 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
>> Could we see some citation for the 60%?
>
>
http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/99_pdf/fi/04_maahanmuutto/08_maahanmuuttotilastot/wulktyoll.pdf
>
Ah that 60%.
For all groups with 50% or more that amounts to a whopping 1600 persons.
Most are, judging from the country of origin, fairly recent immigrants.
Are you sure you have an immigration problem?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> For all groups with 50% or more that amounts to a whopping 1600 persons.
> Most are, judging from the country of origin, fairly recent immigrants.
> Are you sure you have an immigration problem?
Not yet. Not at a large scale anyways. However, Finland is going down the
same path as Sweden. Nobody has made any suggestion whatsoever how we could
do things differently than them and how we could avoid the same problems.
(While some people deny the existence of any problems with immigration in
Sweden and a few other European countries, I believe it's more or less a
common consensus that some problems do indeed exist. It's just that nobody
seems to care and everyone is just assuming that "we can avoid those problems
because we know about them", even though nobody has made even a single
suggestion on how to avoid them.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> For all groups with 50% or more that amounts to a whopping 1600 persons.
>> Most are, judging from the country of origin, fairly recent immigrants.
>> Are you sure you have an immigration problem?
>
> Not yet. Not at a large scale anyways.
Not at all, I'd say.
> However, Finland is going down the same path as Sweden.
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.
> Nobody has made any suggestion whatsoever how we could
> do things differently than them and how we could avoid the same problems.
> (While some people deny the existence of any problems with immigration in
> Sweden and a few other European countries, I believe it's more or less a
> common consensus that some problems do indeed exist.
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. Then the next generation that was
born and raised in Finland will start to revolt. No solutions available,
you just have to hope that it does not get out of hand before generation
3 or 4.
> It's just that nobody
> seems to care and everyone is just assuming that "we can avoid those problems
> because we know about them", even though nobody has made even a single
> suggestion on how to avoid them.)
>
The main thing is making them feel at home and welcome. I don't see much
of that in the tone of your posts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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).
You asked for some reference to the 60% figure. Well, let me ask you for
some reference of that point of view you are expressing.
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.
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. 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. 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One aspect of this discussion is a problem of libertarianism.
i) Not everything immoral has to be illegal.
ii) The problematic nature of making something illegal is not evidence that it's
moral enough for us to ignore it and get on with our lives.
An ugly thought about immigrants (even misuse of statistics about them to foment
hatred) may be an immoral thing. Surely, the idea of thought-crime, where the
state sets up certain kinds of thoughts to be penalized, is problematic, likely
an immoral state of conduct itself.
But take the example of a crowded theatre. Parents are always telling their
children what to do-- don't talk too loud, don't put your muddy feet on the
seat, don't play with the hair of the person in front of you. Wouldn't it be
crazy if every aisle were to have a (secret) police officer writing tickets
every time a kid was noisy, touched something, dirtied something? Who would
doubt that there is a need for parents to exercise admonition-- in the case of
teenagers by themselves with no parents, perhaps the nearest and bravest
stranger has to fulfill that role. At the same time, it is probably an
unwritten rule that theatre goers have to be ready to accept a finite amount of
noise and hair-pulling if babies are sitting behind them. It's just a fact of
life, the cost of civilization that you gotta endure it once in a while.
Now back to adults. Some adults do things and say things and purchase things
that, if they had some "adult supervision", they'd get admonished about. It's
like the brave adult next to the rowdy teenagers in the theatre. But hey,
perhaps that's another cost of civilization, is some push-back and hassle, if
not something worse, when you remind your neighbor what civilized behavior is
like.
It's the difference between nihilo- and paleo-libertarianism.
Then we could add religion-based admonishment to the question, and make it
really interesting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
4774fce3@news.povray.org...
> You just have to look at countries like Sweden and France to see this.
Well, I can't talk for Sweden but France has been an immigration land for a
couple of milleniums, so it's not like the phenomenon is new, let alone
worth worrying about in the long term. 20% of the population (including our
hungarian/greek/jewish president) has at least a foreign grandparent. The
French even managed to absorb the Vikings
http://www.viking.no/e/france/chronology.html, who were possibly the most
annoying kind of unwanted, violent-prone immigrant ever. They sure raised a
lot of hell, until they married local women of course.
