Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[Novus America]

Let us ask the native Americans and the Australian aboriginals what their experience with quotafree immigration was - and call them racists if they state it was not all that great.

I'm not a bleeding heart culture conservative. No culture has any right beyond historical preservation. After that it's continue to innovate or get out of the way.

Thank goodness we don't live under your system, illegal immigrants sheltered under Obama's policies TODAY are a burden on our welfare system. If we allowed anyone to enter and receive benefits without being able to fully contribute to society, we wouldn't be able to afford the amount of welfare those lowskilled and uneducated need.

Dude, stop listening to talk radio and come back when you have actual facts on your side.

The claim you're making has been roundly debunked and is only supported by the clueless and the ignorant.

Besides, it fails on a basic logical level—are you suggesting that as many as 15 million people in this country are committing untracked welfare fraud? That's ludicrous.

And how would you be sure they integrate? Especially after having them in massive slums and many with no jobs thanks to open borders?

Illegal immigrants pay a paltry 12 billion in taxes, (a tiny amount for that many people) but cost 113 billon in outlays for a net loss of 101 billion.

[Opfornia]

Calling for the removal and banning of muslims would immediately lead us to adopting all of Nazi Germany's fascist social policies, ok, gotcha.

Al the posts are stil visible for anyone that cares to read.

I realise you have no actual answer to what I did say, but why pretend I said something else?

How would the banning and removal of Muslims, through deportation, be in anyway comparable to;

'What Nazi Germany did' was a process and a spectrum. It wasn't just genocide, it wasn't just Jews, and it wasn't just in the cute little window of Concentration Camps.

It was clamping down on political dissent, targeting people to disenfranchise based on their religion, ethnicity, gender-orientation, disability. It was persecution of minorities and a tyrannical intolerance of dissent. It was making people less-than-human through dialogue and then through direct action - der untermensch. It was chasing certain groups into silence, into ghettos, and out of the country.

Yes, eventually - it even resulted in genocide. Why do you think people who have studied history are so concerned about this descent into the same politics?

All you've done is draw even larger false equivalancies, and then deny that you have.

I quoted what 'they' said. I can quote it again, if you like.

No thanks, I literally quoted just then.

[Ostroeuropa]

I expanded the post you quoted to try and help you understand.

Yes, it's nationalism. I'm a nationalist. I'm fine with that.

Nationalism is part of the reason why World War One started.

You're still not understanding.

If I want to get into my house I can break a window. It's a solution. It doesn't mean I support it, merely that it would work.

Deporting all the muslims is a solution. It would work.

Do you have any alternatives, other than the ones I already outlined? (Crackdown. Go to war with regressive cultures. Abandon multiculturalism.)

Because i've still seen absolutely no solutions from you.

Let's ignore the crackdown option I outlined since you're so intent on doing so, and focus on the deports.

So let's phrase it this way;

Do you want to deport all the muslims, OR, do you want large swathes of the western world to become Saudi Arabian?

I'd go with deporting the muslims personally.
Is there another option i'm not seeing? Because you haven't pointed it out, just gotten angry and called people names for noticing what's happening.

Go ahead. Tell me again how its evil to deport them, and spend not one single second considering if its a lesser evil.

No i don't want to deport a entire religion and citizens of my country strictly because of what some of them believe. I believe in freedom of religion and expressions and democracy. I'm not going to label and have xenophobic attitudes towards an entire group because of the actions of a few.

This sort of thinking was seen all throughout the Southern United States for decades towards African Americans and yet people seem to think its ok towards Muslims.

I have no problem with diversity and multiculturalism. The United Kingdom isn't going to become like Saudi Arabia not by a long shot.

You failed to address the point of the post, and have consistently failed to do so.

Who said it would become like Saudi Arabia? I didn't. Just large parts of it, like, say, the outskirts of its capital city. Like in france... like I just showed you.

So, for the final time, are you just going to lecture me about how deporting them is evil, and give absolutely no consideration as to whether its a lesser evil, or do you actually have an alternative?

Because even if I concede everything you say about deporting them being mean, it still doesn't mean it isn't better than the status quo, a point you seem unwilling to even consider and evaluate.

What you're struggling with is the inapplicability of your ideology to the real world.

