With the wrangling seen in the minarets thread I'm curious to know what you all think the purpose of immigration is.
G.
What's the purpose of gay sex? What's the purpose of drinking booze? What's the purpose of eating only kosher food? What's the purpose of being able to visit Louvre?
Freedom does not require a "purpose" - because it is the natural state; you do not need a justification for freedom. What you need is a justification for restricting freedom - and that's something your side has so far failed to provide.
To move from one place or to another. Easy. Next question.
The republic needs cannon fodder.
To inject new talents and capital into a country.
To compensate for declining birth rates and pay for state pensions.
To fill up uninhabited lands.
To add variety to the hottie pool.
The question, though a bit vague, is a good one.
Why is the multicultural agenda driven so hard?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 10:09:31 AM
To inject new talents and capital into a country.
To compensate for declining birth rates and pay for state pensions.
To fill up uninhabited lands.
To add variety to the hottie pool.
Third world nutjobs and illiterates certainly provide #2 and #3 but certainly not #1 and when it comes to #4 only randomly and seldom.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 09:58:40 AM
What's the purpose of gay sex? What's the purpose of drinking booze? What's the purpose of eating only kosher food? What's the purpose of being able to visit Louvre?
Freedom does not require a "purpose" - because it is the natural state; you do not need a justification for freedom. What you need is a justification for restricting freedom - and that's something your side has so far failed to provide.
What does immigration have to do with freedom?
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
The question, though a bit vague, is a good one.
Why is the multicultural agenda driven so hard?
It depends what you mean by multiculturalism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 10:09:31 AM
To inject new talents and capital into a country.
To compensate for declining birth rates and pay for state pensions.
To fill up uninhabited lands.
To add variety to the hottie pool.
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
To end the white race so the Chinese get on with ruling the world without competition.
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
The question, though a bit vague, is a good one.
Why is the multicultural agenda driven so hard?
That's not the question he asked.
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 10:13:39 AM
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
I found this Lebanese restaurant locally and kabam! I've turned into Ank.
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 10:13:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 10:09:31 AM
To inject new talents and capital into a country.
To compensate for declining birth rates and pay for state pensions.
To fill up uninhabited lands.
To add variety to the hottie pool.
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
That has to be the most retarded argument ever used in championing the cause.
"Kebabs and Zlatan" is one of the catchphrases of the idiots here, but if we only got a dish they're able to serve in other countries without also importing a million stinking arabs and one mediocre football player, it's a bad fucking deal.
The purpose of immigration is to further the ambitions of the immigrant, whatever those happen to be (usually, to have a better chance at a good life).
The reason governments allow a certain amount of it is because historically having ambitious people come to your country has worked out to be a good thing for the country as a whole.
Because our strength lies in our Diversity :lol:
But seriously, I'm generally cool with immigration as long as it's controlled.
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
The question, though a bit vague, is a good one.
Why is the multicultural agenda driven so hard?
the multi-culti idea is a great one, and the ONLY hope for humanity to stop this regular culling of overpopulation we remember as major wars.
the problem with radical immigrants (muslims) is that their agenda does not seem to be multiculturalism, but rather, making their own culture dominant in their new home, which is unacceptable, and defeats the purpose of multi-culti.
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 10:13:39 AM
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
I figured that was covered under new talents.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 09:51:52 AM
With the wrangling seen in the minarets thread I'm curious to know what you all think the purpose of immigration is.
Allow people who want to be part of the glorious United States a chance to come and increase the size and might of our invincible empire? I know that is why Jaron is here.
I thought Jaron came here to make Spiess burritos? :huh:
Good luck to the country that decides to compete in a global economy using only its citizens.
How is microsoft going to stay globally dominent if it can't hire programmers from the 95% of the world population outside of the US, or if boeing can't hire engineers from outside the country? Is McDonalds going to be able to successfully expand in other countries if its headquarters is made up of a bunch of americans with an american point of view?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 10:40:52 AM
Good luck to the country that decides to compete in a global economy using only its citizens.
How is microsoft going to stay globally dominent if it can't hire programmers from the 95% of the world population outside of the US, or if boeing can't hire engineers from outside the country? Is McDonalds going to be able to successfully expand in other countries if its headquarters is made up of a bunch of americans with an american point of view?
