Immigration

[Garbarsardar]

In the past decade Europe, and other "first world" countries have witnessed an influx of immigrants. There were sonsecutive waves of immigration from ex eastern block countries, African nations, middle east and Asian nations.

These waves posed a new problem since the ethnic proportions are changing rapidly in many cities of the first world. At the same time there is evidence of a cultural clash between muslim (mainly) immigrants and natives.

Both sides accuse the other for aggressivity or intolerance respectively, and there is ambiguous evidence on the effect of immigration on crime rate and living standards.

Human history is primarily a history of immigration. There are few people that can claim that they do not descend from immigrants, and that those ancestors did not clash in one way or another with the "native" element during the initial immigration. Notable exceptions are probably the Icelanders, Eskimoes and native Australians while nice examples are both (north and south) Americas, or for that reason most countries in Europe.

The reasons underlying immigration were alaways economical (in search of a better living) or political (religious pressure-protestants) or both (tribes pushed by the Hun invasion).

There were also cases of forced immigration that became widely known under the term "slavery".

I would like your comments on why this latest wave of immigration should or shouldn't be considered different from the usual human motility, and on why this alledged cultural clash has any charachteristics that render it different from previous clashes of the sort in History.

[Dr Zoidberg]

I believe that the cultural clashes that are occuring due to immigration of late is related to political correctness. To use a personal example, when my father and his family arrived in Australia in the late 1950's there was an expectation of these new arrivals (mainly from Europe) to conform to the accepted 'Australian' identity. If they didn't they were shunned by the wider community. Thus, there was an effort to integrate into the community and become part of it, while still maintaing your ethnic identity in your own home.

Today however, due to political correctness and ideas such as multiculturalism, telling arriving immigrants that they must attempt to integrate into the accepted identity of that nation is seen as being racist, biggoted etc. Thus, arriving immigrants do not attempt to become part of the society in which they are now in but merely transpose their existing culture into a new environment. This is obviously going to lead to cultural clashses.

Oh and for the record, I am for immigration as long as it is done legally and through the proper channels or the people are genuine refugees. Illegal immigrants (who often claim that they are refugees) can sit in the detention centres until we know who the hell they are and what they want intend to do in our country.

[imb39]

In terms of Britain, I think much of the problem is the fact that problems are blown out of proportion. Many of those who come into Britain actually take up less well paid jobs, one thast locals tend to shun. The country needs this inflow. Political parties have also used the subject to further create tension. This is such a fundamental issue - peoples' lives sometimes hang in the balance (refugees) - and the parties should be informing and reforming rather than scream on ad nauseum about too many people flooding the borders.

It also less than helpful when immigrants tend to stay together in larger and larger communities - this is feature of immigration that has always happened but now (given the numbers coming in) is crating a barrier of integration - this is something that I think is crucial. Anyone who emmigrates to another country must make an effort to learn the language. It isn't easy (having lived in Egypt - I can tell you that!) but it should be attempted.

London has born the bront of this phenomenon, though, over time, cities such as Bradford (N. England) and other cities are now have a majority of non white subjects (no one in Britain is a citizen - we are subjects!). Where I live, Harrow (NW London) we have 45% (at least) of our population is Asian (Indian). Many friends are Asian, I used to play badminton for the Indian Association of Harrow and we have some great curry houses! I find that it is great. My mum, is less enthusiastic - there is clearly a generation issue. As I have said previously, people are conservative by nature. The latest generations are much more used to a multicultural environment, so it is less of an issue.

I agree with Dr Zoidberg that the immigration needs to be legal.

Where you get illegal immigration - you get exploitation (slavery). This must be eliminated.

[wilpuri]

In terms of Britain, I think much of the problem is the fact that problems are blown out of proportion. Many of those who come into Britain actually take up less well paid jobs, one thast locals tend to shun. The country needs this inflow. Political parties have also used the subject to further create tension. This is such a fundamental issue - peoples' lives sometimes hang in the balance (refugees) - and the parties should be informing and reforming rather than scream on ad nauseum about too many people flooding the borders.

I keep wondering, what are the benefits in filling low-pay jobs with culturally different people in the long run? In essence creating a 'brown' underclass. Now that's a sunny picture. I'm sure many CEO's are happy their cleaners don't need to be paid as much anymore.

It also less than helpful when immigrants tend to stay together in larger and larger communities - this is feature of immigration that has always happened but now (given the numbers coming in) is crating a barrier of integration - this is something that I think is crucial. Anyone who emmigrates to another country must make an effort to learn the language. It isn't easy (having lived in Egypt - I can tell you that!) but it should be attempted.