Neighborhoods where women are treated like second class citizens, rape gangs, frequent terror attacks, etc.
This is what Progressivism looks like when it is applied to the real world by its vanguards in our institutions.

The Cultural Marxist utopia is as unachievable as the Economic Marxist one.

Reciting the communist manifesto ad nauseum does not make the USSR a good place to live, and telling me the wonders of multiculturalism is no different.

[Novus America]

There's only a few viable options:

One:
Ditch multiculturalism and begin a regime of forcing Muslims to integrate. Expect riots and do not be afraid to crack down with violence, imprisonments, confiscate property, and deport people who do so.

Ban circumcision, ban them home schooling, ban hijabs, ban gender segregation (Even in houses of worship), etc, etc, etc. force them into public schools, etc. Accept they need to change and go to war with their culture, backed by the truncheon should they rebel.

Change our media to negatively portray their culture and positively portray those who integrate. Sideline and no-platform progressives who complain about any of this.

This has the benefit of allowing muslims already integrated to largely escape the crackdown.

Two:
Deport the muslims.

Three:
Allow the continuing corrosion of society by refusing to abandon progressive dogma, until racial tensions reach the point where race riots or race war occurs.

I see no other alternatives.

Allowing further immigration while these problems persist is national suicide. We need to deal with the ones already here first. If someone has an alternative, by all means.

Or, alternatively, embrace multiculturalism. Where multiculturalism is used as an excuse for breaking the law, don't tolerate it - but that's not because of multiculturalism, it's because it's breaking the law.

I suspect you 'see no other alternatives' because you choose not to.

While I do not agree with his extreme, authoritarian and unconstitutional proposals for intergration multiculturalism is not working either.

There can be less authoritarian approaches to integration than what he proposed. Such as requiring all immigrants to speek the language of the country, requiring them to take integration classes, screening to exclude those prospective immigrants who do not want to be a part of the new country and obey the laws, and deporting those who commit crimes for example. And limiting immigration to a certain percentage of the population.

[Former Citizens of the Nimbus System]

A lot of discussion here appears to suggest that we either have to choose from a multiculturalism that treats every single ideology, no matter how repressive, as equal or measures to reduce and restrict immigration. There is a middle way.

Rather than sealing people into distinct geographical pockets, either through borders or by segregation caused by social pressures, we need to support constructive discussion between groups with different ideas; the vast, vast majority of us have common goals of peace, unity and advancement, no matter what we think is the best way of achieving them. In fact, this discussion makes a united and diverse society better at achieving powerful change than a homogeneous society, since the former is far more likely to invent new ways forward through the meeting of different minds that it induces.

The key here is that a country's government needs to be on board with the programme with competent social projects to encourage intercultural dialogue. I'm no expert in this area; I do know that very different people are capable of getting along, so long as they understand one another and that it is that understanding that governments need to promote. Every such project will take time and money; societal harmony is infinitely more valuable than that cost.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or, alternatively, embrace multiculturalism. Where multiculturalism is used as an excuse for breaking the law, don't tolerate it - but that's not because of multiculturalism, it's because it's breaking the law.

I suspect you 'see no other alternatives' because you choose not to.

While I do not agree with his extreme, authoritarian and unconstitutional proposals for intergration multiculturalism is not working either.

There can be less authoritarian approaches to integration than what he proposed. Such as requiring all immigrants to speek the language of the country, requiring them to take integration classes, screening to exclude those prospective immigrants who do not want to be a part of the new country and obey the laws, and deporting those who commit crimes for example.

Classes like this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310

Note, it didn't work, and those were voluntary ones. You'd expect a higher rate of success because the ones attending should want to integrate.

As we leave the class, an Iraqi man in a colourful bomber jacket shakes my hand.
"It's great in Finland," he says "But when I marry, my wife will be a housekeeper who will cook the food I like - and she certainly won't go to discos."

They don't work. The attendees don't care. You cannot politely ask people to stop doing their culture, you have to force them.

[San Lumen]

While I do not agree with his extreme, authoritarian and unconstitutional proposals for intergration multiculturalism is not working either.

There can be less authoritarian approaches to integration than what he proposed. Such as requiring all immigrants to speek the language of the country, requiring them to take integration classes, screening to exclude those prospective immigrants who do not want to be a part of the new country and obey the laws, and deporting those who commit crimes for example.

