NationStates Jolt Archive

Good or Bad?

Noting that I speak from an Australian perspective, I say it is better than good, it is golden. We should fuck whatever immigration quotas we have, cut the strings, and fly. Australia needs to (a) make the process of immigrating simpler (i.e. less ridiculous hoop jumping), (b) massively advertise in other countries for skilled labour, (c) raise the bar a little. We need to take a fuckload more immigrants, but specifically only skilled ones. If you are skilled, we should be rolling out the red carpet. If your brother lives here, you can jump through the hoops. Australia, more than anything else, needs a competitive population to make a place for itself in the future. Unfortunately Australians aren't making very many babies. Luckily, there are literally tens of thousands of educated and wealthy asians wanting to live here, and we foolishly turn thousands of them away.

Asians are perfect for Australia. Firstly, they are hard working. Secondly, they bring with them a great opportunity to bring the nation as a whole close to Asia, to which whilst being geographically very close, we are otherwise astranged. Thirdly, they bring with them great culture and food; Chinese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, indo/malay, pinoy, etc- they all have fascinating cultures, delicious food, and most importantly 'agreeable' cultures. By 'agreeable' I mean cultures which for the most part don't (a) clash with existing social values in Australia considerably, (b) Are respectable and indeed something to lean from, and (c) are not really tied with extremism. Asian brands of international religions are most often peaceful and private (with a near-exception being indo-malay islam, which is much more moderate than it's arabic subset though still abrahamic and thus a little undesirable).

Allowing an en masse immigration of skilled asians to Australia would boost us competitively in the world market, enrich our culture and society, bring us closer to asia, and otherwise bring Australia into step with the major players of the world. Seriously, with enough of the right kind of people we could be the next USA (minus the shit bits). The key is to be an elitist fuck in your selection criteria, and generous to those who make it. Make emigrating to Australia a hotly sought after career-, nay, life-goal. We would have all the benefits of migration with few of the drawbacks (namely crime and poverty, which most often comes from unskilled migration). We would become a nation of educated professionals and skilled tradesmen. Our per capita everything would be a notch higher than the world. We could be an elitist utopia. Combine this with sound education policy and budget to ensure the continuation of this trend for future generations, and Australia would be a world standard for years.

On a side note, before anyone says it and I accidentally blow my head off, immigrants don't steal jobs; they create jobs with the demand for goods and services they bring.

So what do you think? Immigration? Love it or hate it?

Borders are for weaklings. *nod*

Governments have no right to control who can and can't live in a country. Besides that, immigration is necessary to any strong economy. I vote open the floodgates!

Governments have no right to control who can and can't live in a country. Besides that, immigration is necessary to any strong economy. I vote open the floodgates!

Uh...yeah, they kinda do. As the theoretical representation of the will of the people living in their nation, theyre SUPPOSED to do what those people want. If that means closing the borders and saying "NO DARKIES", then, as dumb as that policy is, they've got every right to do it.

Immigration is a necessary part of first world economies. I voted for opening up, but you have to plan well to cater for any surge in people coming in. Housing, electricity, water and other services need to be able to cope with the population otherwise it will collapse.

I suppose the next question is: Should government's have lists of everyone coming in and out of the country? i.e. does 'illegal immigrant' really exist?

Governments have no right to control who can and can't live in a country.

Indeed.

As the theoretical representation of the will of the people living in their nation, theyre SUPPOSED to do what those people want.

Not without limits.

Just as governments cannot legitimately discriminate against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, they cannot legitimately discriminate against people based on place on birth.

Not without limits.

Just as governments cannot legitimately discriminate against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, they cannot legitimately discriminate against people based on place on birth.

That depends on how you define 'legitimatly,' I'm sure there are some governments which have quite legal laws which discriminate against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Nobody said legal = nice.

I think immigration is good. I think people who break the law are wrong, however, I think a lot of the laws need to be changed. It shouldn't be such a big pain in the ass to immigrate. If it were easier to do it legally I would be happy, that way we wouldn't have so many issues and people who wanted to be here could come.

Can be good or bad, like everything else on this planet. Obviously.

Governments have no right to control who can and can't live in a country. Besides that, immigration is necessary to any strong economy. I vote open the floodgates!

If people don't want a certain kind of people to live in A or B country, then that government has every right to do so. Then again, they still have a right, though that's a fairly authoritative move.

That depends on how you define 'legitimatly,'

Just to the point that people should actually be expected to pay attention to them to a degree beyond mere fear of punishment.

I'm sure there are some governments which have quite legal laws which discriminate against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Anything can be made legal, if the government is bad enough. That is immaterial.

Illegal immigration in America is partially the results of NAFTA, and more so because our immigration process is so goddamn hard. If I had spend so much time doing all that shit just to get into a country where I could get a decent job, I'd say fuck it and hop the fence too.

If the immigration process was simpler, more people would do it legally. It is absolutely awful to see the situation we are in. Children are being seperated from their parents, people are being crammed into detention centers for the longest time with nothing getting done.

People in power aren't thinking of practical solutions. Moreover, they don't care. The right is using "immigration" as a force to push nationalism and pro-Americanism, the Democrats are taking a "do nothing" stance in hopes of winning a few voters.

The whole thing is just a fucking mess. We need to give amnesty for those here, we need to make the process of getting here legally easier, we need to handle these problems on small scale levels and keep the federal government out of it, and we need to stop filling our prisons with immigrants, most of all. If an illegal immigrant commits a felony, throw them out. It's ironic that the government doesn't want any of them here, but when they're convicted of a crime they want to keep them here in our jails, and waste the tax payer money putting them in jail that is apparently being wasted on the illegal immigrants who aren't criminals.

I want something between the first three of the list.

Unlimited and mostly unrestricted (By that, I mean that it might be important for the local community to have you registered). I generally don't think there are any restrictions that should apply, but there may be unique cases in which restrictions should apply. I'm thinking criminals might be restricted, but then it has to be rather serious enough to get them jailed no matter where they go.

Just to the point that people should actually be expected to pay attention to them to a degree beyond mere fear of punishment.

Anything can be made legal, if the government is bad enough. That is immaterial.

Well, if there are laws that descriminate based on nationality, and youre not, lets say, Bigtopian, then youre free to pay attention to that law and not fear punishment from it.

Like I said, it depends on how you define 'legitimate.'

But this would require Australia reversing (and therefore acknowledging the existence of) the racist immigration policies that've dogged every Australian government since the inception of White rule in Australia. Remember: John Howard doesn't believe in the word "sorry". Not even for the Stolen Generations.

And at the same time Costello makes a plea for White Australians to fuck for the sake of the country. :rolleyes: Because it's impossible to reconcile a dropping White birthrate with an increase in immigration. Clearly, population increase must ONLY come in the form of White people.

In recent years, Australia hasn't even fulfilled its immigration 'quotas', which the UN clearly states are absolute bare minimums, not targets.

As long as Australian immigration continues to take the stance of "hiring niggers to collect our garbage" then I'm against tokenistic skill-targeting. And don't even get me started on the "Pacific Solution"...

Whosoever believes that the White Australia policies were ever truly abandoned, I pity.


Passports and immigration laws are at the forefront of first-world institutionalised racism.

I'm a Kiwi. I recently saw a job advertised in the Netherlands that described me perfectly. If any of my grandparents had been born back in Scotland, rather than NZ, I'd now be the proud owner of a Euro passport, and able to work in Amsterdam with minimal bureaucracy. But because all of my grandparents were born in NZ, I only have an NZ passport, and face ridiculous barriers to gaining work anywhere at all in the EU.

I know for a fact that my skills are wanted in these countries, because of the amount of work I got in EU nations (before the EU was formalised) when I lived in London on a Working Holiday visa (the best I could manage). But I still have massive problems actually getting a decent job in any EU country you care to name.

And I'm white, native-English-speaking, well-educated, and male.

I hate to imagine what it must be like for anyone else.

Uh...yeah, they kinda do. As the theoretical representation of the will of the people living in their nation, theyre SUPPOSED to do what those people want. If that means closing the borders and saying "NO DARKIES", then, as dumb as that policy is, they've got every right to do it.
Government does not necessarily have to be representative in its rulings. Indeed, few are. The point of democratic elections is to ensure that the people are happy with the ideologies behind the actions that are taken; not to remove the sense of delegation that forms the reason we have governments at all. The Government acts in the interests of its people, not at the beck and call of its people. If they can demonstrate a policy that proves beneficial and suitably popular, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone agreed with it in the first place.

As to my opinion, well, immigration is somewhat symptomatic of a flaw in the way the world at large works; namely, that wealth is accumulated into small clumps that draw more people in than can be conceivably maintained. I think that when we tackle the problems of resource distribution (possibly by reducing the numbers of nation states, possibly through technological innovation and possibly through global legislation/government) the immigration challenge is pretty much solved.

i think it depends and you have to qualify to come to my country. We are a different nation then we were when my forefathers came here. There is more economic challenges and housing issues.

So if your coming here to work, be with your family and to help make this a better country, God Bless you and welcome(actaully my x's two brother in laws were at one time illegals who have become legal and both are very good men I would go to battle for or with)

But if you have a history of crime or are non-skilled and will not contribute and just come here to suck of Uncle Sams nipple, then go home and stay there till you decide to make your life better and show us that.

You missed an option - I am all for unlimited and unrestricted - but it still must be orderly. People need to be properly processed for multiple reasons among which are the proper reporting for taxes, collections of benefits, disclosures of laws and rights, etc.

The only restriction would have to be against the criminal, insane, or just plain funny looking.

JUST KIDDING! (we can let in the good looking criminally insane)

I'm not so concerned about people immigrating for a free ride - that is most often the exception rather than the rule. Besides - there are many natives who follow that pattern. However I also am one who is pretty much against anything resembling a 'free ride' for anyone - immigrant or otherwise.

I say welcome everyone who either got hired for a job in the country or are refugees and let them bring their families of course (not relatives or adult children/siblings). Limit the paperwork as much as possible, pretty much just register them for taxes and sign them up for a course in the native language.

Sweden has low population growth and an aging population just like many other modern countries. We need to import a lot of people to sustain the workforce. We are doing well on that part, for example we received more refugees from Iraq then any other European country. We still have problems with discrimination and poor integration though. A recent study showed that the fact that their names are unfamiliar and difficult to spell puts them at a disadvantage from the beginning with people they've never even met face to face. It takes a lot more then citizenship to make sure immigrants can truly become full members of society, if it's even possible.

I'm interested in stopping one form of alien immigration, namely, that of extra-terrestrial aliens. Can we all agree that an important part of our policy should include a global barrier to prevent any type of further incursion by highly evolved humanoids that exhibit abilities including immense physical strength, highly evolved vision, flight, increased durability, and astronomical speed?

If there is one type of immigration that has to stop, it is the threat posed by non-humans. they're the biggest issue.

And remember, vote Lex Luthor for a brighter tomorrow.

I'm all for limited but unrestricted immigration, with special consideration for refugees and the people in need of humanitarian assistance. And on the other hand, a strict regime of expulsion if the immigrant breaks the law of the land.