I don't think bringing a few people over for the Big Corps offices is really what Grallon is talking about.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 01, 2009, 10:16:48 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 10:13:39 AM
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
I found this Lebanese restaurant locally and kabam! I've turned into Ank.
So when will you start
writing like this?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 10:47:33 AM
I don't think bringing a few people over for the Big Corps offices is really what Grallon is talking about.
There is something to be said that a more diverse society is going to be better able to compete internationally. Academia would also suffer.
But if Grallon wants to focus on lower class immigration, imagine what would happen to our agricultural industry without immigration. Some of the land under cultivation would go out of use and other land would become less profitable. Costs for produce would rise. On the plus side, higher wage agricultural jobs would be created.
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 11:02:00 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 01, 2009, 10:16:48 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 10:13:39 AM
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
I found this Lebanese restaurant locally and kabam! I've turned into Ank.
So when will you start
writing like this?
:lol:
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 10:13:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 10:09:31 AM
To inject new talents and capital into a country.
To compensate for declining birth rates and pay for state pensions.
To fill up uninhabited lands.
To add variety to the hottie pool.
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
That has to be the most retarded argument ever used in championing the cause.
"Kebabs and Zlatan" is one of the catchphrases of the idiots here, but if we only got a dish they're able to serve in other countries without also importing a million stinking arabs and one mediocre football player, it's a bad fucking deal.
Tongue, meet cheek.
Irony, meet Slargos.
And Ibrahimovic is not mediocre at all. Did you see his goal against Real Madrid last sunday? Amazing! If it wasn't for him and Larsson, both with inmigrant roots, nobody would be able to name a single Swedish player. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 11:02:22 AM
But if Grallon wants to focus on lower class immigration, imagine what would happen to our agricultural industry without immigration. Some of the land under cultivation would go out of use and other land would become less profitable. Costs for produce would rise. On the plus side, higher wage agricultural jobs would be created.
Maybe...or we could start conscripting teenagers over the summers to work picking fruit. Is there really that much immigration to the agricultural parts of the country. I have a hard time picturing the tons of Latinos in the cornfields of Iowa.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:21:14 AM
Maybe...or we could start conscripting teenagers over the summers to work picking fruit. Is there really that much immigration to the agricultural parts of the country. I have a hard time picturing the tons of Latinos in the cornfields of Iowa.
Why would you have a hard time picturing that? Crossing the national border is the hard part. Going from California or Texas to Iowa is easy.
Corn harvesting is all mechanized. Latinos work mostly in meatpacking here abouts. Or construction.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:21:14 AM
Maybe...or we could start conscripting teenagers over the summers to work picking fruit. Is there really that much immigration to the agricultural parts of the country. I have a hard time picturing the tons of Latinos in the cornfields of Iowa.
Most of the Mexicans I know in Iowa are laborers, though not on a farm: Construction, maids, mechanics, etc.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 10:39:45 AM
I thought Jaron came here to make Spiess burritos? :huh:
Speaking of which, green tomatillo salsa but NO GUAC <_<
Quote from: Fate on December 01, 2009, 11:24:21 AM
Why would you have a hard time picturing that? Crossing the national border is the hard part. Going from California or Texas to Iowa is easy.
Because the population is 97% white and probably even more so in the rural ares. Same in Oklahoma where I used to work on farms.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 11:02:22 AM
There is something to be said that a more diverse society is going to be better able to compete internationally. Academia would also suffer.
Ah, yes. The magic of Diversity. Nobody can really explain why it makes us more competitive-- you just have to have faith that it does :D
In answer to the question, I think that immigration is necessary to allow people the opportunity to grow and learn beyond their little oasis of life. Bringing in new ideas, new ways to view life, and new options benefit everyone, even if we don't agree with them.
By learning more about another culture, I'm given the opportunity to either change my own habits to something better or strengthen my conviction that my habits are appropriate for me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 11:26:54 AM
Corn harvesting is all mechanized. Latinos work mostly in meatpacking here abouts. Or construction.
