NationStates Jolt Archive

We should take a look at this and adapt this view for our own immigration problems. Debate over these issues have been hijacked by the extreme left and the extreme right. As usual, the most practical answers come from the middle.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch legislator from Somalia, now lives in the U.S., where she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
October 22, 2006


IN AFRICA, we sometimes used animals to say things on sensitive issues to avoid discussing the messenger instead of the message. So I shall use the ostrich and the owl to sketch the two most important positions on immigration and pluralism in Europe.

The view of things in Europe today, as the ostrich sees them, is bright. He sees an open market of 450 million people with an amazing potential. He sees a thriving economy and the free movement of people, goods, money and services. Immigration, to the ostrich, can only be viewed as an opportunity for an aging native population. Borders are better open than closed. Islam is a faith like Christianity, and Muslims shall adapt their religion to life in Europe.

ADVERTISEMENTAccording to the ostrich, very soon there shall be a European Islam, signs of which are already visible in the young women in tight jeans; high heels; black, sleeveless, tight tops and matching head scarves, all designed by Prada. This Prada Islam will replace the old rural one and function as a vaccine against the Wahhabi Islam of the Saudis.

The overrepresentation of migrants in all the wrong statistics — such as unemployment, unfinished education and crime — is to the ostrich merely a temporary affair. It's a phase that all groups from underprivileged backgrounds go through, and it will be short, as long as there is economic growth.

According to the ostrich, the wealthy natives should stop whining about the backwardness of immigrants and concentrate on the benefits. The ostrich points to the nurses, nannies, construction workers, grocers, bag carriers, cleaners, factory workers and a host of other jobs natives won't do but are necessary to keep the economy going.

The ostrich is not worried about the flow of migrants transforming the culture and society of Europe in any negative way. He sees only one thing as a setback: the xenophobia of native Europeans. If only the inherently racist white society could overcome its fear of what is alien, it would notice how migrants have improved the cuisine, the music, the arts and the economy of Europe.

Then there's the owl, which is a night bird and gets, more often, a glimpse of the dark side of things. Europe is healthy and wealthy, but the owl worries that it may not be so wise.

The shadow side of the free movement of people, for instance, is the trade in women and children for the ruthless sex industry. Also, weapons go unnoticed from hand to hand, from country to country. Some of these weapons could be biological, chemical or worse.

The old owl sees how poor migrants are exploited by cruel employers who provide little or no pay and hire and fire the migrants at will. The owl can't help but notice that even after the recent amnesty, Spain has an estimated 1 million illegal immigrants. Britain has roughly half a million. France, 200,000 to 400,000, if you trust the French. I think there are more. Germany has about 1 million.

The owl acknowledges unreservedly Europe's aging populations, its decreasing population growth and its need for migrants — but also sees that selection of migrants is not always based on who is useful for the economy.

The owl sees that Islam is not Christianity and that not all Muslims understand or want to share in any European future based on European values of freedom, tolerance and an attitude of live and let live.

The owl sadly looks on as poor kids are taught to view themselves as victims, and the society in which they live as the enemy. He can't help but notice that Muslim migrants are receptive to the seduction of the Islamist movement. Even worse, there are now natives converting to this brand of totalitarianism.

Nor can the owl ignore the growth of the extreme right-wing movements and parties. He fears that the debate on pluralism in Europe will be hijacked by two uncompromising extremes: whites' power fascism and Islamic fascism.

The owl thinks that the ostrich is right: We should always look on the bright side of life. But he also thinks we should be careful not to get delusional.

Foretelling the future can be fun for astrologists and crystal-ball gazers. For academics, it is not. If you get it right, you're damned like Samuel Huntington. If you get it wrong, you're called a certified idiot. So instead of predictions, we draw rough sketches of a best-case scenario and a worse-case scenario.

In a worst-case scenario, the warnings of the owl will not be heeded. The optimism of the ostrich will be abandoned. The monopoly of force that is now exclusive to states will be challenged by armed subgroups. European societies will be divided along ethnic and religious lines. The education system will not succeed in grooming the youth to believe in a shared past, let alone a shared future.