Classes like this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310

Note, it didn't work, and those were voluntary ones. You'd expect a higher rate of success because the ones attending should want to integrate.

As we leave the class, an Iraqi man in a colourful bomber jacket shakes my hand.
"It's great in Finland," he says "But when I marry, my wife will be a housekeeper who will cook the food I like - and she certainly won't go to discos."

They don't work. The attendees don't care. You cannot politely ask people to stop doing their culture, you have to force them.

And how would you force them? Through government crackdown on their freedom and civil rights?

[Ostroeuropa]

Classes like this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310

Note, it didn't work, and those were voluntary ones. You'd expect a higher rate of success because the ones attending should want to integrate.



They don't work. The attendees don't care. You cannot politely ask people to stop doing their culture, you have to force them.

And how would you force them? Through government crackdown on their freedom and civil rights?

Yes.
If a civil right or a freedom is not conducive to a better society, it should not be respected. Rights are there to better society. If technology or culture or whatever changes the situation, so must our attitude toward the rights involved. They are not permanent things, and can become cumbersome and counter productive.

The right to bare arms has been re-interpreted a number of times to place restrictions on it because of advancing technology and the ludicrous idea of allowing everyone nuclear weapons, for instance.

The changing situation with the introduction of Islam brings religious freedom and other rights into focus, they must be curbed or revoked.

[Novus America]

While I do not agree with his extreme, authoritarian and unconstitutional proposals for intergration multiculturalism is not working either.

There can be less authoritarian approaches to integration than what he proposed. Such as requiring all immigrants to speek the language of the country, requiring them to take integration classes, screening to exclude those prospective immigrants who do not want to be a part of the new country and obey the laws, and deporting those who commit crimes for example.

Classes like this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310

Note, it didn't work, and those were voluntary ones. You'd expect a higher rate of success because the ones attending should want to integrate.

As we leave the class, an Iraqi man in a colourful bomber jacket shakes my hand.
"It's great in Finland," he says "But when I marry, my wife will be a housekeeper who will cook the food I like - and she certainly won't go to discos."

They don't work. The attendees don't care. You cannot politely ask people to stop doing their culture, you have to force them.

Just because that one class did not work with that one individual does not mean classes never work. Also proper screening and interviews should allow you to not allow people refusing to integrate to immigrate in the first place.

[San Lumen]

And how would you force them? Through government crackdown on their freedom and civil rights?

Yes.
If a civil right or a freedom is not conducive to a better society, it should not be respected. Rights are there to better society. If technology or culture or whatever changes the situation, so must our attitude toward the rights involved. They are not permanent things, and can become cumbersome and counter productive.

And what civil rights or freedoms are those that have become cumbersome and counter productive?

[Baltenstein]

You're the ones who voted a saturday morning cartoon character into office, not us. And who is preaching pretty much the exact opposite of what you are saying, so maybe you should tone down the "America" thing a bit over the next four years.

“Your argument is wrong because of something you had no control over! It is not possible for you to be talking of a state of should rather than a state of is!”

You keep talking about "America" as if your views are somehow representative of the US. But your president-elect is far more representative of what America stands for and will stand for in the future than you are.

No. People working within the US should pay taxes (and currently many do). That said, our tax system is fucked.

Why should they pay taxes? If the state (be it the US or others) shows its own citizens absolutely no sense of allegiance compared to foreigners, why should they feel any allegiance towards it either?

Under my system there would be visas with the associate background checks etc. but there would be no quotas or restrictions on issuance of visas and permits. Quotas are racist. Full stop.

Background checks for what? If you're going to take in everybody anyhow, why have background checks?

EDIT: Fixed the quote.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes.
If a civil right or a freedom is not conducive to a better society, it should not be respected. Rights are there to better society. If technology or culture or whatever changes the situation, so must our attitude toward the rights involved. They are not permanent things, and can become cumbersome and counter productive.

And what civil rights or freedoms are those that have become cumbersome and counter productive?

The example I gave in the edit:

The right to bare arms has been re-interpreted a number of times to place restrictions on it because of advancing technology and the ludicrous idea of allowing everyone nuclear weapons, for instance, despite the fact that at the time of its inception it amounted to allowing every citizen the best and most modern military equipment available. Things changed, and so did our expectations for this right.