None whatsoever if there is not a pressing economic necessity for said immigrant; we have sufficient unemployed in the UK to deport unskilled migrant workers and force the unemployed to take such jobs, thus allowing for highly selective immigration based solely upon the economic needs of the UK.

Most notably, none for either asylum seekers or humanitarian refugees; I'll not see my tax money wasted upon them, their children, their housing, their benefits and their medical care.

Illegal immigration in America is partially the results of NAFTA, and more so because our immigration process is so goddamn hard. If I had spend so much time doing all that shit just to get into a country where I could get a decent job, I'd say fuck it and hop the fence too.

No fucking doubt. I just recently looked into what it takes to immigrate to the US and fucking hell. How does anyone get in this fucking country without jumping a fence?

"Handpicked! Limited and restricted to skilled applicants"

I picked this.

Immgration should be made appealing for the worlds upper-middle class and above and world's very educated/skilled.

Other than that...we have enough povery/crime/uneducated WITHOUT importing more of it.

And you know what...extremly limited asylum. Importing the world's problems into our own country neither helps those countries nor us. We should be working OUT there to better those countries with economic and infrastructure devolpment...not just letting those people come here because they have hard lives there. True, it's not the nicest thing to do but it is realistic. Simply importing the world's problems to here won't solve anything there and will only give rise to problems here.

Most notably, none for either asylum seekers or humanitarian refugees; I'll not see my tax money wasted upon them, their children, their housing, their benefits and their medical care.
Well I can't say you surprise me. You have never appeared to have any sense of humanity in you.
And you know what...extremly limited asylum. Importing the world's problems into our own country neither helps those countries nor us. We should be working OUT there to better those countries with economic and infrastructure devolpment...not just letting those people come here because they have hard lives there. True, it's not the nicest thing to do but it is realistic. Simply importing the world's problems to here won't solve anything there and will only give rise to problems here.
"Realistic"? Not bloody likely. How would you go about stopping wars and genocide? The world isn't able/willing to do it in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, to mention a few examples... And it's not that they'll come here because they have "hard lives", they come here to save their lives. Quite a big difference.

Well I can't say you surprise me. You have never appeared to have any sense of humanity in you.




That's a little harsh I feel. I'm more compassionate than most in social situations, just not politically or professionally.

No quotas, complete shutdown of Illegal immigration, and a more rigorous immigration test thing.

Also, prefer skilled workers and educated instead of masses of unskilled.

Usually good. It's bad when they don't even attempt to assimilate into the main culture, and begin inciting separatism and leeching off the system.

borders are silly.

That's a little harsh I feel. I'm more compassionate than most in social situations, just not politically or professionally.

That may be so, but given your history here and since you just stated that you don't wish to see your tax money go towards saving people who happen to have been born outside your country from imminent danger, I stand by my statement. And I feel my view is only strengthened by your last post too.

I think anyone with a college degree or something else showing a needed skill should automatically be allowed.

Opening the flood gates to the unskilled hurts the poorest of the poor citizens and lowers the average for everyone on the economic scale. This is because wages are a gray scale and a lower bottom also lowers the middle. Only those at the top who are neo-slave employers gain and then only over the short term.

I like the system the Us has now, where you either have to go through years of paperwork or inhabitable deserts to get here. That way, only the strongest/patientest will be able to live here. Survival of the fittest, and all that.

Just as governments cannot legitimately discriminate against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, they cannot legitimately discriminate against people based on place on birth.

What do you base this opinion on? Nations have the power to limit, not limit, or completely ban immigration. I do not have the "right" to move to Japan if the people of Japan have decided that they do not want me as an immigrant.

One thing Western nations should do for the near-to-mid future is basically stop any immigration from predomonantly Muslim nations until we figure out how, if at all, Muslims can integrate into Western societies.

Wouldn't the proper immigration policy have to depend on the context or specifc situation?

For example, if your country is currently suffering a major labour shortage in the agricultural sector, there's no point allowing only engineers and doctors to immigrate. You would be better off opening the proverbial floodgates or allowing only unskilled workers.

What do you base this opinion on? Nations have the power to limit, not limit, or completely ban immigration. I do not have the "right" to move to Japan if the people of Japan have decided that they do not want me as an immigrant.

Damn straight. I admire the Japanese immigration system; it's almost impossible to get in. And Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations in the world.

Open the borders, give everyone a social security card, put them in the social security database, and send them on their way.

What do you base this opinion on? Nations have the power to limit, not limit, or completely ban immigration. I do not have the "right" to move to Japan if the people of Japan have decided that they do not want me as an immigrant.

One thing Western nations should do for the near-to-mid future is basically stop any immigration from predomonantly Muslim nations until we figure out how, if at all, Muslims can integrate into Western societies.
This post holds alot of truth to it, though I would never totally cut off immigration from everywhere...as there can always and will always be exceptions. But generally, I agree with the above.

Damn straight. I admire the Japanese immigration system; it's almost impossible to get in. And Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations in the world.

That's creating long-term problems for the Japanese as they are not having enough children and are looking at a demographic crash. Is a homogenous society neccesarily a good thing? Reasonable people can disagree.

However, it's not really my business- the Japanese have decided they want to remain homogenous and mostly closed-off to immigration. I have no "right" to go live in Tokyo, absent their permission.

Immigration should serve to benefit the host country, rather than the immigrants. If immigration is not creating a benefit to the host country, then the people of that country have every right to cut off immigration (and even deport immigrants, without any legal recourse for such immigrants).

Similarly, where immigrants come from should be a serious concern in any decision on immigration. It's pretty clear that immigration from Muslim countries has generally had a bad effect in the West, for example.

Open the borders, give everyone a social security card, put them in the social security database, and send them on their way.

Oh really? Would that include the immigrant who went on a rape and robbery spree a few years back?

You're a wonder, a marvel of modern political philosophy. You'd make a great US President; no brains, but plenty of... god knows.

That's creating long-term problems for the Japanese as they are not having enough children and are looking at a demographic crash.

So what? The entire West is looking at a demographic crash. Should we give up our societies and cultures for it?

Fuck it, I say. Let the crash come. It can't be any worse than the plague, the two World Wars and the Depression that we've already had.

Immigration should serve to benefit the host country, rather than the immigrants. If immigration is not creating a benefit to the host country, then the people of that country have every right to cut off immigration (and even deport immigrants, without any legal recourse for such immigrants).

Similarly, where immigrants come from should be a serious concern in any decision on immigration. It's pretty clear that immigration from Muslim countries has generally had a bad effect in the West, for example.

Are you claiming that the government should reserve the right to deport all immigrants, including citizens, without the right to any trial?

As to the second paragraph I quoted, it is not pretty clear to me that immigration from Muslim countries has generally had a bad effect in the West. Perhpas you have some sort of reputable source or logic to bring to the debate?

Oh really? Would that include the immigrant who went on a rape and robbery spree a few years back?Yes. Such an immigrant can always be extradited to zir home country.

Governments have no right to control who can and can't live in a country. Besides that, immigration is necessary to any strong economy. I vote open the floodgates!

As lothed as I am to disagree with you, I think some measure of border protection is necessary. I am all for immigration that is controlled. Countries cannot afford to accept vast floods of people who just want to come and have an easier life. For a start, in a country such as Scotland there is no room for a huge population without destroying the country as it is.
Immigration of skilled workers who have a job to go to and are going for that job should be freely allowed to pass through any border with their families in tow. That is not to say that richer countries cannot do a helluva lot more and devote many more resources to allowing the needy to survive and live within their duresdiction.

One thing that really annoys me however is people who come over simply to beg and sell the Big Issue. In Scotland we have enough homeless people to shelter and look after, people who are coming to sponge off a country should not be permitted entry until they can secure themselves a job and not create an unecessary liability.
On the other hand, refugees who are fleeing intolerable conditions should be allowed entry without delay, we are all human beings and we all need somewhere safe to live. If that person is a criminal in their home country then measures should be taken to ascertain their level of threat, if any and control it if necessary, however if they are fleeing political persecution, we have a duty as a free society (Note this is the dictionary definition of free, not the American definition) to do ALL we can to harbour and recuperate these individuals and their immediate family.

At the end of the day, we are all human beings trying to live on Planet Earth and if it is possible to grant someone their wish of residency then it should be the case that it is so.

AMK
xxx

That depends on how you define 'legitimatly,' I'm sure there are some governments which have quite legal laws which discriminate against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Nobody said legal = nice.

THat is completely true, and I can say that most western governments do. For instance an EU citizen can roam freely around the EU, however a Ugandan immigrant will need a far better reason to enter Scotland. Countries who do not enjoy such freedoms are graded as well for instance someone from a country such as Liberia where the UK foreign office advises against all but essential travel to, will face a far tougher time trying to obtain residency in the UK than an immigrant from a country such as Japan as there are no problems between the UK and Japan currently.

Such restrictions are fluid and can change with the political climate.
I would also guard against anyone immediately saying that their country does not act in such a way without checking their facts first as it is commonplace and as sad as it makes me to say it, has bounds in logic, if not morality.

AMK
xxx

So what? The entire West is looking at a demographic crash. Should we give up our societies and cultures for it?

Fuck it, I say. Let the crash come. It can't be any worse than the plague, the two World Wars and the Depression that we've already had.

I tend to agree- the only reason the demographic crash is an issue is because of the modern welfare state, and especially pension plans like social security in the US.

We have created this system that requires multiple workers to maintain each retiree. But that's simply not going to work in a few decades. The system will go insolvent.

People in the West need to accept that fact now, and plan accordingly. The Japanese already get it- they are investing more and more in automation and robotics because they know that they will have a labor shortage very soon.

Other countries are trying to prop up the system by importing immigrants from societies and cultures which are pretty much incompatible with the Western world. But the cure is worse than the disease- countries like the Netherlands and France are looking at civil strife in their futures due to their large unassimilated Muslim populations.

We are somewhat lucky in the US because our largest immigrant group consists of Catholics from a country that is, at least marginally, part of the Western world. But we also need to face reality and realize that trying to prop up the system will simply not work over the long haul.

Are you claiming that the government should reserve the right to deport all immigrants, including citizens, without the right to any trial?

Expect for citizens, that is exactly what I am saying. Immigrants stay in a host country at the discretion of that host country. If the American Congress, for example, passed a law tomorrow cancelling all immigrant visas, any court challenges would swiftly be defeated.

Are you saying that immigrants have the right to stay in a country, despite laws to the contrary?

As to the second paragraph I quoted, it is not pretty clear to me that immigration from Muslim countries has generally had a bad effect in the West. Perhpas you have some sort of reputable source or logic to bring to the debate?

Simply put, we have seen major terrorist attacks in the US, UK and Spain, as well as attempted attacks in Canada, France and Germany (and maybe other nations I am not aware of) perpetrated by Muslim immigrants in those countries. In the Netherlands, Muslim extremists have assassinated a public figure and forced critics of Islam to live under police protection.

