Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[Novus America]

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.

Well ban Saudi and Qatari funding. Operating a school is not cheap. They get their funding somewhere. I would pass a law that any government that does not permit religious freedom should not be allowed to own, operate or fund schools or religious groups in the west. Also strict screening should keep the radical imams out. And since it does not apply solely to Islam should be pass muster.

Also governments that do not allow freedom of press should not be allowed to own operate or fund press outlets.

Also considering Salafi madrassas generally only teach Islam, and very little science or math (online say Catholic schools were religion while taught in a voluntary class is not the focus of the teaching) accreditation standards and teaching requirements should allow them to be closed down pretty easily.

[Novus America]

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

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

How so? Considering rising ethinic tensions, segregation, ghettoization and continuing violence and difficulties it is clearly not.

[Sanctissima]

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

Well ban Saudi and Qatari funding. Operating a school is not cheap. They get their funding somewhere. I would pass a law that any government that does not permit religious freedom should not be allowed to own, operate or fund schools or religious groups in the west. Also strict screening should keep the radical imams out. And since it does not apply solely to Islam should be pass muster.

Also governments that do not allow freedom of press should not be allowed to own operate or fund press outlets.

Also considering Salafi madrassas generally only teach Islam, and very little science or math (online say Catholic schools were religion while taught in a voluntary class is not the focus of the teaching) accreditation standards and teaching requirements should allow them to be closed down pretty easily.

You're preaching to the choir.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

Emphasising some parts of a block of text doesn't mean the rest didn't happen. I said it was a process, and a spectrum. The rise of the Nazi party ended-up with genocide, it didn't start there.

This isn't really complicated.

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

I'm not 'denying' it, as such - it just didn't happen.

I explained where your false equivalence was, and illustrated how the whole thing was a process - that's not a false equivalence.

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

No thanks, I literally quoted just then.

Well that answers the question of whether or not you just didn't see it.

So the question is whether you're deliberately misinterpreting it, or if you just need it explained in simpler terms?

[Former Citizens of the Nimbus System]

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

How so? Considering rising ethinic tensions, segregation, ghettoization and continuing violence and difficulties it is clearly not.

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.

...

[Grave_n_idle]

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

How so? Considering rising ethinic tensions, segregation, ghettoization and continuing violence and difficulties it is clearly not.

When racists point to Obama as a black president and say that he inflated racial tensions, they are blaming the wrong person. Obama being black AND president was infuriating to some racists, but that doesn't mean that a black president was the problem in the situation - it means that racists are the problem.

Multiculturalism works just fine - the fact that some people have a problem with it is a problem with THEM, not IT.

[Aelex]

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

Given the current political situation in the west, I would say that it's obvious that it's not. Not at all.

[Grave_n_idle]

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

Given the current political situation in the west, I would say that it's obvious that it's not. Not at all.

Rightwing politicians are the cause of rightwing politics. Not the demographic they decide to target.

[Novus America]

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.

Mandatory for everyone including immigrants. Integration classes would be taught in all schools, even private ones (it would be a condition of accreditation). Immigrants would take them as well, if children in school with everyone else, and older immigrants would still have to take them outside school.

And mandatory military service for everyone as a further more intensive integration program. I would bring back 1950s conscription laws in the US, other countries also had conscription up until only recently and some still do.

This would help make things better.

Just stopping things getting worse is still better than the status quo.

[San Lumen]

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.

Im sorry but shutting down schools would not be legal in many places in Europe or the West. You didn't answer what rights should be curbed and for whom.

You also didn't answer weather or not you thought internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was justified, George Takai was one of those interned. Go ask him how wonderful it was. Are you calling for repeat of it for Muslims? correct me if I'm wrong.

[Novus America]

How so? Considering rising ethinic tensions, segregation, ghettoization and continuing violence and difficulties it is clearly not.

When racists point to Obama as a black president and say that he inflated racial tensions, they are blaming the wrong person. Obama being black AND president was infuriating to some racists, but that doesn't mean that a black president was the problem in the situation - it means that racists are the problem.