The changing situation with the introduction of Islam brings religious freedom and other rights into focus, they must be curbed or revoked.

[Opfornia]

Under my system there would be visas with the associate background checks etc. but there would be no quotas or restrictions on issuance of visas and permits. Quotas are racist. Full stop.

Background checks for what? If you're going to take in everybody anyhow, why have background checks?

Haha, that isn't my quote.

[San Lumen]

And what civil rights or freedoms are those that have become cumbersome and counter productive?

The example I gave in the edit:

The right to bare arms has been re-interpreted a number of times to place restrictions on it because of advancing technology and the ludicrous idea of allowing everyone nuclear weapons, for instance, despite the fact that at the time of its inception it amounted to allowing every citizen the best and most modern military equipment available. Things changed, and so did our expectations for this right.

The changing situation with the introduction of Islam brings religious freedom and other rights into focus, they must be curbed or revoked.

what are these other rights? and for whom would they be curbed or revoked? They did that to Japanese Americans in 1942. Go ask George Takai how wonderful it was. You agree with what was done to him and thousands of other Japanese Americans?

[Ostroeuropa]

The example I gave in the edit:

The right to bare arms has been re-interpreted a number of times to place restrictions on it because of advancing technology and the ludicrous idea of allowing everyone nuclear weapons, for instance, despite the fact that at the time of its inception it amounted to allowing every citizen the best and most modern military equipment available. Things changed, and so did our expectations for this right.

The changing situation with the introduction of Islam brings religious freedom and other rights into focus, they must be curbed or revoked.

what are these other rights? and for whom would they be curbed or revoked? They did that to Japanese Americans in 1942. Go ask George Takai how wonderful it was. You agree with what was done to him and thousands of other Japanese Americans?

I think the state should take control over childrens education, for instance. Much of the problem stems from many Muslims raising their children in Islamic Schools, but shutting them down would just result in home schooling.

Whom? For those who would cause a problem for society.
You may own a gun, not a nuke.
You may send your child to a private christian school, not a private muslim one.
Because of the disproportionate impact on society one has compared to the other. One is deemed to be acceptable in terms of cost to society, the other is not.
Talking about "They're both weapons so you're discriminating" is missing the point.

[Ostroeuropa]

Classes like this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35353310

Note, it didn't work, and those were voluntary ones. You'd expect a higher rate of success because the ones attending should want to integrate.



They don't work. The attendees don't care. You cannot politely ask people to stop doing their culture, you have to force them.

Just because that one class did not work with that one individual does not mean classes never work. Also proper screening and interviews should allow you to not allow people refusing to integrate to immigrate in the first place.

If they didn't work, how far would you be prepared to escalate?

Immigrating in the first place isn't the issue. It's the ones already here. The immigration thing is really simple to solve, the ones already here area far harder problem.

[Adurnak]

Mass migration, especially due to the EU's free movement of people is almost always bad; it compresses wages, puts a strain on more developed countries and is frankly dangerous (see the terrorist from the markets in Germany, he went from Italy to Germany, committed the attack, then France to Italy again without any trouble0.

[Novus America]

what are these other rights? and for whom would they be curbed or revoked? They did that to Japanese Americans in 1942. Go ask George Takai how wonderful it was. You agree with what was done to him and thousands of other Japanese Americans?

I think the state should take control over childrens education, for instance. Much of the problem stems from many Muslims raising their children in Islamic Schools, but shutting them down would just result in home schooling.

For those who would cause a problem for society.
You may own a gun, not a nuke.
You may send your child to a private christian school, not a private muslim one.
Because of the disproportionate impact on society one has compared to the other. One is deemed to be acceptable in terms of cost to society, the other is not.
Talking about "They're both weapons so you're discriminating" is missing the point.

Banning a private school purely on grounds of religion is not going to be constitutional in most places in the west. Now it should be noted you can hold all schools to strict accreditation standards and requirements, and schools failing to meet those standards closed down.

Also not many people can afford private schools, especially recent immigrants.

[Sanctissima]

I think the state should take control over childrens education, for instance. Much of the problem stems from many Muslims raising their children in Islamic Schools, but shutting them down would just result in home schooling.