In France, Muslim neighborhoods are "no-go" areas for the police, and riots started by Muslim immigrants are commonplace. In the UK, honor killings, female genital mutilation and abuse of women are common in Muslim neighborhoods. Anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe, due to the increase in the Muslim population.

With all of this in mind, can you really say that Muslim immigrants have a positive effect on Western societies?

Expect for citizens, that is exactly what I am saying. Immigrants stay in a host country at the discretion of that host country. If the American Congress, for example, passed a law tomorrow cancelling all immigrant visas, any court challenges would swiftly be defeated.

Are you saying that immigrants have the right to stay in a country, despite laws to the contrary?

I don't think a country should have the right to apply such a law retroactively, especially for visa holders or refugee claimants who are in the process of attaining citizenship. Also many countries have various degrees of visas. In Canada we have Permanent Resident visas for people who wish live their whole lives in Canada, but cannot or will not become citizens. A person who holds such a visa has all the same rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen except the right to vote. I find your position simplistic, even if we exclude those of us immigrants who are naturalised citizens.

Simply put, we have seen major terrorist attacks in the US, UK and Spain, as well as attempted attacks in Canada, France and Germany (and maybe other nations I am not aware of) perpetrated by Muslim immigrants in those countries. In the Netherlands, Muslim extremists have assassinated a public figure and forced critics of Islam to live under police protection.

In France, Muslim neighborhoods are "no-go" areas for the police, and riots started by Muslim immigrants are commonplace. In the UK, honor killings, female genital mutilation and abuse of women are common in Muslim neighborhoods. Anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe, due to the increase in the Muslim population.

With all of this in mind, can you really say that Muslim immigrants have a positive effect on Western societies?

The problem is that these events are not caused by Muslim immigration. Rather than go into a complicated argument for each of these points, I will simply point out that none of these things result directly from Muslim immigration. Most of these actually result from xenophobia and racism on the part of the host populace, or like the terrorist attacks, have very little to do with immigration when compared to other factors.

Expect for citizens, that is exactly what I am saying. Immigrants stay in a host country at the discretion of that host country. If the American Congress, for example, passed a law tomorrow cancelling all immigrant visas, any court challenges would swiftly be defeated.

Are you saying that immigrants have the right to stay in a country, despite laws to the contrary?



Simply put, we have seen major terrorist attacks in the US, UK and Spain, as well as attempted attacks in Canada, France and Germany (and maybe other nations I am not aware of) perpetrated by Muslim immigrants in those countries. In the Netherlands, Muslim extremists have assassinated a public figure and forced critics of Islam to live under police protection.

In France, Muslim neighborhoods are "no-go" areas for the police, and riots started by Muslim immigrants are commonplace. In the UK, honor killings, female genital mutilation and abuse of women are common in Muslim neighborhoods. Anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe, due to the increase in the Muslim population.

With all of this in mind, can you really say that Muslim immigrants have a positive effect on Western societies?

There have been far more terrorist attacks carried out in the US, UK and Spain by white, christian westerners than by muslim immigrants.

Islamic immigrants from all over the world have entered these countries and filled requirements for nurses, doctors, shopkeepers, resteraunteurs, engineers, scientists and various other professions which have advanced the cause of those countries immesureably. Any time two cultures meet each othere there are problems, that does not mean that those cultures should not mix. Scots and English mix, American's and intelligent people mix. Muslim and Christian mix, Religious and Atheist mix. It can be done but it requires tolerance and both give and take on either side. That is where the problems currently lie. Certain aspects of both cultures love to take but refuse to give for whatever reason.

In conclusion, yes immigration by Islamic nationalities HAVE had a positive effect on western culture.

AMK
xxx

There have been far more terrorist attacks carried out in the US, UK and Spain by white, christian westerners than by muslim immigrants.

Whether true or not, this is irrelevant. Those attacks were committed by people whose ancestors are from the relevant countries. You can't deport or deny entry to someone who can trace their ancestry back in their country for centuries. However, a nation can, and should, deny entry to immigrants from countries that are known terrorists havens.

Islamic immigrants from all over the world have entered these countries and filled requirements for nurses, doctors, shopkeepers, resteraunteurs, engineers, scientists and various other professions which have advanced the cause of those countries immesureably. Any time two cultures meet each othere there are problems, that does not mean that those cultures should not mix.

That's the positive side, sure, but the downside is a crater in downtown Manhattan, or a bunch of dead commuters in London. If a country needs all of the immigrants you listed, we can find them in countries with more compatible religions and cultures.


Scots and English mix, American's and intelligent people mix. Muslim and Christian mix, Religious and Atheist mix. It can be done but it requires tolerance and both give and take on either side. That is where the problems currently lie. Certain aspects of both cultures love to take but refuse to give for whatever reason.

You are somewhat naive here. The aphorism is that "Islam has bloody borders," and it's generally a true statement. Practically every nation with a significant Muslim minority has problems arising from the clash of Islam with other religions and/or cultures. This is due to the cultural arrogance present in Islam- in Islam, co-existing with other religions is something you do only until you are strong enough to overcome those other religions.

And, why should the host country have to engage in "give and take" with immigrants? Especially in the case of Muslim immigrants, the host country will end up "giving" on such issues as religious tolerance, women's rights, the separation of church and state etc.


In conclusion, yes immigration by Islamic nationalities HAVE had a positive effect on western culture.

How have Muslims improved Western culture?

Oh really? Would that include the immigrant who went on a rape and robbery spree a few years back?

so your proposed immigration policy requires you to know the future?

How have Muslims improved Western culture?

gave it to them

I don't think a country should have the right to apply such a law retroactively, especially for visa holders or refugee claimants who are in the process of attaining citizenship. Also many countries have various degrees of visas. In Canada we have Permanent Resident visas for people who wish live their whole lives in Canada, but cannot or will not become citizens. A person who holds such a visa has all the same rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen except the right to vote. I find your position simplistic, even if we exclude those of us immigrants who are naturalised citizens.

It's not a retractive application of the law, it's just a change in the law going forward. A good analogy would be a situation where government outlawed the sale of alcoholic beverages. Though there would be plenty of restaurant and bar owners who would find themselves holding a useless liquor license, they would have no legal recourse. The government couldn't punish those bar owners for selling booze before the law came into effect, but they could certainly be punished if they did so afterwards.

Similarly, a government could simply pass a law that as of 12:00 AM on October 1, 2007, all visas, including permanent resident visas, would be cancelled and that all non-citizens would have to leave the country. Barring some sort of constiutional ban in this sort of law, what would be improper about it?



The problem is that these events are not caused by Muslim immigration. Rather than go into a complicated argument for each of these points, I will simply point out that none of these things result directly from Muslim immigration. Most of these actually result from xenophobia and racism on the part of the host populace, or like the terrorist attacks, have very little to do with immigration when compared to other factors.

A fair point in some cases- I agree that the French, for example, have done a piss-poor job of assimilating Muslim immigrants. Real life is complicated, of course, but at the end of the day, France or the US or any other Western counties would be better off without any Muslim immigrants. If those countries need immigrants to fill certain jobs, they can find them in countries with more compatible cultures and religions.

Or do you think that France or the Netherlands would be having the same problems if their largest immigrant groups were from Poland or Argentina?

gave it to them

And here I was thinking that Western culture is based on the Greco-Roman world, Christianity and the Enlightenment.

How did the Muslim world create Western culture?

Whether true or not, this is irrelevant. Those attacks were committed by people whose ancestors are from the relevant countries. You can't deport or deny entry to someone who can trace their ancestry back in their country for centuries. However, a nation can, and should, deny entry to immigrants from countries that are known terrorists havens.

That's the positive side, sure, but the downside is a crater in downtown Manhattan, or a bunch of dead commuters in London. If a country needs all of the immigrants you listed, we can find them in countries with more compatible religions and cultures.

You are somewhat naive here. The aphorism is that "Islam has bloody borders," and it's generally a true statement. Practically every nation with a significant Muslim minority has problems arising from the clash of Islam with other religions and/or cultures. This is due to the cultural arrogance present in Islam- in Islam, co-existing with other religions is something you do only until you are strong enough to overcome those other religions.

And, why should the host country have to engage in "give and take" with immigrants? Especially in the case of Muslim immigrants, the host country will end up "giving" on such issues as religious tolerance, women's rights, the separation of church and state etc.

How have Muslims improved Western culture?

The terrorist attacks in the UK and the US were committed, in part by people who's ancestors are from those countries. Indeed there was a considerable outside influence, however it is widely known that US sympathizers funded IRA attacks in the UK. Islamic or not, there have been muslims in the "west" for centuries. Therefore rendering your point on that moot.

There is indeed a downside, however there is a downside to our activities in the Middle East, Asia, Africa etc however we still assert our right to emigrate to those countries and live what we would call our lifestyle out there without really integrating. It is on that point, a matter of perspective. It is indeed undesireable to have cultural influences that we find difficult to deal with or abhorrent, however when we go to a muslim country and wander about half naked in the sun, they find that equally offensive, likewise when we pollute our bodies with alcohol and drugs, they find that offensive, however it is allowed to continue. When we rape their economies of their natural resources, they find that very very offensive and start to blow things up. Well whoda thunk it?

The phrase somewhat naiive did indeed make me chuckle ever so slightly. Whether islam has bloody borders or not, it is rank hypocrasy from a christian society condemming that. Bearing in mind that most of these bloody borders are with christian society. Indeed there are clashes with Hinduism in India, as there is with Christianity and Hinduism. Westernism is the only religion that has managed to find a way to persecute the Bhuddists effectively.

I agree that Islamic extremeism creates problems and these are brought into stark reality when you watch any of the hysterical programs dedicated to the terrorist attacks on various western civilisations. However we have since been in and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders in the countries that we deem to have perpitrated those attacks in the name of freeing them. We are in no more position to tell those people they are not qualified to live in our society than we are ourselves.

The host country should have to engage in give and take because at the end of the day we are all human beings and all human beings need to live on planet earth. It is no use saying, well you can go live over there and I will live here, it is one planet and we are one race of people. What we need is understanding on both parts to achieve integration, that will not happen through seperation.

AMK
xxx

And here I was thinking that Western culture is based on the Greco-Roman world, Christianity and the Enlightenment.

How did the Muslim world create Western culture?

did i say create?

look up the origins of the renaissance.

The terrorist attacks in the UK and the US were committed, in part by people who's ancestors are from those countries. Indeed there was a considerable outside influence, however it is widely known that US sympathizers funded IRA attacks in the UK. Islamic or not, there have been muslims in the "west" for centuries. Therefore rendering your point on that moot.

I can't speak for the UK, but up until the immigration reforms in the 1960's, there were only a handful of Muslims in the US. And, AFAIK, all of the 9/11 terrorists were non-citizens. I'm not sure what the fact that morons in Boston gave money to the IRA has to do with this situation- if you want to argue that there needs to be more stringent controls on money flowing to terrorist groups, I'm certainly not going to argue.

There is indeed a downside, however there is a downside to our activities in the Middle East, Asia, Africa etc however we still assert our right to emigrate to those countries and live what we would call our lifestyle out there without really integrating.

