the need is to relativize National borders and ownership by putting their into " ". At least for me, the fact that Russia is the land of Russians, France the land of French is as obvious as the sun rises in the East.

I think the confusion is how the West has evolved differently from Russia. In Russia, being Russian can not be untied with being ethnically Russian/Slav - Russkii - instead of being merely born in Russia - Rossyanin - as I am sure it was the case in Europe in the past. Call Russians backwarded, but I am glad it is so in Russia - that does not mean non Russian citizens dont have basic rights by the way, it is just that they are not regarded as Russians by the average Russian.

I dont think we should bring Christ into this, because people love to misread him. For example, Christ himself said he did not bring peace, but the sword; he also said his Apostles should sell their own clothes to buy weapons if needed be. The official position of the Christianity has always been pro Nation as well, let me give a few examples:
Official position of Russian Orthodox Church: "The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions."
Nationalism - or Patriotism if you will - have always been deemed an important Christian virtue. If Catholicism ever become the enemy of the nation it will cease to be a divine religion"? That was said by Pope Pius X himself.
Karol Wojtyla stated "smaller social units -- whether nations themselves, communities, ethnic or religious groups, families or individuals -- must not be namelessly absorbed into a greater conglomeration, thus losing their identity and having their prerogatives usurped."
In his 1994 "Letter to Families", the Pope also explained how ethnic ties were legitimate and how they help forge a deep connection between families and society as a whole, and that families should indeed raise children to be members of their ethnicity/nation, so as to strengthen the soverignity of such.
You see, that is why we should let representants of the Church itself to make the official positions of Christianism, instead of hearing Christian bashers who say the Church has never preached "real" Christian values - not saying that is your case.
A good link with a review from a very good book: http://www.ucmpage.org/articles/mdodaro.html
Anyway, even if that was the case with Roman Catholicism - as I have shown it is not - the Holy Orthodox Church was never Universalist in it's nature, as it is demonstarted by the fact each Orthodox Nation has it's patryarch and autonomy.
Lastly, even when Russia is back in it's feet, there will always be those Russians less fortunate, and I would rather help a single Russian than 10 thousand non Russians. So, my priorities will never be fully filled to the point I will worry about others.

I am pro them. I am still waiting eagerly for Karadzic and Mladic.

How so? Do you think Europeans still have the least warspirit in them to wage Wars across borders? No, they dont. I dont see how it could manifest elsewhere.

My possessiveness is not based solely on WWII, but on the grounds that Russia is the land of Russians for over a millenia!
Your proposition seems that of internationalists who want a world free of National borders. I can't simply comply with that.

I am not too convinced. Structural racism seems to me a purely subjective explanation of those who want to put the blame elsewhere.
The problem is, people dont want to accept Races might be different, at all, so they will blame society, Capitalism or whatever. This only maskarades the problem.

In a "wordly" manner, yes, if Races are relevant, it is a racist defition, but then this is a play of words. I think Races should always be discussed, because Races are different. Just like men and women, etc.

The question needs to be answered, but only because people let it come down to this. If people in Russia have the possibility to prevent all this from happening, why not doing so before it is too late? For all I have said, I think it is the legitimate right of Russians to keep Russia Slavic.
For example, the Volga germans, recently many of them went back to germany. Everyone benefits from it. People most often then not feel better with their own. Now they are back there, with their fellow germans, and Russia is a bit more Russian than before. Why is this bad?

You see, that is a nice discussion and everything, but since the beggining it was doomed to end with no resolution, simply because we part from two opposing ends: You dont see a problem with the destruction of National ethnicities on the basis of mixing, or, in other words, you dont wish to preserve them. I believe the exact opposite. No ammount of arguments can convience us otherwise.
By the way, I can't see Culture untied to ethnicity/Race. Russian Orthodox Culture is grounded in Slavic character and Soul, and vice and versa. Once you lose one, you lose both.

There is an Indo-European Race, which does not mean to say different European people are racially one, but rather they all share a common distant heritage. That is why I dont support inter European mixing as well.
If you dont believe there are definable Racial traits, that is fine, but I think otherwise. I can see thousands of common traits Russians share with brothers from the Balkans for example. You could argue they are cultural, but I think they go deeper than that.
Apart from these harder to define traits, there are the physical ones which are undeniable, like skin/hair/eyes colors, phenotype. I am sure I would not want to see Slavic women change their looks in the least.
As for Culture, it will never be preserved if the ethnicity is no more. It is true Cultures evolve, but from within and rather slowly if let for their own. What we see today,is an attempt to force some kind of cultural change, more violent and faster evolving than the natural process of cultural evolution. I also fear this process will lead to cultural annihilation, and not modification.

Yes, you are right. It is as I said before. No reasoning can convince each other of otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------

Aikinaro,

It is not a matter of immigrants being good people or not. I believe in National lines based upon ethnicity and Culture. As much as they can be good people, they dont need to permanently move out to Russia or Ukraine. Cant they visit and leave?

 

Svyatoslav, I am curious as to what you make of Alexander Pushkin's African ancestry? His great-grandfather styled himself Abram Petrovich Gannibal (the last name mutating into Russian from "Hannibal"), had been sold in Constantinople as a slave, served at the court of the Ottoman Sultan, was freed, taken to St Petersburg, became a favourite of Peter the Great and forged a very distinguished career as a military engineer just as Russia was rising to its full imperial height. With Pushkin's genius being so enduring, surely even you must concede this as an instance of the benefit of immigration?

 

Though I do not know who "Le Pen" is (and don't really care, so don't bother), the only way I've found to determine extremism is by relative opinions:

• If people on the same side call them a radical, then they're radical.
• If people on the other side DON'T call them a radical, then they're not a radical.
• If people on the same side defend them while people on the other side attack them, then they have an opinion and extremism is in the eye of the beholder. (I try to avoid judging these people but am not always successful, depending on the opinion they hold.)

Well, the optimistic view is that they will all blend into one, taking the best from each, but the truth likely lies somewhere in between. It'd be a good social experiment if there weren't lasting repercussions, but as it is people and nations must make their own choices. If it leads to a better joined culture then they should be applauded; if it leads to the annihilation of one or both cultures, then they knew the risk they took. Though I can't remember her name off of the top of my head, it was a woman who said:

Simply shake your head at their "foolishness" and walk away. No matter how much you want to, you can't change the minds of people bent on a foolish path (one of the reasons I don't respond to most of your comments ).

 

Ah, no. European countries did have to integrate huge waves of immigrants in the past. In germany (prussia), the hugenottes, who were driven from france because of religious differences, were integrated and prussia benefitted from them. The same happened with the dutch "guestworkers" who where brought here at the same time.

Because they have similar problems being integrated here. Expecially the older children who have absolutly no connection to germany for the most part. They were socialised in russia. They feel russian. It's not in the blood. It's how you grow up.

 

Damn you! Why must you know Russian History! anyway, I dont think it is a big deal, he was only 1/16 non Russian. As I said before, one or two immigrants coming over is not the end of the world, but massive immigration like it happened in the West has to be prevented. Regardless, Puchkin is not my favourite Russian writter/poet
--------------------------------------------------

The pessimist view is that we will form a new generation of rootless people with no identity and sense of belonging. I would rather not take my chances.
I do agree, though, people should take responsability for the risks they took, but who says we want to go throught this risk to begin with?

Well, you dont have to bother.