This phenomena has a name: Ghettofication. I see two ways of countering it
a) Restrict movement and tell the immigrants where they can and can't live. This isn't a very pleasant solution, and probably not very effective, considering the sheer amount of immigrants some countries in W. Europe take in.
b) Lessen immigration. Here in Finland we have small muslim Tatar community, some two centuries old. Although culturally very different, they have always had to play by the rules of the host society. Today they have kept what they've could of their own culture and tradition, such as their faith (in a more secular form) and some customs. Essentially they have been integrated into Finnish society, though.

It is silly to be against all immigration. Of course there will always be immigration, but I oppose the kind of massive immigration that is swamping Western Europe, which in the end will result in something very far from western and European, I'm afraid.

I think Garb. knows my views already.

[Vincenzo Morello]

In terms of Britain, I think much of the problem is the fact that problems are blown out of proportion. Many of those who come into Britain actually take up less well paid jobs, one thast locals tend to shun. The country needs this inflow. Political parties have also used the subject to further create tension. This is such a fundamental issue - peoples' lives sometimes hang in the balance (refugees) - and the parties should be informing and reforming rather than scream on ad nauseum about too many people flooding the borders.

It also less than helpful when immigrants tend to stay together in larger and larger communities - this is feature of immigration that has always happened but now (given the numbers coming in) is crating a barrier of integration - this is something that I think is crucial. Anyone who emmigrates to another country must make an effort to learn the language. It isn't easy (having lived in Egypt - I can tell you that!) but it should be attempted.

London has born the bront of this phenomenon, though, over time, cities such as Bradford (N. England) and other cities are now have a majority of non white subjects (no one in Britain is a citizen - we are subjects!). Where I live, Harrow (NW London) we have 45% (at least) of our population is Asian (Indian). Many friends are Asian, I used to play badminton for the Indian Association of Harrow and we have some great curry houses! I find that it is great. My mum, is less enthusiastic - there is clearly a generation issue. As I have said previously, people are conservative by nature. The latest generations are much more used to a multicultural environment, so it is less of an issue.

I agree with Dr Zoidberg that the immigration needs to be legal.

Where you get illegal immigration - you get exploitation (slavery). This must be eliminated.

London is still Majority white my friend. I think Britain should stop immigration we have enough now so its best that it gets shut down.

[imb39]

I keep wondering, what are the benefits in filling low-pay jobs with culturally different people in the long run? In essence creating a 'brown' underclass. Now that's a sunny picture. I'm sure many CEO's are happy their cleaners don't need to be paid as much anymore.

Well someone has to do the jobs... It is a start and many are an integral part of the economy. Even though there are jokes about Indian's owning corner shops - there is more than a ring of truth in this statement. Provided that that the immigrant is legal, then they should be getting the minimum wage. It's not great, admittedly.

London is still Majority white my friend. I think Britain should stop immigration we have enough now so its best that it gets shut down.

True. Overall London is majority white. But there are many communities where that just won't be the case. I cite Harrow as the example. It will be majority Asian sooner than later. I, personally, don't have any problem with that, indeed I like the fact that London is thoroughly cosmopolitan. The 'ghettoisation' isn't happening here particularly, but in certain parts of London, the situation is becoming a problem. It happens with the complicity of the white community as well. As an example. Whislt training to be a teacher I taught in Walthamstow (E17 area). The school I ended up at had a 90% Muslim attendance. Another had 90% white attendance. The reason - both sets of parents efectively colluded in how they sent their children.

I have just worked at a Hindu school. There is also a Jewish school very close (probably the largest in London). Whilst it is important that children learn about their roots, I do wonder about the wisdom in having these schools. The same can be appiled to, I suppose, Catholic and C of E Schools aswell.

[wilpuri]

Well someone has to do the jobs... It is a start and many are an integral part of the economy. Even though there are jokes about Indian's owning corner shops - there is more than a ring of truth in this statement. Provided that that the immigrant is legal, then they should be getting the minimum wage. It's not great, admittedly.

Well I would simply propose harsher employment policies. Finland's unemployment is around 10%. It is largely structural in the sense that there simply aren't jobs that everyone can do left. They are a thing of the past. There should be more carrot and stick to get these people working, before importing thousands of unskilled labour, which is likely to cause other problems as well than just a strain on our welfare system.

[Vincenzo Morello]

Hopefully London will stay majority white as it is the capital of a generally white country.

[Erik]

Immigration by itself isn't a problem.
It has always been a factor in successfull nations.
Immigration brings cheap labour and cultural development.