In fact, every population who was said at one time to be unable or unwilling
to "integrate into the hosting culture" did so eventually. Italian
immigrants, from the 19th century up to the mid 20th, were the subject of
considerable debate and hostility, including mass murder. Who cares now?
Immigrants arrive, life is a bitch for everyone for a few generations, good
old sex ends up erasing the cultural hang-ups and finally (figurative)
heterosis takes over.
So, if you are worried about immigration where you live, marry an immigrant,
that should do wonders :D
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:17:58 +0100, "Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>The French even managed to absorb the Vikings
>http://www.viking.no/e/france/chronology.html, who were possibly the most
>annoying kind of unwanted, violent-prone immigrant ever. They sure raised a
>lot of hell, until they married local women of course.
Wait a minute! True the Vikings were bad but what about the Angles and the
Saxons? We are still hearing them moan about the last lot of immigrants. And
they tried a closed door policy in the 13 th century. But I think that they ran
out of money :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
> no I didn't.
I got confused.
> > 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?
If newspapers in Netherlands have the same policies as in Sweden, hardly.
> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
> entry in europe.
I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
> 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.
IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
the hosting culture right from the beginning. Also the children born to
the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
Sure, there *are* racists, but saying that the general population is
racist is like saying the general population are murderers and thieves
because there are *some* people who are murderers or thieves.
Keeping up this myth is not going to solve immigration problems.
The irony is that passing more and more laws criminalizing slighter and
slighter cases of "racism" is only perpetuating the myth ("why would
they pass these laws if there was no widespread problem of racism?").
And the sad thing is that these laws are not the same for everyone.
There's no racist element in a black man committing an act of violence
towards a white man. However, there always is a racist element in a white
man committing an act of violence towards a black man.
> > 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.
Yes, if a message can be interpreted in more than one way, the most
negative interpretation should always be assumed. That's the right
attitude which will bring friendship and peace to the world.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The awareness that racism is irrational and destructive is something that is
achieved by an individual sentient consciousness. It cannot be legislated into
existence as a property of a society. The number of ignorant, frightened and
insecure people who are going to say to themselves: "You know, now that a large
bureaucracy has passed a rule, I guess I'll just have to change my ways," is
none at all. Passing legislation telling racists not to be racists is like my
posting a note on my refrigerator asking my cat to please not eat the tuna
casserole I've left out on the table. Even if the note states quite clearly
that the consequences are likely to include being thumped with a newspaper and
being called "Bad Kitty", the capacity of document to reverse the creature's
basic instincts is certain to remain negligible.
Scary? No more so than the reality of the human condition in general. Were we
really waiting for government regulation to become the impetus for a more
rational and benevolent world? If one believes that the rights which one has
are determined by which rights governments do and do not see fit to grant, one
is already lost.
It makes no more sense to say "We'll organize a socio-political movement to keep
ham-fisted bureaucracies from acting like ham-fisted bureaucracies," than it
does to say, "We'll pass a law to keep racists from acting like racists."
One can decide to work to overcome racism within oneself and encourage other
individuals who have achieved the requisite level of intellectual development
to do the same. The mountain of evidence against the proposition: "Human
beings, generally, are good and kind, but we need to laws and penalties to
regulate the behavior of a few bad apples," is SO overwhelming that it is
amazing that even the most fantasy-prone of thinkers can remain attached to it.
Yet, I hear some version of it being passed off as an axiom on a nearly daily
basis. Rationality has never been a majority position in the entire history of
the human species and has extremely little prospect of becoming such in the
foreseeable future. Asking "What can I do to oppose racism?" is a question
that I would strongly urge every thinking person to ask himself or herself.
Asking "What should SOCIETY do to oppose racism?" is pointless and just plain
silly.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
>> entry in europe.
>
> I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
Can't speak for Europe, but it's generally quite true in the US
(ignoring illegal Mexicans).
>> 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.
>
> IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
> arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
> the hosting culture right from the beginning. Also the children born to
> the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
> culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
> a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
Can't speak for Europe, but it is totally believable. I've seen this
phenomenon in a number of countries I've lived in/visited. There's
always been a seed of truth behind their paranoia, but generally way
overblown.