Good point. What sort of agriculture is still that labor intensive? I guess just fruit picking?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 11:26:54 AM
Corn harvesting is all mechanized. Latinos work mostly in meatpacking here abouts. Or construction.
Good point. What sort of agriculture is still that labor intensive? I guess just fruit picking?
De-tasseling <_<
And yes, fruit picking.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 11:32:56 AM
In answer to the question, I think that immigration is necessary to allow people the opportunity to grow and learn beyond their little oasis of life. Bringing in new ideas, new ways to view life, and new options benefit everyone, even if we don't agree with them.
Also it sure beats having net emigration. When that happens it basically means everybody with the talent is leaving and nobody is coming in to replace them.
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 11:32:35 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 11:02:22 AM
There is something to be said that a more diverse society is going to be better able to compete internationally. Academia would also suffer.
Ah, yes. The magic of Diversity. Nobody can really explain why it makes us more competitive-- you just have to have faith that it does :D
I can explain it--a bunch of white americans from indiana aren't as likely to break into the chinese marketplace.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:33:14 AM
Good point. What sort of agriculture is still that labor intensive? I guess just fruit picking?
Growing pot? Sheering sheep?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 11:40:14 AM
I can explain it--a bunch of white americans from indiana aren't as likely to break into the chinese marketplace.
Yeah and a bunch of Americanized Chinese descendents from immigrants are going to be that much better? I wouldn't hire the descendants of Irish immigrants thinking they were going to be experts on Ireland. You really need people who live in or at least work with that market extensively...even white Americans...
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 11:40:14 AM
I can explain it--a bunch of white americans from indiana aren't as likely to break into the chinese marketplace.
So you're saying immigration should be considered principally from an economical point of view?
@Meri
I suggest you ponder the benefits of clitoris ablation alongside the wondeful new recipes you can get from the new ethiopean neighboors.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:49:05 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 11:40:14 AM
I can explain it--a bunch of white americans from indiana aren't as likely to break into the chinese marketplace.
Yeah and a bunch of Americanized Chinese descendents from immigrants are going to be that much better? I wouldn't hire the descendants of Irish immigrants thinking they were going to be experts on Ireland. You really need people who live in or at least work with that market extensively...even white Americans...
Americanized Chinese Decscendants aren't immigrants. Actual immigrants from that part of the world are very important. Aside from their direct contributions, the white americans benefit a great deal from having interactions with immigrants--I'm not chinese but there is a bridge in that I've known a number of people from china.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
So you're saying immigration should be considered principally from an economical point of view?
I would say that is the principal short term benefit.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:49:05 AM
Yeah and a bunch of Americanized Chinese descendents from immigrants are going to be that much better? I wouldn't hire the descendants of Irish immigrants thinking they were going to be experts on Ireland. You really need people who live in or at least work with that market extensively...even white Americans...
If they are Americanized what's the problem again?
Canada needs to purge the French menace to protect her heritage.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
So you're saying immigration should be considered principally from an economical point of view?
No, but humanitarian and cultural grounds are a bit more abstract and it seems as though a lot of people here reject those arguments.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
@Meri
I suggest you ponder the benefits of clitoris ablation alongside the wondeful new recipes you can get from the new ethiopean neighboors.
G.
Obviously, you didn't read my comment closely enough. I said that we can all learn from one another, and what we can learn is both positive and negative in nature. By bringing in Ethiopian people, they are learning from us that what they do isn't acceptable, and we're learning what they do, and why, and can help take steps to stop it from a more educated position.
To say that all immigration or multi-culturalism is bad simply because we find some things distasteful seems a bit like cutting our nose off to spite our face.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 11:58:50 AM
If they are Americanized what's the problem again?
Did I say there was a problem? I was simply questioning having them around was really useful for doing business in China. I am not particularly useful for doing business in England but I don't think I am a problem.
I need Helots to pick my grapes and strawberries.
If it wasn't for Immigration i would have grown up as a crazy leftist or getting rubbed on the beach. God bless Immigration :P
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 12:02:01 PM
No, but humanitarian and cultural grounds are a bit more abstract and it seems as though a lot of people here reject those arguments.
I have to say I am not too crazy about humanitarian immigration it strikes me as far too arbitrary. I mean how can we take one group on humanitarian grounds and not then take everybody not in a similar situation or worse?