If those countries want to ban immigration from Western nations, that certainly won't bother me. Howe many people from the West immigrate to the Middle East and Africa, versus how many come the other way? I'm guessing for every one Western immigrant to those areas, there are maybe 50 or more who go the other way.

When we rape their economies of their natural resources, they find that very very offensive and start to blow things up. Well whoda thunk it?

The West has developed pretty much all of the oil fields in the Muslim world, and we are the biggest buyers of their oil. If we did not need their oil, the Muslim world would be even more backwards than they are today. Other than oil, what natural resources are there for us to "rape?"

The phrase somewhat naiive did indeed make me chuckle ever so slightly. Whether islam has bloody borders or not, it is rank hypocrasy from a christian society condemming that.

Name a Christian society today that is trying to impose its religion on another society.

Bearing in mind that most of these bloody borders are with christian society. Indeed there are clashes with Hinduism in India, as there is with Christianity and Hinduism. Westernism is the only religion that has managed to find a way to persecute the Bhuddists effectively.

The West persecutes Buddhists?


I agree that Islamic extremeism creates problems and these are brought into stark reality when you watch any of the hysterical programs dedicated to the terrorist attacks on various western civilisations. However we have since been in and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders in the countries that we deem to have perpitrated those attacks in the name of freeing them.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders? Really? The credible numbers I've seen in Iraq are in the neighborhood of 70-80 thousand, which includes Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. Where are you getting these figures?

We are in no more position to tell those people they are not qualified to live in our society than we are ourselves.

How does that logically follow? Your argument seems to be that since we have done something bad overseas (debatable) we need to open our borders to incompatible cultures and religions as, what, some sort of self-flagellation for our geopolitical sins?

The host country should have to engage in give and take because at the end of the day we are all human beings and all human beings need to live on planet earth.

That does not mean anyone has to allow immigrants, especially ones from incompatible cultures or religions, to enter their country. And that fact that we are all human beings doesn't mean that people in Maine should be forced to take on Somali customs.

[QUOTE=New Potomac;13061180]I can't speak for the UK, but up until the immigration reforms in the 1960's, there were only a handful of Muslims in the US. And, AFAIK, all of the 9/11 terrorists were non-citizens. I'm not sure what the fact that morons in Boston gave money to the IRA has to do with this situation- if you want to argue that there needs to be more stringent controls on money flowing to terrorist groups, I'm certainly not going to argue./QUOTE]

The fact that morons in boston funded terrorist activities proves that foreign influences promoting terrorism abroad to futher their warped ideals is not a specifically muslim problem. You seem to be tarring all Islam with the same brush, so in that vein should I advocate that all Americans are denied access to the UK? It is exactly the same arguement as you are giving

[QUOTE]
If those countries want to ban immigration from Western nations, that certainly won't bother me. Howe many people from the West immigrate to the Middle East and Africa, versus how many come the other way? I'm guessing for every one Western immigrant to those areas, there are maybe 50 or more who go the other way./QUOTE]

How many of those 50:1 muslims drain the resources of the host country? Ex-pats going over to exploit Middle Eastern countries natural resources all drain their economies to the benefit of Western coroporations.

[QUOTE]
The West has developed pretty much all of the oil fields in the Muslim world, and we are the biggest buyers of their oil. If we did not need their oil, the Muslim world would be even more backwards than they are today. Other than oil, what natural resources are there for us to "rape?"/QUOTE]

The muslim would has historically been more advanced throughout the ages than western civilisation. We then invaded the place and put a stop to all that. If we did not remove what they have and pay them a pittence for it, they would be able to sell its themselves on the "free" market and get a decent value for it and the profits would go to their country as opposed to the West. The reason they, as you so eloquently and understandingly put it, are backwards, is because we have denied them the wealth they would otherwise have had. Please note that countries in the Middle East who have nationalised their oil, such as Kuwait, UAE etc, are the ones where there is no political tension with the West, we work WITH them and they like us, we like them. As soon as we start to lord it over people in their own country, they fight back.

[QUOTE]
Name a Christian society today that is trying to impose its religion on another society. \QUOTE]

Name a muslim society that is trying to impose its religion on another. Don't name an extremist organisation, but a country itself which is actively seeking to turn the world muslim.
True Islam requires evangilism, as much as Christianity does. They are one and the same from that regard.

[QUOTE]
Hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders? Really? The credible numbers I've seen in Iraq are in the neighborhood of 70-80 thousand, which includes Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. Where are you getting these figures?/QUOTE]

On 2 points, I am including Afghanistan. Secondly, you seem quite blase' about the slaughter of 70-80 thousand people. That is equivalent to almost 27 World Trade Centre attacks. That is a disgrace to the countries who invaded Iraq and if anyone needs a reason to commit terrorist attacks against us, that is as good a reason as any!
Lets just keep on killing then. See who can get to a million first shall we?

[QUOTE]
How does that logically follow? Your argument seems to be that since we have done something bad overseas (debatable) we need to open our borders to incompatible cultures and religions as, what, some sort of self-flagellation for our geopolitical sins?/QUOTE]

In essence, yes, we broke it, we bear the brunt until it's fixed. Also debateable? What do you mean debateable? Any semi-competent history scholar will show you the problems we created in Africa, Asia and in a primarily European case, the middle east. America hadn't been invented when we started royally fucking up Arabia.

[QUOTE]
That does not mean anyone has to allow immigrants, especially ones from incompatible cultures or religions, to enter their country. And that fact that we are all human beings doesn't mean that people in Maine should be forced to take on Somali customs./QUOTE]

No one is saying they do, but it is not unreasonable to ask that people from Somaliland who come to Maine are allowed to continue their customs where possible. Perhaps the question might be asked why someone from the Somaliland might want to go to Maine. Beats me personally! ;)

This is all however getting away from the fact, that our countries would be worse off without the influx that it has had a) from Immigration as a whole and b) from the positives bourne by the Islamic community.

AMK
xxx

crap, i need to learn to quote properly! Ah well we're all n99bs once.

AMK
xxx

crap, i need to learn to quote properly! Ah well we're all n99bs once.

AMK
xxxYou're missing brackets. Brackets go on each side of QUOTE, not just on the back side. Also, you need one at the beginning of your first quote, after the name of the person (and their post number) that you're quoting.

<g> I wonder who voted for the 'open the floodgates'.. :rolleyes:

Yes, please, more overpopulation and poverty. :headbang:

<g> I wonder who voted for the 'open the floodgates'.. :rolleyes:You can click on the numbers to the right of each option to find out.

It's not a retractive application of the law, it's just a change in the law going forward. A good analogy would be a situation where government outlawed the sale of alcoholic beverages. Though there would be plenty of restaurant and bar owners who would find themselves holding a useless liquor license, they would have no legal recourse. The government couldn't punish those bar owners for selling booze before the law came into effect, but they could certainly be punished if they did so afterwards.

Similarly, a government could simply pass a law that as of 12:00 AM on October 1, 2007, all visas, including permanent resident visas, would be cancelled and that all non-citizens would have to leave the country. Barring some sort of constiutional ban in this sort of law, what would be improper about it?

Since we are discussing immigration in its most general terms, I can not say what would be illegal or immoral about this law without some sort of context. In Canada, such a law would split families, deprive thousands of companies of useful employees, gut several of the service industries, deliver an evil blow to our economy, and go against our Charter of Rights.

Also, you did not discuss how you would deal with refugee claimants, those who can not become citizens for circumstances out of their control, and those people on visas who are currently working towards full citizenship.

As for retroactive effects of such a law, I was asking because of the recent problems in the UK with Asian doctors.

A fair point in some cases- I agree that the French, for example, have done a piss-poor job of assimilating Muslim immigrants. Real life is complicated, of course, but at the end of the day, France or the US or any other Western counties would be better off without any Muslim immigrants. If those countries need immigrants to fill certain jobs, they can find them in countries with more compatible cultures and religions.

Or do you think that France or the Netherlands would be having the same problems if their largest immigrant groups were from Poland or Argentina?

You keep repeating that bolded part as if it were true, even though you have done nothing to support such a claim. And since we have no alternate universe to compare with, any claims that western nations would be better off with other immigrants is pure speculation. I'm beginning to think your stance on Muslim immigration is based on prejudice rather than facts.

You keep repeating that bolded part as if it were true, even though you have done nothing to support such a claim. And since we have no alternate universe to compare with, any claims that western nations would be better off with other immigrants is pure speculation. I'm beginning to think your stance on Muslim immigration is based on prejudice rather than facts.

Thats something I had considered for a while now, however I was avoiding the subject in the hope we might get something constructive out of NP. It appears not. lol.

AMK
xxx

gave it to them

Debatable at best. I will concede that, due to the cold dead hand of Roman stasis, it is from the Muslim world that the west has inherited the mathematical, scientific, architectural and academic legacy of hellenism, however, I believe you consciously misread the question.

Quite what Muslim migrants in the 20th century have contributed to Europe, beyond bodybags, riots and cheap labour, is difficult to answer.

Debatable at best. I will concede that, due to the cold dead hand of Roman stasis, it is from the Muslim world that the west has inherited the mathematical, scientific, architectural and academic legacy of hellenism, however, I believe you consciously misread the question.

maybe, though the questioner's response to my answer seems to undermine that idea a bit.

Quite what Muslim migrants in the 20th century have contributed to Europe, beyond bodybags, riots and cheap labour, is difficult to answer.

hawt women?

Hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders? Really? The credible numbers I've seen in Iraq are in the neighborhood of 70-80 thousand, which includes Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. Where are you getting these figures?

as of last july, a study published in the lancet put the number at around 655,000 excess deaths attributable to the invasion. that number is almost certainly over a million by now - given the way things have been going, i'd guess it to be more like 1.5.

And here I was thinking that Western culture is based on the Greco-Roman world, Christianity and the Enlightenment.

How did the Muslim world create Western culture?
Through its art, science and mathmatical system, perchance?

Quite what Muslim migrants in the 20th century have contributed to Europe, beyond bodybags, riots and cheap labour, is difficult to answer.
They've given us our latest scapegoats for ranting xenophobes, I think, giving our press something to work on to ensure their continued existence until we get round to the Sinophonia or something.

You keep repeating that bolded part as if it were true, even though you have done nothing to support such a claim. And since we have no alternate universe to compare with, any claims that western nations would be better off with other immigrants is pure speculation. I'm beginning to think your stance on Muslim immigration is based on prejudice rather than facts.

I've pointed out several times that Muslim immigrants in Western societies are responsible for (a) the 9/11 attacks, (b) the London tube bombings, (c) the train attacks in Spain, (d) the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the ongoing intimidation of Dutch politicians who speak out against Islamic violence, (d) numerous riots in Paris. And on and on. That doesn't take into account the foiled terrorist plots in Canada, Germany, Soctland, etc.

Is part of this due to xenophobia by the host countries? Sure, but the Dutch are amongst the most tolerant people on Earth, and they still find themselves with a restive Muslim minority.