--
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> In fact, every population who was said at one time to be unable or unwilling
> to "integrate into the hosting culture" did so eventually. Italian
> immigrants, from the 19th century up to the mid 20th, were the subject of
> considerable debate and hostility, including mass murder. Who cares now?
> Immigrants arrive, life is a bitch for everyone for a few generations, good
> old sex ends up erasing the cultural hang-ups and finally (figurative)
> heterosis takes over.
Never been to France, but it does seem to me like things are quite bad
there regarding immigration. In my town we have a number of immigrants
who were originally from North Africa but had moved to France. They're
all educated - some obtained PhD's in France. They came to the US
because they got sick of it there - quite a bit of discrimination is
what they claimed. I remember during the riots (immigration ones - not
the job ones) a while back, BBC had a link to a report that stated that
North Africans in France were *four* times more likely to get a job if
they changed their name on the resume to a French one (and indeed, many
did officially change their names for this reason).
I had a French colleague (non-immigrant). He wasn't very political, but
he also said that there is a lot of prejudice against them, but that no
one admits to it.
Then there is the flip side - a lot of the N African (have no idea how
big or small in numbers) over there have turned out to be thugs.
All this is anecdotal. It certainly seems both sides were feeding off
the other.
--
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> You asked for some reference to the 60% figure.
>> no I didn't.
>
> I got confused.
I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
see no reason for confusion ;)
>
>>> 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?
>
> If newspapers in Netherlands have the same policies as in Sweden, hardly.
Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
different from Swedish.
>
>> In most cases only the better educated have any change of a successful
>> entry in europe.
>
> I wish that was the case. It certainly doesn't seem so.
So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
interesting.
>
>> 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.
>
> IMO that feeling is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. As new immigrants
> arrive, they are told this myth and they believe it, and they start hating
> the hosting culture right from the beginning.
Yip, the more reason to be friendly from the start. In order to get the
vicious cycle never to start.
> Also the children born to
> the immigrants are told this myth and they grow up hating the hosting
> culture. (For example in Sweden this phenomenon has gone so far that there's
> a general attitude among immigrant youth that they must destroy swedes.)
>
> Sure, there *are* racists, but saying that the general population is
> racist is like saying the general population are murderers and thieves
> because there are *some* people who are murderers or thieves.
>
> Keeping up this myth is not going to solve immigration problems.
> The irony is that passing more and more laws criminalizing slighter and
> slighter cases of "racism" is only perpetuating the myth ("why would
> they pass these laws if there was no widespread problem of racism?").
>
> And the sad thing is that these laws are not the same for everyone.
> There's no racist element in a black man committing an act of violence
> towards a white man. However, there always is a racist element in a white
> man committing an act of violence towards a black man.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Yes, if a message can be interpreted in more than one way, the most
> negative interpretation should always be assumed. That's the right
> attitude which will bring friendship and peace to the world.
>
In, this and several other post by you, you mention the immigrants as a
problem. There is no counter post that shows interest in or friendship
for them. In view of the discussion I though it useful to point out that
this is exactly why immigrants don't feel welcome. It was not meant as a
personal attack, merely as as meta-observation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
477530dd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> All this is anecdotal. It certainly seems both sides were feeding off
> the other.
Yes, it's pretty rough here for people from African background (usually
maghrebi or subsaharian). They have a lot of barriers to overcome, both
within and outside their communities. OTOH there are lots of encouraging
trends, like the increase of mixed unions or emergence, in the past 20
years, of a middle-class with maghrebi roots. Of course, middle-class people
don't usually riot, so the shift doesn't make headlines.
My point was that these problems, however bad they are at the present time,
are transitional, like some sort of growing pains. Other groups went through
that before and made it anyway, at a time when society was even much less
welcoming.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
....
> In, this and several other post by you, you mention the immigrants as a
> problem. There is no counter post that shows interest in or friendship
> for them. In view of the discussion I though it useful to point out that
> this is exactly why immigrants don't feel welcome. It was not meant as a
> personal attack, merely as as meta-observation.