The European states will find themselves limiting civil liberties. Europeans will come to accept the de facto implementation of Sharia law in certain neighborhoods and even cities. The exploitation of the weak, women and children will be commonplace. Those who can afford to emigrate will do so.

Instead of an ever-growing union in Europe, future generations may witness an ever-disintegrating one.

In a best-case scenario, Europeans will heed the caution of the owl without losing the liveliness of the ostrich. This approach will be translated into a three-dimensional, comprehensive policy.

First, controlled or planned immigration. The European Union will introduce quotas such as those in the U.S., based on the selection of migrants who are beneficial to the economy. The current system in most European countries is designed to attract the highest number of people with truly heartbreaking stories, not the highest number of people who are willing and able to adapt to the European society.

Second, an intervention, sometimes proactive, in Europe's neighboring states or in failed states with conditions that force people to migrate in large numbers. This plan will consist of aid, trade, diplomatic pressure and military intervention, if necessary. That's taboo in Europe at the moment. Right now, the EU selects the countries it wants to aid based on lists provided by the World Bank or the United Nations. The criteria for aid are based on such vague notions as the 100 poorest countries or countries with good governance or some other goody-goody sounding reason. That should change.

Finally, in a best-case scenario, the EU will implement an assimilation program guided by the lessons learned from our failed attempts at multiculturalism. It will acknowledge that the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration. In practice, Muslims will continue to enjoy religious freedom, as long as exercising that precious right does not infringe upon the freedoms of others, including daughters and wives.

In a best-case scenario, EU policymakers will invest in girls and women, protect them from violence and punish those who try to limit their freedoms. Those policymakers will reform the welfare state; regulations pertaining to the hiring and firing of employees will be made more flexible, making it easier for migrants to enter the labor market.

The combined vision of the ostrich and the owl is indeed possible in Europe, but it requires a great deal of willpower, leadership and, above all, the recognition that tolerating oppressive cultures and encouraging more mass migration from Islamic countries often hurts precisely the people we seek to help.

A misguided vision brought Europe to its current predicament; an idealistic vision convinced of the inherent superiority of enlightened values over the values of oppressive cultures, a vision steeped in individual rights, the rule of law and the equality of men and women can help guide Europe out of it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-ali22oct22,0,2348954.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

everybody who comes in should have a dna test.first to see if they have aids.
also thier back ground has to be checked out.anyone with a criminal record not allowed in.
i'm not afraid of islam taking over europe, but i wouldnt let anyone from countries that allow genital mutilation, also israel.
people with nessecary skills have first pererance then people aiming to go to university.

everybody who comes in should a dna test.first to see if they have aids.

how is a dna test going to show if people have aids?

Simply put, the ostrich says that immigrants will become more European while bringing their own flavor of...whatever they do well, including food. Any culture with any good food is OK with me. The owl says that the new people won't play by the rules and will turn Europe into a battleground.

It's very simple - those who play by the rules should stay. No more of this "cultural sensitivity." European officials just need to come out and say, "These are our rules. Women and children are free here. We don't tolerate hate crimes, we don't tolerate wife-beating, and we don't tolerate rioting over comic strips. If you don't like it, go home." And while we're at it, illegal immigrants should be given the same option I've suggested for American illegal immigrants - get your papers, become citizens, or get out. Plain and simple.

It's very simple - those who play by the rules should stay. No more of this "cultural sensitivity." European officials just need to come out and say, "These are our rules. Women and children are free here. We don't tolerate hate crimes, we don't tolerate wife-beating, and we don't tolerate rioting over comic strips. If you don't like it, go home." And while we're at it, illegal immigrants should be given the same option I've suggested for American illegal immigrants - get your papers, become citizens, or get out. Plain and simple.
It seems you're thinking of "cultural baggage".

I agree with you; that's a fair deal. After all, you wouldn't let your kids dictate your household rules just because the other parent has different rules.

I also agree, I wish policy-makers in Europe had the same common-sense view on the subject.

The shadow side of the free movement of people, for instance, is the trade in women and children for the ruthless sex industry. Also, weapons go unnoticed from hand to hand, from country to country. Some of these weapons could be biological, chemical or worse.