The cultural stuff is not necessarily always a positive good to some people. Granted it means the birth of a new culture taking on new elements the immigrants bring with them but it also means that the culture that was there before is changed and gone forever in the form it once had. Some people will see that as a good thing and others will be upset by it. Ergo it is a bit tricky to sell that as a reason to encourage immigration.
Quote from: HVC on December 01, 2009, 12:09:49 PM
If it wasn't for Immigration i would have grown up as a crazy leftist or getting rubbed on the beach. God bless Immigration :P
Canada turned you from a worthless eggplant into a delicious, juicy porkchop.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
So you're saying immigration should be considered principally from an economical point of view?
I would say that is the principal short term benefit.
As well as the principle long term benefit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 12:12:28 PM
As well as the principle long term benefit.
I guess I should say the principal impetus for it. People rarely immigrate someplace for the promise of something other than economic opportunities and they are rarely welcome when they arrive except as so far as they are useful economically.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 01, 2009, 12:11:36 PMCanada turned you from a worthless eggplant into a delicious, juicy porkchop.
Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson? :o :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 01, 2009, 12:11:36 PM
Canada turned you from a worthless eggplant into a delicious, juicy porkchop.
Angerbutt is coming on to you Hillary.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 11:58:50 AM
If they are Americanized what's the problem again?
Did I say there was a problem? I was simply questioning having them around was really useful for doing business in China. I am not particularly useful for doing business in England but I don't think I am a problem.
I think you were the only person who brought up americanized descendants of immigrants. I hate to use the words, but you were arguing against a straw man. :bleeding:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 12:18:04 PM
I think you were the only person who brought up americanized descendants of immigrants. I hate to use the words, but you were arguing against a straw man. :bleeding:
Ok so when you mentioned being able to do business in China was an advantage to having a more diverse society...you meant what exactly? Because then talking about white americans it seemed to mean if we had a different sort of Americans it would do us more good...
If that was not your meaning why specifically did you go out of your way to say WHITE Americans? That makes no sense otherwise.
Perhaps I simply misunderstood you but I did not invent any strawmen intentionally.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2009, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 11:55:09 AM
I would say that is the principal short term benefit.
As well as the principle long term benefit.
Citizens are more than consumers/tax payers - and a country exists for other reasons than allowing private corporations to operate and rake in money. <_<
A society is a way life as much as it is a geopgraphical location and/or a legal polity. Unplanned mass immigration may provide the private sector with plenty of cheap labor but it also introduces all kinds of tensions that could be avoided with some forethought and some precautions.
Unfortunately politicians are creatures of the wealthy elite and do not take their responsabilities as custodians of the common wealfare. <_<
G.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 12:27:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2009, 12:18:04 PM
I think you were the only person who brought up americanized descendants of immigrants. I hate to use the words, but you were arguing against a straw man. :bleeding:
Ok so when you mentioned being able to do business in China was an advantage to having a more diverse society...you meant what exactly? Because then talking about white americans it seemed to mean if we had a different sort of Americans it would do us more good...
If that was not your meaning why specifically did you go out of your way to say WHITE Americans? That makes no sense otherwise.
Perhaps I simply misunderstood you but I did not invent any strawmen intentionally.
Fair enough--I see where you were coming from.
Based on the thread, I figured it was understood that a diverse society would include immigrants, not just different racial groups.
I shouldn't have used the term white people from indiana--I started to refer to indiana, but parts of the state are actually fairly diverse so i wanted to put in another adjective.
My dad being allowed to immigrate at age 7 allowed him to do something many children his age did not have an opportunity to do in the Baltics: live to age 8.
Also, he was able to go to college, get married, help NASA engineer solar cells, and presently be the vice president of one of two surviving sheet metal fabrication shops in Michigan.
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 11:10:53 AM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 10:20:38 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 10:13:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 10:09:31 AM
To inject new talents and capital into a country.
To compensate for declining birth rates and pay for state pensions.
To fill up uninhabited lands.
To add variety to the hottie pool.
You forgot "To increase the number of exotic restaurants and to spice up the bland local cuisine".