Although not specifically a "counter post", I did, in my reply, state
specifically that racism is destructive and irrational. Your general point,
however, that immigrants receive too little in the way of specific welcome and
acceptance, I grant as correct. I thank you for suggesting (by implication) a
specific constructive action that an individual might take in opposition to
racism.
For the record, to anyone who has recently immigrated to my country (the U.S):
Welcome.
Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
just don't like immigrants.":
Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
That should, of course, be: WHOM do you think you're kidding?
(grins with embarrassment)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
> that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
> see no reason for confusion ;)
> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
> different from Swedish.
> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
> interesting.
As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
immigration.
It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
related to immigration, not even in their minds.
Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
is just false propaganda?
I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
of the country and the immigrants themselves.
I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.
But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
>> that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
>> see no reason for confusion ;)
>
>> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
>> different from Swedish.
>
>> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
>> interesting.
>
> As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
>
> Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
> not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
>
The first citation has a ;), the other don't. And there is a reason for
that, viz. that I mean it. It might really be possible that the asylum
seekers and economic migrants that go to Scandinavia have a different
composition. It might also be very possible that for some reason the
papers in Sweden present their analysis different from the Dutch. So we
end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and
you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make.
Interesting (note the absent emoticon).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> So we
> end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and
> you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make.
And then people accuse me of posting obscure posts which can be (perhaps
intentionally) easily misinterpreted.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
>
> That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
> someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
> Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
> immigration.
>
> It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
> implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
> is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
> related to immigration, not even in their minds.
>
> Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
> critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
> accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
> criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
> possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
> is just false propaganda?
>
> I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
> The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
> of the country and the immigrants themselves.
>
> I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
> The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
> eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
> all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
> no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.
>
> But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
> I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.
>
I am afraid that if anyone says he is against immigration without any
nuances, the valid conclusion is that he is a racist* simply because he
is treating people not as individuals but as members of a group. The
problem is of course that the situation is much too complicated to talk
about 'immigration' as if that is a single problem. You do understand
that but you still keep repeating one-liners that suggest otherwise.
Thereby you put yourself in a vulnerable position as people tend to read
and remember only the one-liners.
My advice would be to not bluntly say that you are against immigration,
but always acknowledge that there are also genuine asylum seekers who
have to fear for their lives in their homeland. And that there is a
difference in integration problems in Finland for Russians versus Swedes
versus various western european countries versus for instance the Iraqi
and Afghani. Not to mention the Christian Iraqi versus the Muslim Iraqi
versus the Kurdish Iraqi.
That leaves open the question on how to put that in a few lines to make
your position clear. To which my honest answer is: I don't know.
* racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race,
colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> * racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race,
> colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.
I have never understood why the word "racism" needs to be expanded
beyond its original meaning to mean basically any form of discrimination
or even aversion.
It's a weasel word similar to "terrorism" and "pedophilia". Accurate
definition be damned, let's generalize it, blur its meaning and use it
as a loaded word for political or other reasons.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
>
> That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
Mike was not referring to those who criticize immigration or its
policies. You're addressing something Mike did not imply.
--
Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Community service may be good. Are the training courses what's worrying
> you?
Both worry me. The community service may differ from the training
courses in name only. "Your community service will consist of meeting
with group X and hearing about the xenophobia they've suffered."
In any event, legitimate governments do not punish opinions or the
expression of opinions.
Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced. The history of
restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was
uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the
government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no
matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances
of the other.
The groups with friends in Europe's government will use this law to
suppress any statement with which they disagree. They will claim that
their racial, ethnic, or religious group was slandered by the statement.
If the government wants to curry their favor or avoid their disfavor,
it will not bother to check if the claim has any real basis in fact, nor
will it relent if the statement is objectively true.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced. The history of
> restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was
> uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the
> government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no
> matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances
> of the other.
There was a clear case of this rather recently in Sweden (surprise).
Sweden's law has this section which criminalizes slander against groups
of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, etc.
Well, not long ago an extreme feminist wrote a heated article in a
newspaper using almost all possible forms of slander against Swedish men
(basically she wrote that Swedish men are in all ways inferior to immigrant
men, and used all kinds of insulting words against Swedish men).