Trading in humans, or slavery, is despicable. For this reason, slavery has been mostly stamped out. The only place it still exists in modern western society is in the black market. This could be resolved by legalising the sex trade in Europe. The only link this has with immigration is that human traffickers may use the promise of immigration to lure people into their nefarious schemes.

Weapons smuggling has nothing to do with immigration.

The owl acknowledges unreservedly Europe's aging populations, its decreasing population growth and its need for migrants — but also sees that selection of migrants is not always based on who is useful for the economy.

No shit. Sometimes people are allowed in because if they go home, they will be killed. Sometimes the economy has to take a back seat.

Nor can the owl ignore the growth of the extreme right-wing movements and parties. He fears that the debate on pluralism in Europe will be hijacked by two uncompromising extremes: whites' power fascism and Islamic fascism
And how has the debate on pluralism been aided by this article that creates a false dichotomy?

Now comes my favourite part:
In a worst-case scenario, the warnings of the owl will not be heeded. ...The exploitation of the weak, women and children will be commonplace. Those who can afford to emigrate will do so.

Instead of an ever-growing union in Europe, future generations may witness an ever-disintegrating one.

In a best-case scenario, Europeans will heed the caution of the owl without losing the liveliness of the ostrich. This approach will be translated into a three-dimensional, comprehensive policy, that reflects the author's unique bias, not reality.
Remember folks, either you agree with the author, or you may end up disintegrating Europe.:rolleyes:

This part made me laugh:
Finally, in a best-case scenario, the EU will implement an assimilation program guided by the lessons learned from our failed attempts at multiculturalism. It will acknowledge that the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration. In practice, Muslims will continue to enjoy religious freedom, as long as exercising that precious right does not infringe upon the freedoms of others, including daughters and wives.

In my head, I changed it to this:
Finally, in a best-case scenario, the EU will implement an assimilation program guided by the lessons learned from Canada's successful attempts at multiculturalism. It will acknowledge that the basic tenets of Islam are not a major obstacle to integration. In practice, Muslims will continue to enjoy religious freedom, as long as exercising that precious right does not infringe upon the freedoms of others, including daughters and wives.

If Ayaan Hirsi Ali is attempting to create a space for a third position in the debate, she has failed. If you start with the assumption that 'multiculturalism has failed', you cannot speak of this issue without bias.

It seems you're thinking of "cultural baggage".

I agree with you; that's a fair deal. After all, you wouldn't let your kids dictate your household rules just because the other parent has different rules.

Hmmm...hadn't thought of it as "cultural baggage" but that's a good word for it. And picturing immigrants as teenagers who have packed up to go live with their dads after having been raised mainly by their moms is an interesting, albeit truthful, way of putting it. The dads need to say, "If you don't like it, here's a bus ticket back to your mom." But at the same time, the dads need to be supportive of those who will play by the rules.

Hmmm...hadn't thought of it as "cultural baggage" but that's a good word for it. And picturing immigrants as teenagers who have packed up to go live with their dads after having been raised mainly by their moms is an interesting, albeit truthful, way of putting it. The dads need to say, "If you don't like it, here's a bus ticket back to your mom." But at the same time, the dads need to be supportive of those who will play by the rules.

Sure, if immigrants were actually children, and we were actually their parents, then we might get away with such condescending paternalism, but it may not work too well when you talk to real people.

Why is the need for immigrants such a taboo? France already has a almost replacement level birthrate, without being ideal (bad economy, high unemployment etc). Other countries can adopt pro-natal policies like France, hence sustaining their populations naturally without the need to import foreign labour/cultures etc...


As Europe Grows Grayer, France Devises a Baby Boom

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; Page A01

JUMEAUVILLE, France -- When the municipal day-care center ran out of space because of a local baby boom, the town government gave Maylis Staub and her husband $200 a month to defray the cost of a "maternal assistant" to care for their two children.

When Staub delivered twins last December -- her third and fourth children -- the nation not only increased their tax deductions and child allowances, the government-owned French train system offered 40 percent discounts off tickets for the parents and the children until they reach their 18th birthdays.

"The government favors families a lot," said Staub, 35, a project manager for a French cellphone company. "They understand that families are the future. It's great for us."