I live in Amsterdam, a city that has been extremely successfull through the centuries.
The city has always attracted people from different cultures.
This made the city even wealthier because it made it the worlds center of knowledge, art and trade.
Without immigration Amsterdam would literally still be a swamp
Especially political immigration is good thing for a city: educated people from places where they got prosecuted for their achievements are always welcome.

Of course immigration also has some negative side-effects, but as long as the amount of immigration is controlled those don't weigh out the benefits.
A region should, for example, only allow as much immigrants as there is work available.
When the economy is booming you need more immigrants then during a recession.
Notice how during the booming 90's people were very tollerant towards immigrants, but as soon as the economy stagnated they became the perfect scapegoat (the Germans killed our jews already).

People least tollererant to immigrants generally live in villages that never benefit from immigration, or recently moved ("immigrated") to a big city where they get scared of city-culture.

[imb39]

But if you look at British history, there has always been immigration - we have simply depended upon it for our very survival. Many of the immigrants bring in their own skills and their culture - both combine to enrich what is already here.

Unemployment isn't a big problem in this country - it currently lies at about 5%. Admittedly it is a problem in certain parts of London but in this case it is up to the immigrants to move.

[Jesus The Inane]

Immigration is immoral. Immigrants betray their country for their own selfs. The country that they leave, their country, is not help by their immigration and so immigration is not good for a country.

I would like your comments on why this latest wave of immigration should or shouldn't be considered different from the usual human motility,

I think they are different because back then, there was land to be discovered (If we originated from Africa) and we did not have the State, plus, we no longer follow our natural morality.

and on why this alledged cultural clash has any charachteristics that render it different from previous clashes of the sort in History.

Because now we have a choice, now we can control it.

[Garbarsardar]

Immigration is immoral. Immigrants betray their country for their own selfs. The country that they leave, their country, is not help by their immigration and so immigration is not good for a country.

Do you imply that Europe was destroyed because of the immigration to the Americas? Or my irony detector has gone bananas?

[Kanaric]

They have a little of every group in them, heh.

[Suetonius]

The problem is not immigrants per sae, it is a failure to assimilate immigrant populations into the mainstream culture. The late 20th century mantra of "multiculturalism" is to blame, creating an environment where it is no longer acceptable to expect immigrants to be stripped of their home culture, language and values and become "American" or "British" or what have you, rather than a spanish speaking hypenated "Mexican-American" or a Muslim living in Europe and still living by the ethos of a backwards medieval Islamic culture. I have no problem with America turning brown, but I do have a problem with the creation of little Mexicos in California. America, and the West, must be a melting pot, not a tossed salad.

[imb39]

Immigration is immoral. Immigrants betray their country for their own selfs. The country that they leave, their country, is not help by their immigration and so immigration is not good for a country.

Firstly, I hope this was a joke but I'll run with it... I'm sure you mean emmigration is immoral. I still don't agree with this. Often people who emmigrate (from the 3rd world) send money back to their families, this financial support is crucial. Whilst not a 3rd world country, Cuba is kept afloat by money sent by ex-Cubans back to their families - possibly their biggest source of foreign currency.

Secondly, to condemn any one for moving to another country is crazy. People move for all sorts of resons - financial, political or even for a better climate.

Thirdly, I find your attitude somehat astonishing as you, Jesus, belong to a family of immigrants (you're not Native American, are you?).

The problem is not immigrants per sae, it is a failure to assimilate immigrant populations into the mainstream culture. The late 20th century mantra of "multiculturalism" is to blame, creating an environment where it is no longer acceptable to expect immigrants to be stripped of their home culture, language and values and become "American" or "British" or what have you, rather than a spanish speaking hypenated "Mexican-American" or a Muslim living in Europe and still living by the ethos of a backwards medieval Islamic culture. I have no problem with America turning brown, but I do have a problem with the creation of little Mexicos in California. America, and the West, must be a melting pot, not a tossed salad.

I agree in part. Immigrants now have less incentive to adjust to another society. In the past, however, immigrants would live together and form small communities within the larger cities. Why else, for example, would you have the 'French Quarter' in a city, and so forth? The reason a lot of us don't think of that is that these 'quarters' were created hundreds of years ago and those immigrants have completely assimilated into society.

'Multiculturalism' is a valuable idea in some ways. I like, for example, that Britain almost certainly has the most vibrant 'fod landscape' in the world. When I went to America I was disappointed to only find shops that sold a 'curry.' Sorry, I didn't want a 'curry,' I wanted a Madras or a Tikka Masala or a Roghan Josh. In Britain, there are many places to get these in all major towns - we are tripping over them!