The question was raised whether this broke the law regarding slander
against a group, in this case based on nationality, ethnicity and gender.
An official statement was made that this was *not* a case criminalized
by the law (even though the law has absolutely no mention of such an
exception).
The fact that the law is not the same for all people regardless of gender,
nationality and ethnicity got de jure status.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced. The history of
>> restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was
>> uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the
>> government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no
>> matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances
>> of the other.
>
> There was a clear case of this rather recently in Sweden (surprise).
>
> Sweden's law has this section which criminalizes slander against groups
> of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, etc.
>
> Well, not long ago an extreme feminist wrote a heated article in a
> newspaper using almost all possible forms of slander against Swedish men
> (basically she wrote that Swedish men are in all ways inferior to immigrant
> men, and used all kinds of insulting words against Swedish men).
>
> The question was raised whether this broke the law regarding slander
> against a group, in this case based on nationality, ethnicity and gender.
> An official statement was made that this was *not* a case criminalized
> by the law (even though the law has absolutely no mention of such an
> exception).
>
> The fact that the law is not the same for all people regardless of gender,
> nationality and ethnicity got de jure status.
>
In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not
considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might
not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not
> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might
> not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)
The law should say that. It never does.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not
> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might
> not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)
The men of Sweden do not constitute a ruling class, and the lady in
question most certainly did not insult the class to which she belonged.
And I daresay that if you insult the ruling class in other countries, it
most certainly is punished as slander.
The Swedish government has decided that only some forms of racism,
sexism, and other forms of tribalism will be punished. Everyone else
gets carte blanche.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not
>> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You
>> might not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)
>
> The men of Sweden do not constitute a ruling class,
Why not?
> and the lady in
> question most certainly did not insult the class to which she belonged.
>
> And I daresay that if you insult the ruling class in other countries, it
> most certainly is punished as slander.
I don't think that if I would write an article where I would point out
how inferior the white male is I would be prosecuted or even frowned
upon no matter how good the arguments. Yet if I did the same for black
persons or for women, many people would object and if I managed to give
the impression that I was serious I might well face prosecution.
I have seen some examples of racism by black people (or whatever the
current PC term is) at Oprah that scared the hell out of me (as a white
European male who is not accustomed to open racism), yet were treated
mildly in the program. I think that a member of the KKK would have
received a slightly different reception.
>
> The Swedish government has decided that only some forms of racism,
> sexism, and other forms of tribalism will be punished. Everyone else
> gets carte blanche.
>
Not everyone and not in all circumstances. A black women in the
Netherlands would get away with insulting whites, black men, protestants
etc. but not african muslims.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> - public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
> material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia"
So, a text book on this history of slavery in the USA, or the WW2
"holocaust", would be illegal? That would explain some european
politician's panties being in a twist over showing nazi symbolism on
wikipedia, in the article about nazi symbolism.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>> "ho hum, I don't
>> really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs and diluting our
>> culture the way cultures have been being diluted and turned into what
>> are really other cultures since forever"
>
> Btw, I find this cliche quite curious, given that the real problem is
> more or less the exact opposite.
I expect immigration in earlier decades in the USA differ from modern
immigration in Europe (and possibly the USA).
Earlier generations in the USA wanted to be Americans, not Irish or
Germans or whatever living in America. Both my sets of grandparents
refused to teach their children (my parents) their native languages, as
they wanted the kids to learn English well so as to better integrate,
for example.
Nowadays, the Mexican immigrants around here (20 miles north of Mexico)
want their kids to learn English, and the prejudiced fools who think
Mexicans can't learn try to pass laws making it required to teach school
classes in spanish.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> "Racism and xenophobia will mean belief in race colour, descent,
> religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining
> aversion to individuals.
> * directing of a racist or xenophobic group (by "group" is meant a
> structured organisation consisting of at least two persons established
> for a specific period).
Cool. So, like, the fact that the Baptists think I'm going to Hell means
they can be criminally prosecuted for getting up on their pulpit and
telling people that? When the Jehova Witnesses come around to bug me, I
can have them arrested?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
Basically, you oppose immigration policies which, in the name of
reducing racism, actually encourage racism. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>> The one that scares me is "permanent disqualification from
>> the practice of commercial activities", they'll keep you from
>> ever having any job ever?