That has to be the most retarded argument ever used in championing the cause.
"Kebabs and Zlatan" is one of the catchphrases of the idiots here, but if we only got a dish they're able to serve in other countries without also importing a million stinking arabs and one mediocre football player, it's a bad fucking deal.
Tongue, meet cheek.
Irony, meet Slargos.
And Ibrahimovic is not mediocre at all. Did you see his goal against Real Madrid last sunday? Amazing! If it wasn't for him and Larsson, both with inmigrant roots, nobody would be able to name a single Swedish player. :P
I realized as much when I read it again, but people actually use that argument seriously around these parts.
And Ibrahimovic may be a good player, but consider this: He only sparingly applies his talent in our national team, and he currently lives and plays in Spain. By current swedish standards of what constitutes a swede, he is no longer swedish but spanish.
Thus we are left with the kebab, and if the price of getting rid of a million parasites is never getting another kebab in Sweden, it's a cost I'm willing to suffer.
As I see it, there are several dimensions to immigration, which complicate the argument.
Firstly, political. This is basically the granting of asylum to entrants that society, for whatever reason, has decided should be afforded the protections it offers. So for example Britain will allow in those who can show they have suffered unjust persecution - or would do so were they to return - to stay in the country. I would assume this is grounded in a universal conception of human rights and the belief that to deny someone refuge is to actively have a hand in whatever harm comes to them afterwards. (However, there are cases, such as defection, where a political or security advantage is gained from immigration.)
I would think we would compromise our fundamental principles if we pulled this form of immigration; although there's a vocal community here that rails against "bogus asylum seekers" (they have moved onto bashing economic migrants in recent years).
Then you have your economic migrants. People who move for the hope of a better and richer life. This can be a Brit who graduates with a starred first from Cambridge and goes on to build a new career in the United States. But it can also be a Senegalese slum-dweller who knows that he and his children have a better chance if he becomes a cleaner in Paris. People tend to not worry about the skilled migrants moving.
But the thing is without immigration you would struggle to find cleaners, cab drivers, and so on; the professions many "natives" would thumb their noses at. Or you wouldn't have them available at a price that, say, the middle classes could afford. I guess there's an implicit deal here; you scrub the loos for £5.75 an hour, and your children have a better shot at things. When you don't get this, I'd imagine you have scenes of rioters burning cars in Paris.
Then you have combinations of the above - my mother's family is an example of this. Relatively speaking Yugoslavia wasn't a poor country, but there was simply more opportunity elsewhere. My uncle in particular kept getting into bust-ups with the authorities: he was simply not the kind of guy that could live under Communism. So he moved to Canada in the 1970s and now owns a successful business (still sounds like he got off the plane yesterday, though).
My mother, however, had more of a cultural attachment with Britain that developed through her studies. So I suppose this is the third category (there's that chap at EUOT who wanted to become Swedish because he loved the culture as an outsider). Her motivation to move her was, in a curious way, as much to do with her love of the language and literature as it was to do with any political or economic constraint (her marriage to my father, ironically, meant she would spend much time outside of the UK :lol:).
What has always interested me is when state borders really started to matter for where you could live - when did the movement of populations start to become managed in such a way?
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:04:43 PM
And Ibrahimovic may be a good player, but consider this: He only sparingly applies his talent in our national team, and he currently lives and plays in Spain. By current swedish standards of what constitutes a swede, he is no longer swedish but spanish.
Cool, can we naturalize him then? He'll come in handy for the World Cup. :lol:
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 02:14:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:04:43 PM
And Ibrahimovic may be a good player, but consider this: He only sparingly applies his talent in our national team, and he currently lives and plays in Spain. By current swedish standards of what constitutes a swede, he is no longer swedish but spanish.
Cool, can we naturalize him then? He'll come in handy for the World Cup. :lol:
The self-satisfied little fucker doesn't perform to anywhere near his real standards when he deigns to participate in the national team, so as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome.
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:16:53 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 02:14:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:04:43 PM
And Ibrahimovic may be a good player, but consider this: He only sparingly applies his talent in our national team, and he currently lives and plays in Spain. By current swedish standards of what constitutes a swede, he is no longer swedish but spanish.