Go into any supermarket - the range of foods available is astonishing. Admittedly this is quite shallow - but it is a sign that things are changing. It takes small changes like this to successfully integrate other communities.

Also, I think this is Mexico's way of claiming land that was illegally taken from them... Perhaps we are witnessing the birth of the United States of Mexico. Desea México vivo!!!

[Suetonius]

Firstly, I hope this was a joke but I'll run with it... I'm sure you mean emmigration is immoral. I still don't agree with this. Often people who emmigrate (from the 3rd world) send money back to their families, this financial support is crucial. Whilst not a 3rd world country, Cuba is kept afloat by money sent by ex-Cubans back to their families - possibly their biggest source of foreign currency.

Secondly, to condemn any one for moving to another country is crazy. People move for all sorts of resons - financial, political or even for a better climate.

Thirdly, I find your attitude somehat astonishing as you, Jesus, belong to a family of immigrants (you're not Native American, are you?).



I agree in part. Immigrants now have less incentive to adjust to another society. In the past, however, immigrants would live together and form small communities within the larger cities. Why else, for example, would you have the 'French Quarter' in a city, and so forth? The reason a lot of us don't think of that is that these 'quarters' were created hundreds of years ago and those immigrants have completely assimilated into society.

'Multiculturalism' is a valuable idea in some ways. I like, for example, that Britain almost certainly has the most vibrant 'fod landscape' in the world. When I went to America I was disappointed to only find shops that sold a 'curry.' Sorry, I didn't want a 'curry,' I wanted a Madras or a Tikka Masala or a Roghan Josh. In Britain, there are many places to get these in all major towns - we are tripping over them!

Go into any supermarket - the range of foods available is astonishing. Admittedly this is quite shallow - but it is a sign that things are changing. It takes small changes like this to successfully integrate other communities.

Also, I think this is Mexico's way of claiming land that was illegally taken from them... Perhaps we are witnessing the birth of the United States of Mexico. Desea México vivo!!!

Haha, that's true about Mexico. I believe we can still retain our culture which values free speech, property rights, etc. while assimilating things like foreign foods. We can assimilate the best of other cultures and do away with the rest. I think it is important for immigrants to speak English and engage with, work with, go to school with, be friends with, mainstream American society.

You are right though, we've had things like Chinatown and Little Italy for quite some time and they have become assimilated Americans quite magnificently. Ultimately though, they were a continent away from their home culture and did not come in such great numbers as the Mexicans. They did not come and work only to go back and forth between America and their native lands.

I would like to see much stiffer penalties enforced against Americans who hire undocumented workers. I would also like to see stiffer border patrols and better enforcement of our current laws, and less resistance to deportation.

At the same time, America needs to increase it's quota of legal immigrants significantly. We need to give all those people who wish to come and work in America a better alternative to an illegal crossing.

In the end, I think this would be more humane for the immigrants, in particular the Mexicans, themselves. People would not exploit legal documented immigrants like they do illegals, for at least legal immigrants would not fear going to the police. And they would be forced to pay wages that American society has deemed just. This would not solve all our immigration problems, but it would be a great start.

[Jesus The Inane]

Do you imply that Europe was destroyed because of the immigration to the Americas? Or my irony detector has gone bananas?

Obviously not destroyed, but I approach the question of immigration in a moral manner. The act of immigration is not meant to help the country so even if the outcome is benefial for the country it is still unjustified and immoral. I believe that the country is the most important thing, all my morality is base on the idea that I need to worship my country like a God. Hence, running away from my country would not be moral.

I'm sure you mean emmigration is immoral

Yes. But also, if I think emigration is wrong, why should I not think that immigrants are not immoral?

send money back to their families, this financial support is crucial. Whilst not a 3rd world country, Cuba is kept afloat by money sent by ex-Cubans back to their families - possibly their biggest source of foreign currency.

This argument does not hold because there is no guarante that they'll send back money. Also, the nation is not being help my being dependent on other countries economy.

Thirdly, I find your attitude somehat astonishing as you, Jesus, belong to a family of immigrants (you're not Native American, are you?).

My family is immoral. They are traitors to Colombia. However, I... I am not fully Colombian. I believe that what makes you from a certain country is where you grew up. Since my childhood was split between ten years in Colombia, and seven years in the USA, I do not know what I am. However, I probably will go back to Colombia and lived to work for Colombia.

But if I decided to stay here in America, then I'll work for America and become American and completely forget about Colombia. And in this case I would not be a traitor since it was no sure from what country I am.