>
> I suppose it's good from their point of view that the EU doesn't have
> pesky things like the eighth amendment of the US constitution.
Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nowadays, the Mexican immigrants around here (20 miles north of Mexico)
> want their kids to learn English, and the prejudiced fools who think
> Mexicans can't learn try to pass laws making it required to teach school
> classes in spanish.
That's one of the contradictory thinking I have never understood:
On one hand they (ie. multiculturalists) complain how difficult the
hosting society is making it for the immigrants to integrate, but then,
on the other hand, they demand all kinds of special arrangements, such
as teaching in the immigrant's own language in schools, which can only
cause difficulties in integration.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> > between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> > thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
> Basically, you oppose immigration policies which, in the name of
> reducing racism, actually encourage racism. :-)
Some people have presented the theory that many prominent
multiculturalists, even if only at a subconscious level, *don't want*
racism to stop. They want racism to be perpetuated. That's because
if racism was somehow completely eliminated, their own purpose would
cease to exist as well. They would become obsolete. Their "15 minutes
of fame" would end.
That's the reason why they are so desperate to find symptoms of
racism everywhere, even at places where there is none. If everything
else fails, then they claim people at least *think* in a racist way
(which in their view is a thoughtcrime, of course) even if they don't
show it in any way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
>
> "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
>
> If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
It means you don't have to pay for it.
*ducks*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Some people have presented the theory that many prominent
> multiculturalists, even if only at a subconscious level, *don't want*
> racism to stop. They want racism to be perpetuated. That's because
> if racism was somehow completely eliminated, their own purpose would
> cease to exist as well. They would become obsolete. Their "15 minutes
> of fame" would end.
This somehow reminds me of the Swedish movie Kopps, in which cops of a
small town start making crimes to make themself needed and to keep
theier jobs.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/01 05:25:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
>
> "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
>
> If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
>
Freedom of speech stops when you start telling lies, or you throw around false
accusations or start difaming peoples. You can use freedom of speech, but you
can't abuse it.
Like for any freedom, your freedom stop where your neibour's freedom start.
Also, with every freedom comes some duty and obligations.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't cry because it is over, smile because it happened.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Freedom of speech stops when you start telling lies, or you throw around false
> accusations or start difaming peoples. You can use freedom of speech, but you
> can't abuse it.
> Like for any freedom, your freedom stop where your neibour's freedom start.
> Also, with every freedom comes some duty and obligations.
Thus "freedom of speech" is the same type of oxymoron as "free speech
zone".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's one of the contradictory thinking I have never understood:
Yeah. A lot of the laws around here are clearly counter-productive. :-/
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Thus "freedom of speech" is the same type of oxymoron as "free speech
> zone".
Not really. "Freedom of speech" means you can't pass laws about the
content of speech.
For example, you can be stopped from shouting loudly while standing in
the middle of a residential street in the middle of the night,
regardless of what you're shouting about. You can't be stopped for
talking about religion or economic theory, regardless of what the
religion or theory is, because that would be based on content rather
than delivery.
Defamation (i.e., lying about someone to damage them) is a civil
problem. In other words, the government isn't trying to stop you from
doing it. The person you're lying about can say "your lies cost me
money, so pay me back and stop doing it." In the USA, truth is an
absolute defense to defamation charges; i.e., if you actually did sleep
with a prostitute, me making that public cannot get me in legal trouble.
A "free speech zone" is an oxymoron (in the USA) because free speech is
guaranteed everywhere. Hence, the existence of a zone where it's
permitted implies there are places where it isn't.
BOCTAOE.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 04:23:11 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Warp wrote:
>> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>>> "ho hum, I don't really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs
>>> and diluting our culture the way cultures have been being diluted and
>>> turned into what are really other cultures since forever"
>> Btw, I find this cliche quite curious, given that the real problem is
>> more or less the exact opposite.
>
> I expect immigration in earlier decades in the USA differ from modern
> immigration in Europe (and possibly the USA).