On the other hand, we are also seeing large numbers of Poles and other Eastern Europeans immigrating to Western Europe, with few, if any, problems. Here in the US, whatever problems there are with the large number of Hispanic immigrants, terrorism and riots are not something we are seeing from that immigrant group.

So, for whatever reason, Muslim immigrants to the West are repsonsible for, what, over 3000 terrorism-related murders in the last 6 or so years? If Western societies need immigrants, there are countries where we can find them without the risk created by Muslim immigrants.

I've pointed out several times that Muslim immigrants in Western societies are responsible for (a) the 9/11 attacks, (b) the London tube bombings, (c) the train attacks in Spain, (d) the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the ongoing intimidation of Dutch politicians who speak out against Islamic violence, (d) numerous riots in Paris. And on and on. That doesn't take into account the foiled terrorist plots in Canada, Germany, Soctland, etc.

Is part of this due to xenophobia by the host countries? Sure, but the Dutch are amongst the most tolerant people on Earth, and they still find themselves with a restive Muslim minority.

On the other hand, we are also seeing large numbers of Poles and other Eastern Europeans immigrating to Western Europe, with few, if any, problems. Here in the US, whatever problems there are with the large number of Hispanic immigrants, terrorism and riots are not something we are seeing from that immigrant group.

So, for whatever reason, Muslim immigrants to the West are repsonsible for, what, over 3000 terrorism-related murders in the last 6 or so years? If Western societies need immigrants, there are countries where we can find them without the risk created by Muslim immigrants.

I honestly do not know where to start. First of all, The dutch are not a tolerant society! They are of the most Xenophobic of the european races by nature (and that is saying something when you have Britain, France and Spain to contend with) If you do not fit in with them they look on you as inferior and a nuisance. The problems they are having, whether we agree with them or not, are self inflicted in many ways. (hint: I put that bit in so you can pick up on it and ignore the rest that doesnt fit in with your argument)

Terrorist attacks carried out by christians:
Beslan, Oklahoma (sp), The Kings Cross Firebombing, The combined toll of the troubles in Northern Ireland, ETA in Spain, The murder of 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The Holocaust, shall I go on? Thats only in the last 60 years. 10 times the length of time you quoted and somewhere in the region of 3000 times as many people dead. Hmm I wonder who is causing the problems? How about the murder of Alexandr Litvinenko if we are comparing to Theo Van Gough?

When some eejit runs amok in the US with a gun killing students in a uni/school/asylum, how many of them have been muslim? Do you have any knowledge of the islamic principles of inclusion, tolerance and friendship to everyone? The people you have cited are not a problem because they are muslim, they are a problem because they are gobshite pricks with some warped ideal that they have been indoctrinated in by some ignorant selfish bastard who has only their own aims at heart. Nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. They just use that as an excuse.

Is it worth mentioning that most of Eastern Europe is Islamic? No problem with them are there? I guess its because they don't "look" muslim. Its easier to be nice to them.

AMK
xxx

I honestly do not know where to start. First of all, The dutch are not a tolerant society! They are of the most Xenophobic of the european races by nature (and that is saying something when you have Britain, France and Spain to contend with) If you do not fit in with them they look on you as inferior and a nuisance. The problems they are having, whether we agree with them or not, are self inflicted in many ways. (hint: I put that bit in so you can pick up on it and ignore the rest that doesnt fit in with your argument)

That makes little sense- if the Dutch are so xenophobic, why do they have one of the highest percentage of immigrants living in their country of any Western European nation? I agree that their problems are partially self-inflicted because they have allowed such a large influx of immigrants from non-comptaible cultures and religions, but I doubt that's what you mean.

Terrorist attacks carried out by christians:
Beslan, Oklahoma (sp), The Kings Cross Firebombing, The combined toll of the troubles in Northern Ireland, ETA in Spain, The murder of 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, The Holocaust, shall I go on? Thats only in the last 60 years. 10 times the length of time you quoted and somewhere in the region of 3000 times as many people dead. Hmm I wonder who is causing the problems? How about the murder of Alexandr Litvinenko if we are comparing to Theo Van Gough?

Let's see- Beslan was committed by Muslim terrorism. I'm not familiar with King's Cross. There was no way to prevent the Northern Ireland conflict or the Basque situation by keeping a particular immigrant group out, so it's apples and oranges to Islamic terrorism in the West. The only actions that qualify as terrorism in Iraq are Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, so I'm not sure what your point is there. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of a war, so I'm not sure how they are relevant. And the Holocaust was perpetrated by a government against its own people and conquered peoples, so I don't see how it is comparable to what we were discussing.

What about the murder of Alezandr Litvenko? It was a criminal act performed by someone in the Russian government. What does that have to do with our discussion?

When some eejit runs amok in the US with a gun killing students in a uni/school/asylum, how many of them have been muslim?

I can think of at least three recent examples- the shooting at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles, the Beltway Sniper here in DC, and the Muslim soldier who rolled a grenade into a tent to show his displeasure at the war in Iraq.

Do you have any knowledge of the islamic principles of inclusion, tolerance and friendship to everyone?

If those are the ideals of Islam, that's not really the way Islam is actually practiced in the real world these days.

The people you have cited are not a problem because they are muslim, they are a problem because they are gobshite pricks with some warped ideal that they have been indoctrinated in by some ignorant selfish bastard who has only their own aims at heart. Nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. They just use that as an excuse.

These aren't lone nuts committing terrorist acts. They are supported, sheltered and financed by a portion of the Muslim community in the respective Western nations. Have you ever actually listened to what is being preached in mosques in the West? It isn't "inclusion, tolerance and friendship."

And, again, why aren't we seeing terrorism being committed by Polish immigrants in the UK, or Mexican immigrants in the US?

Is it worth mentioning that most of Eastern Europe is Islamic? No problem with them are there? I guess its because they don't "look" muslim. Its easier to be nice to them.

Most of Eastern Europe is Muslim? What do you define as Eastern Europe?

That makes little sense- if the Dutch are so xenophobic, why do they have one of the highest percentage of immigrants living in their country of any Western European nation? I agree that their problems are partially self-inflicted because they have allowed such a large influx of immigrants from non-comptaible cultures and religions, but I doubt that's what you mean.

Let's see- Beslan was committed by Muslim terrorism. I'm not familiar with King's Cross. There was no way to prevent the Northern Ireland conflict or the Basque situation by keeping a particular immigrant group out, so it's apples and oranges to Islamic terrorism in the West. The only actions that qualify as terrorism in Iraq are Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, so I'm not sure what your point is there. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of a war, so I'm not sure how they are relevant. And the Holocaust was perpetrated by a government against its own people and conquered peoples, so I don't see how it is comparable to what we were discussing.

What about the murder of Alezandr Litvenko? It was a criminal act performed by someone in the Russian government. What does that have to do with our discussion?

I can think of at least three recent examples- the shooting at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles, the Beltway Sniper here in DC, and the Muslim soldier who rolled a grenade into a tent to show his displeasure at the war in Iraq.

If those are the ideals of Islam, that's not really the way Islam is actually practiced in the real world these days.

These aren't lone nuts committing terrorist acts. They are supported, sheltered and financed by a portion of the Muslim community in the respective Western nations. Have you ever actually listened to what is being preached in mosques in the West? It isn't "inclusion, tolerance and friendship."

And, again, why aren't we seeing terrorism being committed by Polish immigrants in the UK, or Mexican immigrants in the US?

Most of Eastern Europe is Muslim? What do you define as Eastern Europe?

Sadly, i think this argument had decended into racism and facts being put over as a result of unwitting ignorance of what you are talking about.

The dutch people are xenophobic, the government policy is otherwise. Its not the first time govt policy bears no relation to public wishes.
The terrorists we are talking about, (islamic ones) don't see it as terrorism, they see it as a war. Therefore the acts we have committed in warfare do count. Its a matter of perspective. The nuclear attacks were designed to strike fear and terror into the Japanese people, therefore by definition, terrorism.
The murder of Theo Van Gough was a criminal act committed by a member of an organisation. Very little difference to Alexandr Litvinenko.
And that indeed is how islam is practiced these days. Have YOU been into a mosque? Or have you only seen what is on the news? I have been into a mosque, I have been into a few mosques with different Imam's and Clerics speaking. I have spoken afterwards to them and they have been lucid, intelligent, tolerant and threatened people. They are scared about what people with half a set of facts, such as yourself is doing to their beloved religion.
True some idiots preach intolerance and violence. You are preaching intolerance here? Does that make you a terrorist?
We are not seeing terrorist acts committed by other ethnic groups because we have not got round to oppressing them and their homelands properly.
By eastern europe I mean, The former Yugoslavia(all states therein, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro), Romania, Hungary, Armenia, etc. Northern Eastern Europe are mainly Orthodox Christian and Catholic but with a large Muslim population.

More and more into this discussion its is emerging you do not have lucid views on why Muslim immigration is not a good idea, only what the media has been feeding you the past 3 or 4 years.
Wake up, go find out from the Islamic community, their thoughts, directly, and then tell me about how they feel. Do not watch Fox news, CNN and whatever other pish you have been believing.

AMK
xxx

Sadly, i think this argument had decended into racism and facts being put over as a result of unwitting ignorance of what you are talking about.

Crying "racism" is a very convenient way for you to refuse to address my points.

The dutch people are xenophobic, the government policy is otherwise. Its not the first time govt policy bears no relation to public wishes.

Now who is the one engaging in racism?


The terrorists we are talking about, (islamic ones) don't see it as terrorism, they see it as a war. Therefore the acts we have committed in warfare do count. Its a matter of perspective. The nuclear attacks were designed to strike fear and terror into the Japanese people, therefore by definition, terrorism.

Your definition of terrorism is altogether too broad- following your definition, since Allied attempts in World War II to defeat the Nazis on the battlefield were at least partly driven by the desire to strick fear and terror into the German population and to make them give up their war, Churchillwas a terrorist. Military actions during war have never fallen under the definition of terrorism- you don't get to make up your own definitions of words.


The murder of Theo Van Gough was a criminal act committed by a member of an organisation. Very little difference to Alexandr Litvinenko.

You're expecting me to defend the Putin government? I don't see where you're going with this. I certainly admit that non-Muslim governments and groups do bad things in the world.

And that indeed is how islam is practiced these days. Have YOU been into a mosque? Or have you only seen what is on the news? I have been into a mosque, I have been into a few mosques with different Imam's and Clerics speaking. I have spoken afterwards to them and they have been lucid, intelligent, tolerant and threatened people.

I have read transcribed and translated speeches given by Imams in mosques in the UK and the US. Needless to say, these "lucid, intelligent, tolerant and threatened" Imams say one thing in English, but something completely different in Arabic. You've been deceived.

They are scared about what people with half a set of facts, such as yourself is doing to their beloved religion.

What am I doing to Islam? I'm not a Muslim- Muslims themselves are responsible for their religions' terrible reputation in the West. They have done a singularly terrible job of fighting the militants in their religion, or even co-operating with Western authorities in fighting radical Islamists.

True some idiots preach intolerance and violence. You are preaching intolerance here? Does that make you a terrorist?