While falling birthrates threaten to undermine economies and social stability across much of an aging Europe, French fertility rates are increasing. France now has the second-highest fertility rate in Europe -- 1.94 children born per woman, exceeded slightly by Ireland's rate of 1.99. The U.S. fertility rate is 2.01 children.

In many European countries, park benches are filled with elderly residents. In France, parks overflow with boisterous children, making it an international model for countries struggling with the threat of zero population growth. In recent months, officials from Japan, Thailand and neighboring Germany have traveled to France to study its reproductive secrets.

But the propensity of women here to have more babies has little to do with notions of French romance or the population's formerly strong religious ties to the Roman Catholic Church.

France heavily subsidizes children and families from pregnancy to young adulthood with liberal maternity leaves and part-time work laws for women. The government also covers some child-care costs of toddlers up to 3 years old and offers free child-care centers from age 3 to kindergarten, in addition to tax breaks and discounts on transportation, cultural events and shopping.

This summer, the government -- concerned that French women still were not producing enough children to guarantee a full replacement generation -- very publicly urged French women to have even more babies. A new law provides greater maternity leave benefits, tax credits and other incentives for families who have a third child. During a year-long leave after the birth of the third child, mothers will receive $960 a month from the government, twice the allowance for the second child.

A century ago, France was one of the first European countries to face a declining population. Since then, almost every elected French government -- regardless of party -- has instituted laws that encourage bigger families and make it easier for women to keep their jobs while raising children.

"Politicians realized they had to encourage people to have more babies if they didn't want to live in a country of old people," said France Prioux, director of research for France's National Institute of Demographic Studies.

Most of the subsidies and allowances are income-based, giving low-income families the most help. But higher-income families also receive substantial benefits so that only a fraction of a working mother's salary goes to child-care costs.

In Jumeauville, a rural hamlet of picturesque stone houses and about 500 inhabitants a 45-minute drive west of Paris, the Staubs are part of a trend most European countries crave to emulate: expanding families fleeing the cities and suburbs in search of larger houses and gardens, helping to replenish the village's declining and aging population of farmers.

............

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701652.html)

Sure, if immigrants were actually children, and we were actually their parents, then we might get away with such condescending paternalism, but it may not work too well when you talk to real people.

Parents these days are more than willing to work with their kids, just as democratic European governments should be willing to work with immigrants. The overwhelming theme in both situations is - the newcomers have got to play by the rules, and some things just are not tolerated in the new setting. That doesn't mean that, if the Muslims got together and wanted to pass some law that gave them the right to take Friday off, for example, they couldn't do it. However, they can't just show up and say, "We want our Sabbath observed, we want to beat our wives and shield our daughters, we want to shun the consumption of pork, and we want Islam to take over, so step aside, Europe...and no making fun of our prophet, though we'll make fun of anyone we please" because Europe can't survive by standing for that. It's not condescending paternalism. Paternalism, maybe, but as long as the new folks have a voice, it's not "We'll do what we want and make all the rules, and you just have to sit back and accept it. Nyah nyah."

Hmmm...hadn't thought of it as "cultural baggage" but that's a good word for it. And picturing immigrants as teenagers who have packed up to go live with their dads after having been raised mainly by their moms is an interesting, albeit truthful, way of putting it. The dads need to say, "If you don't like it, here's a bus ticket back to your mom." But at the same time, the dads need to be supportive of those who will play by the rules.
I found something oddly chilling about what you just said because I was once given the same threat by my dad when I said I disagreed with his "unreasonable" rules...

But, yes, I had heard the term before. I thought it was a good one because when one goes to a new place, they really are bringing them just their physical baggage; they are bringing the emotional and cultural aspects as well into the new life and that takes a while to adjust.

"A social scientist from America comments on European immigration"... nice one...

I found something oddly chilling about what you just said because I was once given the same threat by my dad when I said I disagreed with his "unreasonable" rules...

Depends on what the "unreasonable" rules are. If they're too unreasonable, I can't imagine any immigrant wanting to live under them. Of course, for us, "unreasonable" would be that we have to cover up entirely in public and that women can't leave home without adult male escorts. To them, "unreasonable" may be that they can't kill their daughters for family honor or that they have to attend schools that aren't Islamic. Those who come to these countries should know what they're getting into, and people who won't play by the rules should be pretty easy to spot if the governments try.