>
> Earlier generations in the USA wanted to be Americans, not Irish or
> Germans or whatever living in America. Both my sets of grandparents
> refused to teach their children (my parents) their native languages, as
> they wanted the kids to learn English well so as to better integrate,
> for example.
>
> Nowadays, the Mexican immigrants around here (20 miles north of Mexico)
> want their kids to learn English, and the prejudiced fools who think
> Mexicans can't learn try to pass laws making it required to teach school
> classes in spanish.
Here in the UK we provide free language lessons for immigrants and then
make sure that all government information is available in English, Polish,
Urdu,...
Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting a
lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money (ignoring
the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves taxpayers too); if
they come over here, they write, they should learn the language.
Then the cost of these free English lessons are released and the very same
tabloids then complain about this waste of money.
Then people are turned away from the lessons because the staff can't cope
with the numbers coming in (unless they get more funding) and the tabloids
then complain about immigrants who are 'trying to do the right thing'
being let down.
It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
"In summary: People are a problem."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting a
> lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money (ignoring
> the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves taxpayers too)
I think that the tabloids are right if the immigrant have a total
negative effect on the economy and wrong if they have a total positive
effect on it. Has anyone dared to make the (unbiased) calculations there
on which is the case?
Of course in modern Europe it would not be PC to make (and especially
publish) such calculations if they show that the net total is negative...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:44:14 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting
>> a
>> lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money
>> (ignoring
>> the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves taxpayers too)
>
> I think that the tabloids are right if the immigrant have a total
> negative effect on the economy and wrong if they have a total positive
> effect on it. Has anyone dared to make the (unbiased) calculations there
> on which is the case?
>
> Of course in modern Europe it would not be PC to make (and especially
> publish) such calculations if they show that the net total is negative...
For my country historically we seemed to get a positive result, unless
they were Catholic or Norman :-) Then again historically we didn't bend
over backwards to accomodate them.
I was at the Polish Club a couple of months ago and they were talking
about how they were helping immigrating Poles, mostly a bit of translation
of documents, legal niceties, how to open a bank account etc. unlike the
tabloid portrayal of "Which way to Job Centre for free monies please?".
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/04 04:56:
> And lo on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 04:23:11 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>>>> "ho hum, I don't really like these immigrants, they're taking our
>>>> jobs and diluting our culture the way cultures have been being
>>>> diluted and turned into what are really other cultures since forever"
>>> Btw, I find this cliche quite curious, given that the real problem is
>>> more or less the exact opposite.
>>
>> I expect immigration in earlier decades in the USA differ from modern
>> immigration in Europe (and possibly the USA).
>>
>> Earlier generations in the USA wanted to be Americans, not Irish or
>> Germans or whatever living in America. Both my sets of grandparents
>> refused to teach their children (my parents) their native languages,
>> as they wanted the kids to learn English well so as to better
>> integrate, for example.
>>
>> Nowadays, the Mexican immigrants around here (20 miles north of
>> Mexico) want their kids to learn English, and the prejudiced fools
>> who think Mexicans can't learn try to pass laws making it required to
>> teach school classes in spanish.
>
> Here in the UK we provide free language lessons for immigrants and then
> make sure that all government information is available in English,
> Polish, Urdu,...
>
> Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting
> a lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money
> (ignoring the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves
> taxpayers too); if they come over here, they write, they should learn
> the language.
>
> Then the cost of these free English lessons are released and the very
> same tabloids then complain about this waste of money.
>
> Then people are turned away from the lessons because the staff can't
> cope with the numbers coming in (unless they get more funding) and the
> tabloids then complain about immigrants who are 'trying to do the right
> thing' being let down.
>
> It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
>
Damn if you do, damn if you don't!
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you;
that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
Mark Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:30:23 -0000, Alain
<ele### [at] netscapenet> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/04 04:56:
>
>> It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
>>
> Damn if you do, damn if you don't!
Unless you're newspaper editor. The sad thing is they believe themselves
to be the voice of the people... the really sad thing is that too many
politicians believe them or are too frightened to stand up to them.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> For my country historically we seemed to get a positive result, unless
> they were Catholic or Norman :-) Then again historically we didn't bend
LOL!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