For those who would cause a problem for society.
You may own a gun, not a nuke.
You may send your child to a private christian school, not a private muslim one.
Because of the disproportionate impact on society one has compared to the other. One is deemed to be acceptable in terms of cost to society, the other is not.
Talking about "They're both weapons so you're discriminating" is missing the point.

Banning a private school purely on grounds of religion is not going to be constitutional in most places in the west. Now it should be noted you can hold all schools to strict accreditation standards and requirements, and schools failing to meet those standards closed down.

Also not many people can afford private schools, especially recent immigrants.

To be frank, most madrassahs, particularly Salafi ones, will accept pretty much anyone. That's how they do their recruiting.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think the state should take control over childrens education, for instance. Much of the problem stems from many Muslims raising their children in Islamic Schools, but shutting them down would just result in home schooling.

For those who would cause a problem for society.
You may own a gun, not a nuke.
You may send your child to a private christian school, not a private muslim one.
Because of the disproportionate impact on society one has compared to the other. One is deemed to be acceptable in terms of cost to society, the other is not.
Talking about "They're both weapons so you're discriminating" is missing the point.

Banning a private school purely on grounds of religion is not going to be constitutional in most places in the west. Now it should be noted you can hold all schools to strict accreditation standards and requirements, and schools failing to meet those standards closed down.

Also not many people can afford private schools, especially recent immigrants.

Extremist Islamic schools tend not to charge if you can't afford it. It's how they recruit.

EDIT:
Ninja'd

[Novus America]

Just because that one class did not work with that one individual does not mean classes never work. Also proper screening and interviews should allow you to not allow people refusing to integrate to immigrate in the first place.

If they didn't work, how far would you be prepared to escalate?

Immigrating in the first place isn't the issue. It's the ones already here. The immigration thing is really simple to solve, the ones already here area far harder problem.

Solving the problem with immigrants prevents future problems. Sure prevent bring new bad apples to the will not get rid of existing ones, but will keep the number from growing larger.

As to how much escalation is necessary we can see, considering we have yet to even try said classes for all immigrants we are not certain. That article did not that the classes made women more likely to report domestic mistreatment and abuse. Which is both good and allows you to deport those who abuse their family members, or illegal restrict their freedom.

The classes have potential. They should be mandatory though.

Mandatory military service like Singapore and Israel is also a great integration method.

[Ostroeuropa]

If they didn't work, how far would you be prepared to escalate?

Immigrating in the first place isn't the issue. It's the ones already here. The immigration thing is really simple to solve, the ones already here area far harder problem.

Solving the problem with immigrants prevents future problems. Sure prevent bring new bad apples to the will not get rid of existing ones, but will keep the number from growing larger.

As to how much escalation is necessary we can see, considering we have yet to even try said classes for all immigrants we are not certain. That article did not that the classes made women more likely to report domestic mistreatment and abuse. Which is both good and allows you to deport those who abuse their family members, or illegal restrict their freedom.

The classes have potential. They should be mandatory though.

Mandatory military service like Singapore and Israel is also a great integration method.

So what solutions do you have for the ones already here? Because shits already pretty bad. "We can stop it getting worse" isn't a solution.
Mandatory for everyone or just immigrants? I'm okay with it either way tbh.

[Sanctissima]

Banning a private school purely on grounds of religion is not going to be constitutional in most places in the west. Now it should be noted you can hold all schools to strict accreditation standards and requirements, and schools failing to meet those standards closed down.

Also not many people can afford private schools, especially recent immigrants.

Extremist Islamic schools tend not to charge if you can't afford it. It's how they recruit.

EDIT:
Ninja'd

[The Alma Mater]

If they didn't work, how far would you be prepared to escalate?

Immigrating in the first place isn't the issue. It's the ones already here. The immigration thing is really simple to solve, the ones already here area far harder problem.

Solving the problem with immigrants prevents future problems. Sure prevent bring new bad apples to the will not get rid of existing ones, but will keep the number from growing larger.

Only if you are willing to castrate the people already there. Are you ?

[Grave_n_idle]

While I do not agree with his extreme, authoritarian and unconstitutional proposals for intergration multiculturalism is not working either.

Multiculturalism is working just fine.