Cool, can we naturalize him then? He'll come in handy for the World Cup. :lol:
The self-satisfied little fucker doesn't perform to anywhere near his real standards when he deigns to participate in the national team, so as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome.
Maybe you guys give crappy service to the forwards.
Quote from: Warspite on December 01, 2009, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:16:53 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 02:14:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:04:43 PM
And Ibrahimovic may be a good player, but consider this: He only sparingly applies his talent in our national team, and he currently lives and plays in Spain. By current swedish standards of what constitutes a swede, he is no longer swedish but spanish.
Cool, can we naturalize him then? He'll come in handy for the World Cup. :lol:
The self-satisfied little fucker doesn't perform to anywhere near his real standards when he deigns to participate in the national team, so as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome.
Maybe you guys give crappy service to the forwards.
Yes, he'll be better served by Xavi, Iniesta, Cesc, Xabi Alonso, Silva and Mata than with any feet dragger the Swedish team can field. :lol:
Quote from: Warspite on December 01, 2009, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:16:53 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 02:14:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:04:43 PM
And Ibrahimovic may be a good player, but consider this: He only sparingly applies his talent in our national team, and he currently lives and plays in Spain. By current swedish standards of what constitutes a swede, he is no longer swedish but spanish.
Cool, can we naturalize him then? He'll come in handy for the World Cup. :lol:
The self-satisfied little fucker doesn't perform to anywhere near his real standards when he deigns to participate in the national team, so as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome.
Maybe you guys give crappy service to the forwards.
To be honest, I'm not much into football so I don't care either way, but I do know that he complains about his teammates a lot and if I recall correctly he was pretty much universally hated by them for having a really crappy attitude.
But the main point here is that using a single football player as a major argument for the relatively rapid infusion of over 1.5 million people is utter bullshit.
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:20:49 PM
But the main point here is that using a single football player as a major argument for the relatively rapid infusion of over 1.5 million people is utter bullshit.
Well, you're the one that brought it up. :P
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 02:22:53 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:20:49 PM
But the main point here is that using a single football player as a major argument for the relatively rapid infusion of over 1.5 million people is utter bullshit.
Well, you're the one that brought it up. :P
Only as an addendum to the food-argument. Though yeah, I guess I have myself to blame.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2009, 10:09:31 AM
To inject new talents and capital into a country.
To compensate for declining birth rates and pay for state pensions.
To fill up uninhabited lands.
To add variety to the hottie pool.
1) Rarely happens. The overwhelming majority of immigrants lack even basic education (Argentina being somewhat of an exception - I've worked with a couple engineers from there).
2) I seriously doubt it is worth it. Uneducated, their jobs pay very low, while mass immigration generates a lot of spending in prisons, police, courts, education ... Increasing retirement age is a much more reasonable solution.
3) Not much of that in Europe. With the exception of temp workers in agriculture, immigrants end up in big cities anyway.
4) Sadly, my experience is that most are quite ugly. Especially those from Latinamerica and China, who often look stunted, as if they had been undernourished as kids.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a hard core anti-immigration guy. I'm all for welcoming quite a few. But I don't think it makes sense economically speaking, especially not absorbing 20% of your population in a decade as has happened here.
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 10:24:41 AM
But seriously, I'm generally cool with immigration as long as it's controlled.
Is that even possible?
The purpose of immigration:
- To seek a better life for yourself, your family and your children.
From the PoV of the State:
- To support some ideological point of view.
- To gain access to labour, skills and motivated population (i.e. tax base) that otherwise would be unavailable.
From my PoV:
- To piss twats like Grallon and Slargos off.
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2009, 03:11:15 PM
...
- To piss twats like Grallon and Slargos off.
Now now Jacob, no need to become personal. :P
The fact I oppose immigrants from certain areas doesn't mean I oppose the principle of immigration. I'd take immigrants like you by the boatloads. Unfortunately this isn't what we get is it? Think of the Khadr family who came from Afghanistan - whose father and sons died fighting for Al-Quaeda, and whose last son is in Guantanamo; model citizens yes? But it makes us all aglow inside to open our arms to such as these...