Trading in humans, or slavery, is despicable. For this reason, slavery has been mostly stamped out. The only place it still exists in modern western society is in the black market. This could be resolved by legalising the sex trade in Europe. The only link this has with immigration is that human traffickers may use the promise of immigration to lure people into their nefarious schemes.Ummm.... Exactly?

Weapons smuggling has nothing to do with immigration.That's just dumb. Of course weapons trafficking is linked to immigration. More specifically, it is linked to the ease of flow of people across borders. Period.



[/quote]No shit. Sometimes people are allowed in because if they go home, they will be killed. Sometimes the economy has to take a back seat.[/quote]The author wasn't addressing political asylum questions.


[/quote]And how has the debate on pluralism been aided by this article that creates a false dichotomy?[/quote]I*t's not a false dichotomy. It's an accurate dichotomy.

Now comes my favourite part:

Remember folks, either you agree with the author, or you may end up disintegrating Europe.:rolleyes: That's stupid. The author simply pointed out that there are serious problems that are beginning to show themselves with regards to unchecked immigration into Europe. She is simply pointing out that if those problems are ignored they will grow.

This part made me laugh:


In my head, I changed it to this:
Finally, in a best-case scenario, the EU will implement an assimilation program guided by the lessons learned from Canada's successful attempts at multiculturalism. It will acknowledge that the basic tenets of Islam are not a major obstacle to integration. In practice, Muslims will continue to enjoy religious freedom, as long as exercising that precious right does not infringe upon the freedoms of others, including daughters and wives.Really? So the French speakers in Quebec are happy as clams. First, whether it's succesful or not remains to be seen. A huge chunk of people in the middle of Canada happen to disagree with your assesment as witnessed by the several succession bills that keep popping up on their ballot.s In anycase, it's irrelevent because Canada's experience is unique to Canada. When you have a whole bunch of your immigrants burn your cities for a few days as happened in France then you can start to compare.

If Ayaan Hirsi Ali is attempting to create a space for a third position in the debate, she has failed. If you start with the assumption that 'multiculturalism has failed', you cannot speak of this issue without bias.
No, your just a leftist extremist who refuses to acknowledge that there are real problems caused by unfettered immigration. It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone like you because you think that by force of will these problem cease to exist and anyone who disagrees and is interested in facing and solving these very real problems in a practical way is a racist.

"A social scientist from America comments on European immigration"... nice one...

You might have wanted to read the by line a little closer. Here it is again for you.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch legislator from Somalia, now lives in the U.S., where she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
October 22, 2006

Am I the only one who finds it a bit silly that Ms. "Muslims are the Devil!" Ali of all people wants to tell us about centrist and balanced views?

You might have wanted to read the by line a little closer. Here it is again for you.
When, might I ask, were they in Holland?

When, might I ask, were they in Holland?
Just a few months ago, when the Dutch Immigration Minister wanted to deport her for a technicality (I swear, if Verdonk could, she'd deport everyone in Holland and live all by herself). Surely you keep up with the news, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsi_Ali

I think there is some confusion in this piece between Asylum and Immigration.

That's just dumb. Of course weapons trafficking is linked to immigration. More specifically, it is linked to the ease of flow of people across borders. Period.
Both of them are related to smuggling. That's the only link. Then immigration is also tied to drugs, endangered species, industrial espionage and a whole bunch of activities that have to do with smuggling.

The author wasn't addressing political asylum questions.

The author is addressing the selection of migrants, and argues that it currently is not based solely on the economy:

The owl acknowledges unreservedly Europe's aging populations, its decreasing population growth and its need for migrants — but also sees that selection of migrants is not always based on who is useful for the economy.
Since it is not based solely on the economy, it must be based on other things too. I was pointing out one of them (political asylum) to show the absurdity of arguing that economic issues should be the only priority.

I*t's not a false dichotomy. It's an accurate dichotomy.

Are you saying that the only possible positions to take on this issue are the owl and the ostrich? So someone who argues for a guest worker program with citizenship rights as a reward is taking which position?