Multiculturalism works just fine - the fact that some people have a problem with it is a problem with THEM, not IT.

Blaming one group for a problem does not mean the problem does not exist. Their is plenty of blame to go around, but you admitted the status quo is not working.

[Aelex]

Rightwing politicians are the cause of rightwing politics. Not the demographic they decide to target.

>Implying it's not because of the failure of neo-liberalism as an economical policy and multiculturalism as a social one that they're getting so much support right now.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

How so? Considering rising ethinic tensions, segregation, ghettoization and continuing violence and difficulties it is clearly not.

I dunno where you are, but I'm living in a country that has been officially multicultural since the 70's and things are going just swimmingly.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Mandatory for everyone including immigrants. Integration classes would be taught in all schools, even private ones (it would be a condition of accreditation). Immigrants would take them as well, if children in school with everyone else, and older immigrants would still have to take them outside school.

And mandatory military service for everyone as a further more intensive integration program. I would bring back 1950s conscription laws in the US, other countries also had conscription up until only recently and some still do.

This would help make things better.

Just stopping things getting worse is still better than the status quo.

I think citizenship classes, with an exam and a qualification, are actually a pretty good idea. You could cover all the things that aren't legal, that aren't culturally acceptable, and that aren't ethical (all very different things) in those classes, and then you could test how people qualify, and hand them a certification to show they met the minimum standard.

This has the advantage that you can use the certification as a contract - if they act against that contract, you can sanction them.

You could make citizenship - and continuation of that citizenship - contingent on maintaining that certification. It's a system that only punishes the guilty.

(Incidentally, everyone should have to take the courses and tests, and everyone should be able to lose their certification if they fail to meet the minimum standard. )

[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.

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.

Im sorry but shutting down schools would not be legal in many places in Europe or the West. You didn't answer what rights should be curbed and for whom.

You also didn't answer weather or not you thought internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 was justified, George Takai was one of those interned. Go ask him how wonderful it was. Are you calling for repeat of it for Muslims? correct me if I'm wrong.

Laws can be changed. I did answer what rights should be curbed and for whom.
I didn't address your pointless White Scare baiting and cries of "NAZI!" because they're devoid of substance and not worth acknowledging. I will now continue to ignore you when you engage in McCarthyist style nonsense, apparently being told not to do it once and that it was poor taste didn't get through to you, and nor did just ignoring when you did it. So now i'm explicitly telling you, if I ignore something you say in the future, it's because it wasn't worth acknowledging.

[Grave_n_idle]

Rightwing politicians are the cause of rightwing politics. Not the demographic they decide to target.

>Implying it's not because of the failure of neo-liberalism as an economical policy and multiculturalism as a social one that they're getting so much support right now.

Implying no such thing. Your inference is not my responsibility.

[Grave_n_idle]

When racists point to Obama as a black president and say that he inflated racial tensions, they are blaming the wrong person. Obama being black AND president was infuriating to some racists, but that doesn't mean that a black president was the problem in the situation - it means that racists are the problem.

Multiculturalism works just fine - the fact that some people have a problem with it is a problem with THEM, not IT.

Blaming one group for a problem does not mean the problem does not exist. Their is plenty of blame to go around, but you admitted the status quo is not working.

The 'status quo' is fine. Nazis being Nazis is not a failure of the status quo. We don't negotiate with terrorists.

[Aelex]

Implying no such thing. Your inference is not my responsibility.

Then why are you blaming right-wing politicians when you pertinently know it's Multiculturalism's fault that they're rising?
Also, my interference?

[Ostroeuropa]

Rightwing politicians are the cause of rightwing politics. Not the demographic they decide to target.

>Implying it's not because of the failure of neo-liberalism as an economical policy and multiculturalism as a social one that they're getting so much support right now.

Blaming external factors for personal failures is the entire bread and butter of the progressive wing though, why wouldn't that attitude extend to the failure of the ideology they hold so dearly?

[Aelex]

The 'status quo' is fine. Nazis being Nazis is not a failure of the status quo. We don't negotiate with terrorists.

[Sanctissima]

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

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

Oh no.