No- I do not advocate the use of violence. But I do advocate shutting off the flow of all immigrants from Muslim countries (except for a very few exceptions, such as Christians or Zoroastrians fleeing persecution) and carefully scrutinizing the Muslims who are already here.

We are not seeing terrorist acts committed by other ethnic groups because we have not got round to oppressing them and their homelands properly.

That's a tired old cliche. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, with the rest coming from the Gulf States. Nobody has oppressed them and their homelands except for other Muslims. If anything, the West has expended blood and treasure protecting them from Iran and Iraq. No terrorist act in the West has be committed by Iraqis or Afghanis. If what you were saying held water, shouldn't they be the ones most likely to kill Westerners? And what about the Bali bombing, performed by Indonesians against mostly Aussie tourists- what has Australia ever done to oppress the Indonesians?

Your argument is nothing more than blaming the victim.

By eastern europe I mean, The former Yugoslavia(all states therein, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro), Romania, Hungary, Armenia, etc. Northern Eastern Europe are mainly Orthodox Christian and Catholic but with a large Muslim population.

You claimed Eastern Europe was "mostly" Muslim.

More and more into this discussion its is emerging you do not have lucid views on why Muslim immigration is not a good idea, only what the media has been feeding you the past 3 or 4 years.

What media would that be? If anything, the media is nothing but positive about Muslim immigration.

So, tell me, what are the positives of Muslim immigration in Western societies? And do they outweigh the negatives I listed?

Wake up, go find out from the Islamic community, their thoughts, directly, and then tell me about how they feel.

Words are cheap, and taqqiya is a well-established Islamic practice. I'd rather look at actions.

Quite what Muslim migrants in the 20th century have contributed to Europe, beyond bodybags, riots and cheap labour, is difficult to answer.

I imagine it's difficult to answer for anyone. Like, what have *you* contributed to Europe? Because if it's anything like the shit you spew on this forum, I'll take the "bodybags, riots and cheap labour" instead.

I imagine it's difficult to answer for anyone. Like, what have *you* contributed to Europe? Because if it's anything like the shit you spew on this forum, I'll take the "bodybags, riots and cheap labour" instead.

However, to my knowledge neither me, nor my ancestors, emigrated to Europe in the twentieth century.

Anyway, I'd hate to be impolite; how is the poster who considers the BNP a threat doing?:p

They've given us our latest scapegoats for ranting xenophobes, I think, giving our press something to work on to ensure their continued existence until we get round to the Sinophonia or something.

Don't be fascetious. Answer the question.

I think Britain should be pretty strict on immigration. I don't think immigration has done much for this country. I think the economic benefits are overstated and mainly benefit a select few. The cultural efects don't seem to have been particularly positive either.

I can see the wisdom in letting those with skills in, people like doctors (Though we should really be training our own). But it seems a bit off to let more unskilled immigrants in when we've got plenty of unemployed here. The only exception I would make is for refugees, though I think questions definitely need asking over why they don't claim in the first safe country they reach as opposed to sneaking all the way across Europe to get here. Though I think we should be wary of some refugees, even if they aren't actual terrorists. For example, someone from an islamist group like the muslim brotherhood might not chuck bombs around but their entire ideology's a danger so they should be sent home regardless of their circumstances.

However, to my knowledge neither me, nor my ancestors, emigrated to Europe in the twentieth century.

However, that doesn't answer the question.

Know why? Because that "contributes to society" line you used was nothing but socialist drivel and even you don't believe it.

However, to my knowledge neither me, nor my ancestors, emigrated to Europe in the twentieth century.

What exactly is the cutoff date? 1901? If they emigrated before then, are they ok in your books?

Crying "racism" is a very convenient way for you to refuse to address my points.

Now who is the one engaging in racism?

You are, I am observing a commonly known fact about the dutch. If you regard that as racism, then I am racist. That doesn't bother me. I am not trying to deny the dutch any rights or privaleges that they deserve.


Your definition of terrorism is altogether too broad- following your definition, since Allied attempts in World War II to defeat the Nazis on the battlefield were at least partly driven by the desire to strick fear and terror into the German population and to make them give up their war, Churchillwas a terrorist. Military actions during war have never fallen under the definition of terrorism- you don't get to make up your own definitions of words.

Terrorists are only ever the loser. Winners are warriors/freedom fighters/soldiers. It is often used merely as a label to de-legitimise one's enemies.

You're expecting me to defend the Putin government? I don't see where you're going with this. I certainly admit that non-Muslim governments and groups do bad things in the world.

I am expecting you to look at the facts and realise that it is not being muslim that makes people do bad things. It is being human and being a prick.

I have read transcribed and translated speeches given by Imams in mosques in the UK and the US. Needless to say, these "lucid, intelligent, tolerant and threatened" Imams say one thing in English, but something completely different in Arabic. You've been deceived.

You are assuming, wrongly that I do not speak Arabic. There are imams who give intolerant speeches, there are priests, ministers, rabbais who do the same. The Imams get more media coverage.

What am I doing to Islam? I'm not a Muslim- Muslims themselves are responsible for their religions' terrible reputation in the West. They have done a singularly terrible job of fighting the militants in their religion, or even co-operating with Western authorities in fighting radical Islamists.

Militants only rear their head when the west goes in and takes land that does not belong to them. Else they live fairly peaceful lives happily nomading it about the place like many of them have done for centuries. Iraq had no insurgents till we showed up. Palestine didn't have nearly as many problems until us Brits decided to divide and sell most of their country. The Islamic governments have no need to help us, we created 95% of the problems, it's up to us to sort them out.

No- I do not advocate the use of violence. But I do advocate shutting off the flow of all immigrants from Muslim countries (except for a very few exceptions, such as Christians or Zoroastrians fleeing persecution) and carefully scrutinizing the Muslims who are already here.

Would you advocate a Middle Eastern country cutting off the flow of Westerners? Zoroastrians number about 200 000 worldwide according to the forum poster's bible, wikipedia, so letting them all in isn't going to cause too much grief.
Unless we want to grow up in a society that is divided, ignorant and untrusting, we have to mix and allow all everyone equal access to what they need. Saying that a certain religious group is not allowed in due to a tiny minority of mental cases is far too heavy handed, narrow minded and dangerous.

That's a tired old cliche. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, with the rest coming from the Gulf States. Nobody has oppressed them and their homelands except for other Muslims. If anything, the West has expended blood and treasure protecting them from Iran and Iraq. No terrorist act in the West has be committed by Iraqis or Afghanis. If what you were saying held water, shouldn't they be the ones most likely to kill Westerners? And what about the Bali bombing, performed by Indonesians against mostly Aussie tourists- what has Australia ever done to oppress the Indonesians?

In answer to your last bit about Aus, plenty, read up on it and find out yourself. Muslims see the oppresion of their brothers in other countries to be just as serious as oppression of themselves. Whilst I cannot agree with the 9/11 bombers, I can certainly see their point. Iran and Iraq are muslims. They posed no threat to Saudi Ariabia or the UAE. Kuwait was a different story, we went in there to get our cheap oil back. It was nothing to do with protecting the Kuwaitis from a bad guy. If that was the case why are we not in Somalia right now? Darfur? Zimbabwe? Thats right, no oil.

Your argument is nothing more than blaming the victim.

In this case you are right, the victim is at fault, therefore I am blaming them. Seems pretty straightforward?

You claimed Eastern Europe was "mostly" Muslim.

It is. But of course, being a european, i know fuck all about it.

What media would that be? If anything, the media is nothing but positive about Muslim immigration.

Mate you are letting yourself down now, come on, be realistic!

So, tell me, what are the positives of Muslim immigration in Western societies? And do they outweigh the negatives I listed?

I've told you plenty times and my bus leaves in 10 minutes, so I won't tell you again.

Words are cheap, and taqqiya is a well-established Islamic practice. I'd rather look at actions.
Just as well eh? ;)

AMK
xxx

I favor increasing immigration. Our economy is screaming for employees that are willing to be molded into skill works and then work for minimum wage.

I favor increasing immigration. Our economy is screaming for employees that are willing to be molded into skill works and then work for minimum wage.

That's a disgusting way to think.

immigration emmigration IS freedom. closed borders are tyranny. there is no such thing as a free country with closed borders (thus as far as i know, no such thing as a free country, but this has not always been thus, nor always will)

(well cameroi is a free country. we watch our borders with camera drones and so forth certainly. but only to look out for armed forces. unarmed civilians are free to cross at any point in any direction at any time)

=^^=
.../\...

I'm an immgrant myself. And I'm happy it was so easy to leave my country of birth and settle elsewhere, thanks to the EU. There was no red tape, no paperwork at all, no hassle, I just took the plane, found a place to stay and found work. Simple as that. It should work like this everywhere, I think.

I'm an immgrant myself. And I'm happy it was so easy to leave my country of birth and settle elsewhere, thanks to the EU. There was no red tape, no paperwork at all, no hassle, I just took the plane, found a place to stay and found work. Simple as that. It should work like this everywhere, I think.

yes. sentient mobility is one thing cameroi favors globalizing. (life forms not generally considered higher sentients generally tend to be ignored even at less open borders, lucky them. and i do envy you e.u. people this good fortune. among several).

=^^=
.../\...

I'm an immgrant myself. And I'm happy it was so easy to leave my country of birth and settle elsewhere, thanks to the EU. There was no red tape, no paperwork at all, no hassle, I just took the plane, found a place to stay and found work. Simple as that. It should work like this everywhere, I think.

yeah, seriously. freedom=good

Don't be fascetious. Answer the question.
Ask a stupid question, you get a stupid response.

I'm an immgrant myself. And I'm happy it was so easy to leave my country of birth and settle elsewhere, thanks to the EU. There was no red tape, no paperwork at all, no hassle, I just took the plane, found a place to stay and found work. Simple as that. It should work like this everywhere, I think.

The difference is that the EU has it's shit worked out. It's organised. It wouldn't WORK everywhere.

The difference is that the EU has it's shit worked out. It's organised. It wouldn't WORK everywhere.

i suspect that the places where it wouldn't 'work' won't be having much trouble with people going to them anyways.

The difference is that the EU has it's shit worked out. It's organised. It wouldn't WORK everywhere.

*lol THAT would be the first time ever that the EU has anything whatsoever worked out... seriously.

I've pointed out several times that Muslim immigrants in Western societies are responsible for (a) the 9/11 attacks, (b) the London tube bombings, (c) the train attacks in Spain, (d) the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the ongoing intimidation of Dutch politicians who speak out against Islamic violence, (d) numerous riots in Paris. And on and on. That doesn't take into account the foiled terrorist plots in Canada, Germany, Soctland, etc.