That's stupid. The author simply pointed out that there are serious problems that are beginning to show themselves with regards to unchecked immigration into Europe. She is simply pointing out that if those problems are ignored they will grow.

I was pointing out that her dichotomy was false, but since you think the dichotomy is correct, I don't know what you're saying with this.

Really? So the French speakers in Quebec are happy as clams. First, whether it's succesful or not remains to be seen. A huge chunk of people in the middle of Canada happen to disagree with your assesment as witnessed by the several succession bills that keep popping up on their ballot.s In anycase, it's irrelevent because Canada's experience is unique to Canada. When you have a whole bunch of your immigrants burn your cities for a few days as happened in France then you can start to compare.

I think you may have overestimated the importance of these secession bills on the Canadian psyche. I would rather point out the fact that I live in a city with fundamentalists of all religions and races, and ethnic riots do not occur here, ever. I think the fact that Canada has been an ongoing experiment in multiculturalism for the last 300 years, and has yet to show signs of failure is more important than an overblown language debate.

You are correct. Canada's experience is unique to Canada. By such logic, you would never think that European viewpoints could reflect on the American situation. You would never say: 'We should take a look at this and adapt this view for our own immigration problems,' would you?



No, your just a leftist extremist who refuses to acknowledge that there are real problems caused by unfettered immigration. It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone like you because you think that by force of will these problem cease to exist and anyone who disagrees and is interested in facing and solving these very real problems in a practical way is a racist.

It's not impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone like me. You are doing it right now. Nor did I accuse anyone of racism.

"A social scientist from America comments on European immigration"... nice one...

You ever heard the experession "Can't see the wood for the trees"

Am I the only one who finds it a bit silly that Ms. "Muslims are the Devil!" Ali of all people wants to tell us about centrist and balanced views?

She should know better than you about muslims, since she was a muslim herself, not to mention she lived in majority muslim countries for very long years.

When, might I ask, were they in Holland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

The ideal solution to the immigration problem for Europe would be to slim down its welfare states, and to allow communities to decide on immigration, just like Switzerland does, albeit with somewhat easier conditions for citizenship.

Both of them are related to smuggling. That's the only link. Then immigration is also tied to drugs, endangered species, industrial espionage and a whole bunch of activities that have to do with smuggling.Now you're getting it.



The author is addressing the selection of migrants, and argues that it currently is not based solely on the economy:


Since it is not based solely on the economy, it must be based on other things too. I was pointing out one of them (political asylum) to show the absurdity of arguing that economic issues should be the only priority.She herself became a dutch citizen through political asylum. The contrast that she is drawing is between selecting for immigration people simply because they are from poor countries, for example, rather than if they are skilled in a field that the country they are moving to has a deficiancy in.



Are you saying that the only possible positions to take on this issue are the owl and the ostrich? So someone who argues for a guest worker program with citizenship rights as a reward is taking which position?No. Like the auther I am saying that the real, practical solutions lie between the two. That's the whole, central point to this essay and it seems you completely missed the point. She's saying that a policy of "let 'em all come in the millions and we'll just absorb them" is as unworkable and unrealistic as "shut the doors, turn off the lights and maybe they'll go away." She, like myself, believe that a middle ground exists that would allow for immigration in an intelligent, planned way that can benefit both the immigrant and the country they are immigrating to.



I think you may have overestimated the importance of these secession bills on the Canadian psyche. I would rather point out the fact that I live in a city with fundamentalists of all religions and races, and ethnic riots do not occur here, ever. I think the fact that Canada has been an ongoing experiment in multiculturalism for the last 300 years, and has yet to show signs of failure is more important than an overblown language debate.

You are correct. Canada's experience is unique to Canada. By such logic, you would never think that European viewpoints could reflect on the American situation. You would never say: 'We should take a look at this and adapt this view for our own immigration problems,' would you?Yes I can. I said ADAPT this to our own immigration mess. ADAPT.





It's not impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone like me. You are doing it right now. Nor did I accuse anyone of racism.