Anyway, immigration has one purpose only: to strenghten the host society. When it fails at that than it's harmful and should be revised.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 01, 2009, 03:23:23 PMThe fact I oppose immigrants from certain areas doesn't mean I oppose the principle of immigration. I'd take immigrants like you by the boatloads. Unfortunately this isn't what we get is it? Think of the Khadr family who came from Afghanistan - whose father and sons died fighting for Al-Quaeda, and whose last son is in Guantanamo; model citizens yes? But it makes us all aglow inside to open our arms to such as these...
I think we get way more immigrants like me than we get people like the Khadrs. We just don't hear much about it in the media because it's boring and when the government tries to bring it up we get screams that they're wasting money on propaganda.
QuoteAnyway, immigration has one purpose only: to strenghten the host society. When it fails at that than it's harmful and should be revised.
I can't really disagree that that is one of the primary purposes of immigration; where we differ is in our assessment of the current condition.
Quote from: HVC on December 01, 2009, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 01, 2009, 12:11:36 PMCanada turned you from a worthless eggplant into a delicious, juicy porkchop.
Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson? :o :D
I need an "A".
Quote from: Iormlund on December 01, 2009, 02:38:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2009, 10:24:41 AM
But seriously, I'm generally cool with immigration as long as it's controlled.
Is that even possible?
All it takes is the political will to do it. Well, first you have to have political consensus on what form of control is appropriate.
I'd say that our current immigration law in the US generally reflects a pretty broad consensus on the form of control; the problem is that we don't enforce the existing law, and haven't for a considerable time. And as I say, the reason we don't is that the political will to enforce it isn't there--partly because it's an easy issue for demagogues on different sides of the matter to latch onto which creates a disincentive to address the matter on the part of non-demagogues; but also, while most people will agree that there's a problem, I think there's also a pretty broad consensus that it's not a high priority.
To my mind, there needs to be some set of (high) standards when deciding to allow immigrants in to your country. Those standards should be based primarily on educational background, and a desire to adopt the values of the new country at least to a certain degree (though this is of course difficult to gauge). Country of origin should not be directly relevant (although I reckon we would find more immigrants from certain countries able to pass this test than from others).
I'm not sure how absorbing a mass of uneducated, backwards people represents progress or presents a net benefit for our civilization.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 08:39:10 PM
All it takes is the political will to do it.
That's like saying "all it takes to win a war is to defeat the enemy."
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:16:53 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 01, 2009, 02:14:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 01, 2009, 02:04:43 PM
And Ibrahimovic may be a good player, but consider this: He only sparingly applies his talent in our national team, and he currently lives and plays in Spain. By current swedish standards of what constitutes a swede, he is no longer swedish but spanish.
Cool, can we naturalize him then? He'll come in handy for the World Cup. :lol:
The self-satisfied little fucker doesn't perform to anywhere near his real standards when he deigns to participate in the national team, so as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome.
Sounds like Cristiano Ronaldo :D
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on December 01, 2009, 11:24:35 PM
To my mind, there needs to be some set of (high) standards when deciding to allow immigrants in to your country. Those standards should be based primarily on educational background, and a desire to adopt the values of the new country at least to a certain degree (though this is of course difficult to gauge). Country of origin should not be directly relevant (although I reckon we would find more immigrants from certain countries able to pass this test than from others).
I'm not sure how absorbing a mass of uneducated, backwards people represents progress or presents a net benefit for our civilization.
Trouble is, educated groups in emigration countries are by definition a minority, and they are the people least likely to emigrate because they switch from being elite to being foreign immigrants: the supply of them is scarce unless something pushes them towards emigration (for example, Palestinian and Lebanese doctors are relatively frequent in Spain and many of them belonged to the Christian communities there) Further, while there is a demand for educated immigrants, it's far smaller than the demand for unskilled and low skilled workers: waiters, cleaning ladies, cooks, bricklayers, plumbers...