So, for whatever reason, Muslim immigrants to the West are repsonsible for, what, over 3000 terrorism-related murders in the last 6 or so years? If Western societies need immigrants, there are countries where we can find them without the risk created by Muslim immigrants.

a) The 9/11 attacks: Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are immigrants? News to me. Unless you mean the extranationals who actually pulled it off. Entering a country on a tourist visa does not equal immigration. Perhaps your problem is with tourism...Strike one.

b) The London Tube bombings: Only one was an immigrant: the guy from Jamaica. He converted to Islam when he was 15, ten years after arriving in the UK. Strike two.

c) The Madrid bombings: The guilty parties were not apprehended, and no one is sure of their identity. Strike three.

d) Theo Van Gogh: killed by Mohammed Bouyeri, born March 8, 1978 in Amsterdam. Strike four!

e) numerous riots in Paris:These were started by public reaction to police brutality. According to Pascal Mailhos, head of the Renseignements Généraux (French intelligence agency) radical islamism had no influence over the 2005 civil unrest in France. Strike five.

A baseball record.

a) The 9/11 attacks: Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are immigrants? News to me. Unless you mean the extranationals who actually pulled it off. Entering a country on a tourist visa does not equal immigration. Perhaps your problem is with tourism...Strike one.

I'm happy to go even further and say that no visas should be given to people from predominantly Muslim countries. That work better for you?

b) The London Tube bombings: Only one was an immigrant: the guy from Jamaica. He converted to Islam when he was 15, ten years after arriving in the UK. Strike two.

You're just splitting hairs at this point. I'm guessing the remaining bombers were a generation or two removed from immigrants from a Muslim country. So, if the UK had adopted what I proposes regarding Muslim immigrants even earlier, this attack would have been less likely to happen.

c) The Madrid bombings: The guilty parties were not apprehended, and no one is sure of their identity. Strike three.

They were probably Amish terroirsts :rolleyes:

d) Theo Van Gogh: killed by Mohammed Bouyeri, born March 8, 1978 in Amsterdam. Strike four!

Same point as my point regarding the Tube bombers.

e) numerous riots in Paris:These were started by public reaction to police brutality. According to Pascal Mailhos, head of the Renseignements Généraux (French intelligence agency) radical islamism had no influence over the 2005 civil unrest in France. Strike five.


Public reaction? You sound like all of the mainstream media who blamed the riots on "youths" but could never quite bring themselves to admit who these youths were.

I'm happy to go even further and say that no visas should be given to people from predominantly Muslim countries. That work better for you?
Lol you are getting more and more humourous as this debate goes on.


You're just splitting hairs at this point. I'm guessing the remaining bombers were a generation or two removed from immigrants from a Muslim country. So, if the UK had adopted what I proposes regarding Muslim immigrants even earlier, this attack would have been less likely to happen.

This point defies reply, but i'm going to try. But it must be said you are getting more ridiculous every time you post.
If the UK never allowed anyone to emigrate into it, it would be empty. The Bretons are dead. The USA is filled with immigrants. Apart from native americans you are all immigrants. And when the lovely white christians went over to the USA, they promptly wiped out as many of the natives as they could. Im sure the natives would have loved border control to stop you lot coming over.


Same point as my point regarding the Tube bombers.

See above.


Public reaction? You sound like all of the mainstream media who blamed the riots on "youths" but could never quite bring themselves to admit who these youths were.
I think we can fine well admit who they were.
People who were born in the UK are UK citizens. They are not immigrants. I am the offspring of a german immigrant into the UK. Are you saying that they shouldn't have been allowed after all they did try a full scale invasion in the 1940's? Just as well they were allowed or I wouldn't be here. Perhaps you'd rather I was never born?

AMK
xxx

You are, I am observing a commonly known fact about the dutch. If you regard that as racism, then I am racist. That doesn't bother me. I am not trying to deny the dutch any rights or privaleges that they deserve.

And I am observing a commonly known fact about Muslim immigrants in the West. And I am not trying to deny them any rights, either.


Terrorists are only ever the loser. Winners are warriors/freedom fighters/soldiers. It is often used merely as a label to de-legitimise one's enemies.

Got it. So you are saying that Winston Churchill was a terorrist :rolleyes:

I am expecting you to look at the facts and realise that it is not being muslim that makes people do bad things. It is being human and being a prick.

When did I say that being Muslim neccesarily makes people do bad things?

There are imams who give intolerant speeches, there are priests, ministers, rabbais who do the same. The Imams get more media coverage.

I wonder why that is? Maybe because Muslims have murdered thousands of people in the West in the last few years?


Militants only rear their head when the west goes in and takes land that does not belong to them.

Colonialism ended decades ago. What land is the West currently occupying in the Middle East? Be specific.

Else they live fairly peaceful lives happily nomading it about the place like many of them have done for centuries.

Sure. Islam has never spread by the sword. That's why the Levant, Turkey and Northern Africa is still predominantly Christian. Oh, wait.

Iraq had no insurgents till we showed up.

No, just a dictator who murdered his own people by the boatload, invaded his neighbors and funded terrorism.

Palestine didn't have nearly as many problems until us Brits decided to divide and sell most of their country.

I suppose being oppressed by the Ottomans was better than having the chance to have their own state next to Israel, a chance that the Palestinians pissed away when they decides try and wipe Israel off the map.

The Islamic governments have no need to help us, we created 95% of the problems, it's up to us to sort them out.

And yet, when the US goes in to try and get rid of a dictator like Saddam and attempts to institute some sort of democratic government, the international left pitches a fit.

Your point here also reeks of paternalism- the Muslim world, like most any other people, is mostly responsible for their own problems.


Would you advocate a Middle Eastern country cutting off the flow of Westerners?

I couldn't care less if they did.

Unless we want to grow up in a society that is divided, ignorant and untrusting, we have to mix and allow all everyone equal access to what they need.

I have nothing against immigrants per se, only ones who come from religions and cultures that are incompatible with Western society.

Saying that a certain religious group is not allowed in due to a tiny minority of mental cases is far too heavy handed, narrow minded and dangerous.

Why? Immigration exists to benefit the host country. If one immigrant group is a negative on the host country, such immigration should be cut off.


In answer to your last bit about Aus, plenty, read up on it and find out yourself.

You're the one claiming Aussies oppress Indonesians- back upi your claim.

Whilst I cannot agree with the 9/11 bombers, I can certainly see their point.

Osama Bin Laden's biggest complaint was that the US was occupying Muslim holy sites. You agree with that nonsense?

Iran and Iraq are muslims. They posed no threat to Saudi Ariabia or the UAE.

The Saudi and Gulf State governments thought and think differently, else they would not have invited us to put forces in the Gulf.

Kuwait was a different story, we went in there to get our cheap oil back. It was nothing to do with protecting the Kuwaitis from a bad guy. If that was the case why are we not in Somalia right now? Darfur? Zimbabwe? Thats right, no oil.

If all we were interested was cheap oil, we would have shrugged when Saddam invaded Kuwait. He was happy to keep selling oil into the world market. If anything, our actions over the last decade or so have harmed the free flow of cheap oil, since the Iraqi oil industry is in crap shape.

In this case you are right, the victim is at fault, therefore I am blaming them. Seems pretty straightforward?

Other than standard Euro-left slogans, you have done nothing to show that the terrorists have any legitimate grievances.

It is. But of course, being a european, i know fuck all about it.

I'm having a tough time letting this one go. What do you define as Eastern Europe, and which of those countries are "mostly Islamic?"


So, tell me, what are the positives of Muslim immigration in Western societies? And do they outweigh the negatives I listed?
I've told you plenty times and my bus leaves in 10 minutes, so I won't tell you again.

Humor me- give me a short list of benefits from Muslim immigration.

If the UK never allowed anyone to emigrate into it, it would be empty. The Bretons are dead. The USA is filled with immigrants. Apart from native americans you are all immigrants. And when the lovely white christians went over to the USA, they promptly wiped out as many of the natives as they could.

I never said anything about stopping all immigration. You are arguing against a strawman.

Im sure the natives would have loved border control to stop you lot coming over.

I'm sure they would have- I think there's an important lesson in there. The colonists arriving in North America came from a culture and religion that was incompatible with the ones already in North America. And look what happened.

People who were born in the UK are UK citizens. They are not immigrants. I am the offspring of a german immigrant into the UK. Are you saying that they shouldn't have been allowed after all they did try a full scale invasion in the 1940's? Just as well they were allowed or I wouldn't be here. Perhaps you'd rather I was never born?

Did the UK allow immigrants from Germany in during WWII, or did your parent immigrate to the UK after (or before) the war? I'm guessing the latter. Why do you think that was?

Did the UK allow immigrants from Germany in during WWII, or did your parent immigrate to the UK after (or before) the war? I'm guessing the latter. Why do you think that was?

He Emigrated during the second world war.
I will answer the rest when I am finished my dinner. But that one I had to put straight right away.

AMK
xxx

I'm sure they would have- I think there's an important lesson in there. The colonists arriving in North America came from a culture and religion that was incompatible with the ones already in North America. And look what happened.


This argument really bites my ass.

The "colonists" were not immigrants trying to enter into a different culture and religion. The comparison is shitty. They were an invading force with superior technology, strength and numbers. "What happened" was a result of this, not of "immigrants" from a different religion or culture. Your use of this ridiculous and specious comparison is nothing but an attempt to portray white anglo-saxon US citizens as poor little Indians on the verge of genocide and immigrants as invaders coming to steal the land and subjugate the people.

Nice try though.

This argument really bites my ass.

The "colonists" were not immigrants trying to enter into a different culture and religion. The comparison is shitty. They were an invading force with superior technology, strength and numbers. "What happened" was a result of this, not of "immigrants" from a different religion or culture. Your use of this ridiculous and specious comparison is nothing but an attempt to portray white anglo-saxon US citizens as poor little Indians on the verge of genocide and immigrants as invaders coming to steal the land and subjugate the people.

Nice try though.

You'll probably find it was I who initiated the analogy, but your point is well taken.
Im using to serve as an example of why the islamic diaspora holds no more threat to us than we have done in the past and as a result we have no reason to moan and call them unsuitable.

AMK
xxx

I'm happy to go even further and say that no visas should be given to people from predominantly Muslim countries. That work better for you?

You're just splitting hairs at this point. I'm guessing the remaining bombers were a generation or two removed from immigrants from a Muslim country. So, if the UK had adopted what I proposes regarding Muslim immigrants even earlier, this attack would have been less likely to happen.

They were probably Amish terroirsts :rolleyes:

Same point as my point regarding the Tube bombers.

Public reaction? You sound like all of the mainstream media who blamed the riots on "youths" but could never quite bring themselves to admit who these youths were.

So you admit that immigration had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

And that you don't know who committed the Madrid bombings.

And I know exactly which youths caused those riots: the ones in police uniforms. Admittedly, they were not all youths.

Now we get to the first thing that even resembles a point: second generation immigrants. While there is a link between second generation immigrants and violent terrorism (but I bet you don't know what it is), this has nothing to do with Islam. If you could show that only Muslim second generation immigrants get involved in violent terrorism, you may have a point. I'll wait for you to come up with something good.

You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for a decent reply.

He Emigrated during the second world war.
I will answer the rest when I am finished my dinner. But that one I had to put straight right away.

I'm curious what his background was. I find it surprising that the UK allowed immigrants from a hostile nation in wartime.