You dismissed out of hand what I think is a completely reasonable position to take. The author simply wrote an article that took into account the positions of both extremes in the debate. The Ostriche's position of unfetterd immigration and movement of people as being nothing but a positive and the owl's position that with that approach we may very well be importing people who wish us harm and who may have views that are incompatible with the liberties and freedoms western societies hold dear such as freedom of expression and teh equal treatment of women. The reality is that the best road to take is to understand that immigration is not only positive, but necessary in many cases but that unfettered, uncontrolled immigration can not only be very dangerous, it can hurt the very people it is intended to help.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit silly that Ms. "Muslims are the Devil!" Ali of all people wants to tell us about centrist and balanced views?

well, they did cut her clitoris off when she was 13 and then tried to force her to marry her cousin who she had never met.

well, they did cut her clitoris off when she was 13 and then tried to force her to marry her cousin who she had never met.
"They"?

"They"?

No it as just one person. Her aunt, as a matter in fact, is the only Muslim to still practice female genital mutilation. All the rest of the Muslims in places like Saudi Arabia and Somalia, where she is from, have abandoned the practice and wear furry mittons now and like to frolick in the forests with all the furry animals. They also love puppies. Havn't you heard? It's only Christians that eat children and rape and mutilate women.

No it as just one person. Her aunt, as a matter in fact, is the only Muslim to still practice female genital mutilation...
Very funny.

Fact of the matter is that Ms. Ali's views on Islam haven't been centrist, mainstream or balanced in any way. She was always something of a counterweight to the multiculturalist relativists out there. If she had her way, all Muslims would be secular like her, and all Muslim men would be in jail.

Some of the things she said and says may be true, and I don't dispute that. She certainly has a history that explains her grudges too. But that doesn't make her an expert on the matter, nor does it allow her to generalise wantonly.

Very funny.

Fact of the matter is that Ms. Ali's views on Islam haven't been centrist, mainstream or balanced in any way. She was always something of a counterweight to the multiculturalist relativists out there. If she had her way, all Muslims would be secular like her, and all Muslim men would be in jail.

Some of the things she said and says may be true, and I don't dispute that. She certainly has a history that explains her grudges too. But that doesn't make her an expert on the matter, nor does it allow her to generalise wantonly.

From reading this article she seems to take a perfectly reasonable approach. You can come to Europe and practice your religion, but there are things we will not put up with like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, Islamic extremism and jihadism... Sounds good to me.

Now you're getting it.

If you want to draw some sort of relationship between smuggling and illegal immigration, you should clarify exactly what you think it is. You could as easily argue that smuggling is related to international shipping, and therefore international shipping is bad. To me, illegal immigration is a form of smuggling that may or may not be completely independent from other forms of smuggling.

She herself became a dutch citizen through political asylum. The contrast that she is drawing is between selecting for immigration people simply because they are from poor countries, for example, rather than if they are skilled in a field that the country they are moving to has a deficiancy in.

To be honest, Dan, her writing is not very clear at this point.
The owl acknowledges unreservedly Europe's aging populations, its decreasing population growth and its need for migrants — but also sees that selection of migrants is not always based on who is useful for the economy.
It is true that selection of migrants is not always based on who is useful for the economy. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is based on other concerns, like asylum. I think we can agree that's fine. I would like to address your concern: many western countries let people in based on their skills, but then do not recognise their training or education once the immigrants are in the work force. This may be fine for non-unionised fields, where people can be hired and do the work without the papers, but for fields like medicine, architecture, construction, etc. you have to be recognised by an order or union before you can legally work in the field. Without some form of addressing this, illegal labour practices will continue.

No. Like the auther I am saying that the real, practical solutions lie between the two. That's the whole, central point to this essay and it seems you completely missed the point. She's saying that a policy of "let 'em all come in the millions and we'll just absorb them" is as unworkable and unrealistic as "shut the doors, turn off the lights and maybe they'll go away." She, like myself, believe that a middle ground exists that would allow for immigration in an intelligent, planned way that can benefit both the immigrant and the country they are immigrating to.

Yes, She was trying to say that. I think she failed, for several reasons. In the end, her middle ground solution reflects owlish thinking, and has none of the ostrich optimism to which she pays rhetorical lip service.

Yes I can. I said ADAPT this to our own immigration mess. ADAPT.