History teaches most immigrants were always uneducated and poor, hence probably backwards too. If they weren't they wouldn't have left their country! There are exceptions, of course, but the supply of highly educated exiles like Frederic Chopin was strictly limited and most were political exiles that brought problems of other kind with them (and not all uneducated immigrants were free of political reasons either... )
But I think the problems are being enormously exaggerated. To put the things in perspective, Germany has received 3,000,000 Turks and at least other ten millions immigrants from other countries, France probably has received roughly 6,000,000 North Africans, Great Britain at least 2,000,000 from her old Indian Empire... if they just
voted according to their ethnic roots the political landscape would change radically, but they show a complete lack of group or political conscience.
In my opinion what we are seeing is the equivalent of Italian anarchists or Irish Fenians in America 100 year ago (groups generally depicted in modern movies as romantic freedom fighters, but in fact could be extremely violent terrorists, for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing).
On turn of the century anarchists I think the best literary depiction of terrorism is still 'The Secret Agent' :wub:
Quote from: Alatriste on December 02, 2009, 03:51:11 AM
if they just voted according to their ethnic roots the political landscape would change radically, but they show a complete lack of group or political conscience.
So Swedish immigrants are unique in this perspective?
Because if you look at the densely settled immigrant neighbourhoods in the part of Stockholm I live in, for instance, they average above 60% socialdemocratic or communist, whereas the municipal average is 40%.
Stockholm is generally a blue city (to clarify, blue means right, not left) whereas the immigrant neighbourhoods are predominantly red.
I'm sure this is just a fluke and has nothing to do with the generous handouts the socialdemocrats sprinkle over our new countrymen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 04:16:56 AM
On turn of the century anarchists I think the best literary depiction of terrorism is still 'The Secret Agent' :wub:
:wub:
Quote from: Slargos on December 02, 2009, 05:52:48 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on December 02, 2009, 03:51:11 AM
if they just voted according to their ethnic roots the political landscape would change radically, but they show a complete lack of group or political conscience.
So Swedish immigrants are unique in this perspective?
Because if you look at the densely settled immigrant neighbourhoods in the part of Stockholm I live in, for instance, they average above 60% socialdemocratic or communist, whereas the municipal average is 40%.
Stockholm is generally a blue city (to clarify, blue means right, not left) whereas the immigrant neighbourhoods are predominantly red.
I'm sure this is just a fluke and has nothing to do with the generous handouts the socialdemocrats sprinkle over our new countrymen.
Well, if you're a good representative of the company they'd have in the other side of the fence, I can see why they don't flock to your loving embrace. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2009, 04:16:56 AM
On turn of the century anarchists I think the best literary depiction of terrorism is still 'The Secret Agent' :wub:
We need to stop using the term "turn of the century" for that. "Turn of the century terrorism" was 911. :P
We are not in the 20th century anymore, Dorothy.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2009, 06:24:39 AM
We need to stop using the term "turn of the century" for that. "Turn of the century terrorism" was 911. :P
We are not in the 20th century anymore, Dorothy.
We're still in the turn of the century, so we can't use that phrase yet :P
Quote from: Slargos on December 02, 2009, 05:52:48 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on December 02, 2009, 03:51:11 AM
if they just voted according to their ethnic roots the political landscape would change radically, but they show a complete lack of group or political conscience.
So Swedish immigrants are unique in this perspective?
Because if you look at the densely settled immigrant neighbourhoods in the part of Stockholm I live in, for instance, they average above 60% socialdemocratic or communist, whereas the municipal average is 40%.
Stockholm is generally a blue city (to clarify, blue means right, not left) whereas the immigrant neighbourhoods are predominantly red.
I'm sure this is just a fluke and has nothing to do with the generous handouts the socialdemocrats sprinkle over our new countrymen.
While native Swedes, on the other hand, no matter how poor, unqualified, unemployed and/or uneducated, would never, ever, vote for the party that better serves their interests, right? :lol:
Whatever.
Anyway, what I mean is this: Immigrants are voting for the same parties Swedes (and Germans, and Frenchmen) do. Have you ever heard of an Islamic party, moderate or radical, getting seats in any national parliament in Europe? Do you understand how many seats would get, for example, the German Turks if they 'voted Islam'?
Immigrants and their descendants could create Islamic parties and vote for them... but they don't. That strongly suggests that fundamentalism is attractive only for a very tiny minority... and even more, that immigrants feel represented by our parties and don't feel the need to organize their own.