|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Not familiar with Sweden but given such numbers I suggest you try to
>> worry about something else. Unemployment is probably nearly fully
>> explained by lack of relevant education. I don't suppose Finland
>> recognizes Iraqi grades. So any PhD from Iraq is effectively totally
>> uneducated, and can not talk, read or write Finish fluently, so he'll be
>> in a segment of the market with a high unemployment rate.
>
> Somehow that paragraph expresses quite well the utopistic view of
> immigrants coming from poorer countries: That most of them are well
> educated and that they have emigrated to Europe for work, and the only
> thing that is preventing them from getting a job is the language barrier
> and bureaucracy (or racist discrimination).
I think that among the immigrants there are a lot of asylum seekers,
those that flee their country because they fear for their lives there.
judging from your numbers I guess that your biggest problem is or was
with the russians not with middle and far east asylum seekers.
> You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
no I didn't.
> Well, let me ask you for some reference of that point of view you are
> expressing.
books and newspaper sources in the Netherlands plus some talking to
foreigners. Does that answer your question?
>
> It may not be a politically correct way of thinking, but it nevertheless
> makes sense: If a person emigrates from a poor country to Europe, there's
> a rather high probability that he doesn't have almost any kind of education
> and the reason he is emigrating is because he wants to live in a richer
> country with social welfare and free services. I know I would.
In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
entry in europe.
> Of course there are prominent excpetions, there always are, but we are
> talking about averages here.
>
>> The main problem is segregation, if you put them all in low quality
>> suburbs, they start forming communities outside mainstream Finland when
>> the number reaches some threshold.
>
> One of the main problems is indeed segregation. The main problem with
> segregation is that it's self-inflicted. In many cases immigrants are
> segregated because they want to be segregated. They want to live in their
> own mini-communities, separated from the hosting community. They don't want
> to integrate into the hosting culture. They want to preserve their own
> culture and reject the hosting culture.
Most groups first try to integrate when the numbers are low. When they
feel they are considered a lower type of people and the numbers increase
they turn into themselves. What you describe are 20+ year old immigrant
communities. (there is a brilliant standup routine by Najib Amhali (a
dutchman from Moroccan descent) talking about entertaining a group of
dutch expats somewhere in Africa. Unfortunately only in Dutch).
> The problem is aggravated by
> multiculturalists who are encouraging them to do so (and who brainwash
> them to believe that the majority of people in the hosting country are
> racist and discriminatory).
>
> You just have to look at countries like Sweden and France to see this.
> It is also slowly happening here.
>
>> The main thing is making them feel at home and welcome. I don't see much
>> of that in the tone of your posts.
>
> You are misunderstanding.
No, your tone and your subject choice may be interpreted as aggressive
towards immigrants. I know that if I were an immigrant I would be
annoyed by it. That is irrespective of your intentions.
> I don't have any problem with immigration.
> What I have problems with is immigration policy. An immigration policy
> which results in immigration problems. It's precisely the type of
> immigration policy which causes segregation.
>
> There are countries with different immigration policy and where
> immigration works much better. I think Canada is one good example.
> Finland should learn from Canada, not from Sweden and France.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|