As did I. I think we can agree that countries can implement policy inspired by other countries, as long as they adapt it to their situation.


You dismissed out of hand what I think is a completely reasonable position to take. The author simply wrote an article that took into account the positions of both extremes in the debate. The Ostriche's position of unfetterd immigration and movement of people as being nothing but a positive and the owl's position that with that approach we may very well be importing people who wish us harm and who may have views that are incompatible with the liberties and freedoms western societies hold dear such as freedom of expression and teh equal treatment of women. The reality is that the best road to take is to understand that immigration is not only positive, but necessary in many cases but that unfettered, uncontrolled immigration can not only be very dangerous, it can hurt the very people it is intended to help.

First of all, I would like to say that I totally agree with the part I bolded. Secondly, I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I carefully read it, and determined that it was a piece of rhetorical sleight of hand. The author created an analogy that shows the two extremes in the debate, and then supposedly creates a solution that lies between the two, but it does not. I simply think that Ali presents us with a solution that is entirely owlish.

Let's look at it:
First, controlled or planned immigration. The European Union will introduce quotas such as those in the U.S., based on the selection of migrants who are beneficial to the economy. The current system in most European countries is designed to attract the highest number of people with truly heartbreaking stories, not the highest number of people who are willing and able to adapt to the European society.

Does the quota system in the USA base its selection of migrants on who is beneficial to the economy? As far as I know, it is based on country of origin. So the first part of this paragraph may instead mean that the EU will control immigration through quotas of skills, e.g. the EU will allow for lots of nurses, but no woodcutters. We shall give her the benefit of the doubt. She then compares this to refugee claimants, with the implicit assumption that all other immigrants are refugees, and the other implicit assumption that being a refugee claimant is bad. These assumptions reflect a belief that immigration itself is a problem. She then compares refugees to people who are 'able to adapt to the European society'. Hold on a second. At the beginning of the paragraph it was economic quotas, and now its degree of assimilation. If you are arguing that assimilation is the only way for immigration to occur, then you are saying that multiculturalism has always failed and always will fail. This is what I meant by rhetorical sleight of hand.

Second, an intervention, sometimes proactive, in Europe's neighboring states or in failed states with conditions that force people to migrate in large numbers. This plan will consist of aid, trade, diplomatic pressure and military intervention, if necessary. That's taboo in Europe at the moment. Right now, the EU selects the countries it wants to aid based on lists provided by the World Bank or the United Nations. The criteria for aid are based on such vague notions as the 100 poorest countries or countries with good governance or some other goody-goody sounding reason. That should change.

This solution proposes that EU foreign policy should be redirected so that immigration becomes the paramount priority. This would be difficult to implement, as other foreign policy concerns such as trade, global security, foreign aid, humanitarian relief efforts, reciprocity agreements, and many others would be adversely affected. Not only that, but this also reflects the mentality that controlling immigration is the most important thing to ensuring the survival of the EU. And this is supposed to be the middle ground?

how is a dna test going to show if people have aids?

a test to show if they have aids. aids is something we should crack down on.

No it as just one person. Her aunt, as a matter in fact, is the only Muslim to still practice female genital mutilation. All the rest of the Muslims in places like Saudi Arabia and Somalia, where she is from, have abandoned the practice and wear furry mittons now and like to frolick in the forests with all the furry animals. They also love puppies. Havn't you heard? It's only Christians that eat children and rape and mutilate women.

Actually, this practice is not part of Islam.

It generally not practiced in the Islamic world from the Arabian Peninsula to turkey (mashriq). Nor is it practiced in Arabian north Africa (magrib).

It is practiced, however, in a moonshaped area from egypt down to sudan, ethiopia eritrea etc. following sub saharan african countries like chad, mali niger up to mauretania if I am not mistaken.

It is practiced by both Muslims and Christians in these countries, and has probably been in practice from ancient times

Yes, She was trying to say that. I think she failed, for several reasons. In the end, her middle ground solution reflects owlish thinking, and has none of the ostrich optimism to which she pays rhetorical lip service.

Why would she name it the ostrich you reckon...:rolleyes:

Ostriches are viewed as creatures that stick their head in the sand, while Owls are wise