Oh, no no no no no.

It is most certainly not working just fine.

I live in Canada, the most multicultural country there is, and I can attest that it simply does not work. It does away with the concept of integration and replaces it with pandering to dozens of different cultural groups. All this achieves is discord between the different cultures, because instead of integrating into a unified national identity and working together towards a common goal, they fight between themselves for their slice of the pie to the detriment of the country as a whole. The Québécois fight with the English, the Aboriginals fight with the Whites, the minorities fight with the majorities, and hardly anyone gets along. Separatism's become a huge issue, and chances are my country won't even exist come the 22nd century, or at the very least won't be nearly as large as it is today.

So no, multiculturalism is not working just fine.

[San Lumen]

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

Oh no.

Oh, no no no no no.

It is most certainly not working just fine.

I live in Canada, the most multicultural country there is, and I can attest that it simply does not work. It does away with the concept of integration and replaces it with pandering to dozens of different cultural groups. All this achieves is discord between the different cultures, because instead of integrating into a unified national identity and working together towards a common goal, they fight between themselves for their slice of the pie to the detriment of the country as a whole. The Québécois fight with the English, the Aboriginals fight with the Whites, the minorities fight with the majorities, and hardly anyone gets along. Separatism's become a huge issue, and chances are my country won't even exist come the 22nd century, or at the very least won't be nearly as large as it is today.

So no, multiculturalism is not working just fine.

Can you give proof of your claims because thats not what I've heard.

[Grave_n_idle]

Then why are you blaming right-wing politicians when you pertinently know it's Multiculturalism's fault that they're rising?

I'm blaming rightwing politicians for rightwing politics.

When Hitler decided to hang his hat on trade unions, communists, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled, it didn't actually prove that they were the root of all evil. It just proved they were convenient targets.

Just because you blame the victim, doesn't mean it is their fault. You have to take some responsibility for your own actions.

(In case it's not clear - 'you' is a general term... let's not pretend I'm singling one person out for opprobrium).

Also, my interference?

No. Reading is so important.

[Novus America]

Mandatory for everyone including immigrants. Integration classes would be taught in all schools, even private ones (it would be a condition of accreditation). Immigrants would take them as well, if children in school with everyone else, and older immigrants would still have to take them outside school.

And mandatory military service for everyone as a further more intensive integration program. I would bring back 1950s conscription laws in the US, other countries also had conscription up until only recently and some still do.

This would help make things better.

Just stopping things getting worse is still better than the status quo.

I think citizenship classes, with an exam and a qualification, are actually a pretty good idea. You could cover all the things that aren't legal, that aren't culturally acceptable, and that aren't ethical (all very different things) in those classes, and then you could test how people qualify, and hand them a certification to show they met the minimum standard.

This has the advantage that you can use the certification as a contract - if they act against that contract, you can sanction them.

You could make citizenship - and continuation of that citizenship - contingent on maintaining that certification. It's a system that only punishes the guilty.

(Incidentally, everyone should have to take the courses and tests, and everyone should be able to lose their certification if they fail to meet the minimum standard. )

I agree. This is one solution we should be able to get sport for on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Ostroeuropa]

Multiculturalism is working just fine.

Oh no.

Oh, no no no no no.

It is most certainly not working just fine.

I live in Canada, the most multicultural country there is, and I can attest that it simply does not work. It does away with the concept of integration and replaces it with pandering to dozens of different cultural groups. All this achieves is discord between the different cultures, because instead of integrating into a unified national identity and working together towards a common goal, they fight between themselves for their slice of the pie to the detriment of the country as a whole. The Québécois fight with the English, the Aboriginals fight with the Whites, the minorities fight with the majorities, and hardly anyone gets along. Separatism's become a huge issue, and chances are my country won't even exist come the 22nd century, or at the very least won't be nearly as large as it is today.

So no, multiculturalism is not working just fine.

The issue is that multiculturalism is the only logical conclusion you can draw from the bedrock of much of left-wing academia, critical theory.
The problem is critical theory.

But getting rid of that means getting rid of practically every humanities professor.