The "colonists" were not immigrants trying to enter into a different culture and religion. The comparison is shitty. They were an invading force with superior technology, strength and numbers. "What happened" was a result of this, not of "immigrants" from a different religion or culture.

It's a matter of degree, that's all. I'm not claiming that Americans are in danger of becoming islamicised (though some European nations are in for some serious civil strife). But that fact that Muslim immigrants can't do to the US what European colonists did to the American Indians doesn't mean there won't be problems.


Your use of this ridiculous and specious comparison is nothing but an attempt to portray white anglo-saxon US citizens as poor little Indians on the verge of genocide and immigrants as invaders coming to steal the land and subjugate the people.

Look at my posts- I have no complaints with immigrants in general, just Muslim immigrants in particular.

Im using to serve as an example of why the islamic diaspora holds no more threat to us than we have done in the past and as a result we have no reason to moan and call them unsuitable.


That's nonsense. From the American Indian perspective, European immigration was a disaster. From the perspective of Westerners, Muslim immigration has been a (lesser) disaster. Just because American Indians were unable to prevent their disaster does not mean we have to go down a similar path.

I never said anything about stopping all immigration. You are arguing against a strawman.
Nope.

I'm sure they would have- I think there's an important lesson in there. The colonists arriving in North America came from a culture and religion that was incompatible with the ones already in North America. And look what happened.

Exactly, so who are we to dictate who comes along next? We have no right, to decide who is suitable to live in our lands as we are patently not suitable ourselves going by your criteria.

And I am observing a commonly known fact about Muslim immigrants in the West. And I am not trying to deny them any rights, either.
You are denying them the right to live where they want to live.

Got it. So you are saying that Winston Churchill was a terorrist
The abstract nature of your argument suggests you havent a clue what I just said.

When did I say that being Muslim neccesarily makes people do bad things?
You have spent the last few days arguing that because someone is muslim they are more likely to bomb, kill and maim us, based solely on the fact they worship the same god as you but in a different way.

I wonder why that is? Maybe because Muslims have murdered thousands of people in the West in the last few years?
Human beings have also murdered thousands of people in the west in the last few years. Shall we stop all human beings from coming into the US?
Westerners have killed more westerners in the past 10 years than Muslim extremists have. Shall we stop all migration of westerners througout the West? Obviously we are incompatible with ourselves.

Colonialism ended decades ago. What land is the West currently occupying in the Middle East? Be specific.

Er... Iraq?
And don't come to me with some pish about us handing it over to the Iraqi's. Even our forces in Iraq call it an occupation.

Sure. Islam has never spread by the sword. That's why the Levant, Turkey and Northern Africa is still predominantly Christian. Oh, wait.
Indeed it has, but no more than any other religion and that part of the discussion was based on Arabia not N Africa Turkey etc.
No, just a dictator who murdered his own people by the boatload, invaded his neighbors and funded terrorism.
That is a completely different discussion than whether Muslims make suitable immigrants. He killed Kurds, yes. He wasn't the only one. Iran, Turkey they were/are all at it. You'll struggle to find mention of it as its not as convenient.

I suppose being oppressed by the Ottomans was better than having the chance to have their own state next to Israel, a chance that the Palestinians pissed away when they decides try and wipe Israel off the map.
Who are we to decide what is best for them? Israel was created on a whim by the UK to appease its guilt over the persecution of the Jews during the inter-war period and during WW2. The palestinians paid the price for British thoughlessness and guilt. If Iraq declared that the Carolina's were all the USA was to have left and that The rest of the USA was to be given over to displaced Hindu's from India, would the US people sit back and wait for diplomacy? Because when you boil it down, thats exactly what happened in Palestine.

And yet, when the US goes in to try and get rid of a dictator like Saddam and attempts to institute some sort of democratic government, the international left pitches a fit.
Imposing democracy is an oxymoron.

Osama Bin Laden's biggest complaint was that the US was occupying Muslim holy sites. You agree with that nonsense?

Osama Bin Laden was one man. I'm talking about the issues the wider muslim community has.

The Saudi and Gulf State governments thought and think differently, else they would not have invited us to put forces in the Gulf.
Greed, the same reason we went in there in the first place. Life for the saudi's is a lot more cushy now.

If all we were interested was cheap oil, we would have shrugged when Saddam invaded Kuwait. He was happy to keep selling oil into the world market. If anything, our actions over the last decade or so have harmed the free flow of cheap oil, since the Iraqi oil industry is in crap shape.

Problem was Saddam wasn['t wanting to let the West have Kuwait's oil at the prices it had been previously getting it. If at all.

Other than standard Euro-left slogans, you have done nothing to show that the terrorists have any legitimate grievances.
Your use of the phrase Euro left slogans suggests you have heard a lot of this before? Well maybe there is a reason for that. Perhaps its time you stopped writing it of as a lot of euro trot nonsense and started trying to understand it and see the point that it is trying to make. Ie if we keep saying it, it might just be because we are right?

I'm having a tough time letting this one go. What do you define as Eastern Europe, and which of those countries are "mostly Islamic?
I gave you a list earlier. Read and remember.

Humor me- give me a short list of benefits from Muslim immigration.
As before, I have already given you a list, if you cannot remember then fine. I believe throughout this post the benefits have been manifest and clear. Read, remember and try, do try, to understand!

Sorry for the length of this post. It certainly holds my record for my longest input into web 2.0.

AMK
xxx

So you admit that immigration had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

You pointed out my error, and I'm happy to modify the position- we should shut off immigration and tourist visas to the Musliim world.

And that you don't know who committed the Madrid bombings.

I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money on the perpetrators' religious backgroud.

And I know exactly which youths caused those riots: the ones in police uniforms. Admittedly, they were not all youths.

Yeah, sure, blame the police for trying to arrest a few thugs who were stupid enough to get themselves fried by breaking into a power facility.

Now we get to the first thing that even resembles a point: second generation immigrants. While there is a link between second generation immigrants and violent terrorism (but I bet you don't know what it is), this has nothing to do with Islam.

Please enlighten me.

If you could show that only Muslim second generation immigrants get involved in violent terrorism, you may have a point. I'll wait for you to come up with something good.

I'm scratching my head trying to think of any other group of second generation immigrants engaging in terrorism in the West. Do you have an example? Our biggest immigrant group in the US consists of Mexicans, and I haven't heard of Mexican terrorist organizations killing Americans.

Please enlighten me.


Ive been trying to for ages. It doesnt work.

AMK
xxx ;)

Nope.

Exactly, so who are we to dictate who comes along next? We have no right, to decide who is suitable to live in our lands as we are patently not suitable ourselves going by your criteria.

I would not have blamed the American Indians for stopping European immigration. But they did not have the ability to do so. We, on the other hand, have the ability to stop immigration of any group we desire.

You are denying them the right to live where they want to live.

Wherever did you get the idea that any such right exists?

You have spent the last few days arguing that because someone is muslim they are more likely to bomb, kill and maim us, based solely on the fact they worship the same god as you but in a different way.

I'm actually an atheist, so I can't really speak as to what god Muslims worship. But, yes, I stand by my claim that Muslims are, as a group, much more likely to engage in terrorist acts than any other group.

Human beings have also murdered thousands of people in the west in the last few years. Shall we stop all human beings from coming into the US?
Westerners have killed more westerners in the past 10 years than Muslim extremists have. Shall we stop all migration of westerners througout the West? Obviously we are incompatible with ourselves.

If, for whatever reason, the Welsh or Finns started engaging in terrorist acts against my countrymen, I would support a ban on Welsh or Finnish immigration, too.

Your use of the phrase Euro left slogans suggests you have heard a lot of this before? Well maybe there is a reason for that. Perhaps its time you stopped writing it of as a lot of euro trot nonsense and started trying to understand it and see the point that it is trying to make. Ie if we keep saying it, it might just be because we are right?

Sure, I live in DC and I occasionally see the American version of the Euro left holding protests and chanting in front of government buildings and whatnot. The slogans are silly, whether conveyed in a charming British accent or not.


I gave you a list earlier. Read and remember.

Ah, here it is:

Islamic immigrants from all over the world have entered these countries and filled requirements for nurses, doctors, shopkeepers, resteraunteurs, engineers, scientists and various other professions which have advanced the cause of those countries immesureably. Any time two cultures meet each othere there are problems, that does not mean that those cultures should not mix. Scots and English mix, American's and intelligent people mix. Muslim and Christian mix, Religious and Atheist mix. It can be done but it requires tolerance and both give and take on either side. That is where the problems currently lie. Certain aspects of both cultures love to take but refuse to give for whatever reason.

Shrug. Even if the benefits you claim exist are true, so what? There's nothing in there that couldn't be accomplished by immigrants from more compatible cultures and religions, without the attendant terrorism and bloodshed.

Which has kind of been my point all along- any benefits of Muslim immigration are heavily outweighed by the negatives.

You pointed out my error, and I'm happy to modify the position- we should shut off immigration and tourist visas to the Musliim world.



I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money on the perpetrators' religious backgroud.


Yeah, sure, blame the police for trying to arrest a few thugs who were stupid enough to get themselves fried by breaking into a power facility.



Please enlighten me.



I'm scratching my head trying to think of any other group of second generation immigrants engaging in terrorism in the West. Do you have an example? Our biggest immigrant group in the US consists of Mexicans, and I haven't heard of Mexican terrorist organizations killing Americans.

You made the claim that muslim immigrants are responsible for terrorism and social upheaval. Each example you brought up has been disproven. Even if the Madrid bombings were perpetrated by Muslims, you have no idea if they were immigrants, tourists, illegals, or locals.

The link between second generation immigration and terrorism is an indirect one. I'm not going to spoon feed you. Look, you have yet to show that you have even the most basic notion of the root causes of terrorism. Trying to blame it on Islam doesn't wash.

Start reading:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm

Even the DHS doesn't see a link between terrorism and immigration:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/27/homeland.security.record/

Am I the only person who feels like they are banging their head against a brick wall?

AMK
xxx

;)

I would not have blamed the American Indians for stopping European immigration. But they did not have the ability to do so. We, on the other hand, have the ability to stop immigration of any group we desire.

Wherever did you get the idea that any such right exists?

I'm actually an atheist, so I can't really speak as to what god Muslims worship. But, yes, I stand by my claim that Muslims are, as a group, much more likely to engage in terrorist acts than any other group.

If, for whatever reason, the Welsh or Finns started engaging in terrorist acts against my countrymen, I would support a ban on Welsh or Finnish immigration, too.

Sure, I live in DC and I occasionally see the American version of the Euro left holding protests and chanting in front of government buildings and whatnot. The slogans are silly, whether conveyed in a charming British accent or not.

Ah, here it is:

Shrug. Even if the benefits you claim exist are true, so what? There's nothing in there that couldn't be accomplished by immigrants from more compatible cultures and religions, without the attendant terrorism and bloodshed.

Which has kind of been my point all along- any benefits of Muslim immigration are heavily outweighed by the negatives.

Am I the only person who feels like they are banging their head against a brick wall?

AMK
xxx