"German multicultural society has failed" - Merkel

Betanov, that post provides little of any substance and sounds like vague generalisations taken straight from a very low market tabloid.
Can you perhaps point me to some of these strange muslim protests over tax?
Hey would that mean the muslims are joining the tea party?

[tater]

Those that are here are here. That's a bridge we have to cross as their population grows. Keep a secular State is the best hope we have.

It is fine to not admit more people from the Muslim world, however. US MUslims are actually more integrated than elsewhere in the world, and the problems tend to be young people who are radicalized—frequently by Muslims from the Muslim world. That's a pattern seens not just in the US, but also in Europe. Kids that grew up in the West radicalized by guys like the blind sheik (trade center bombing in '93).

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by tater

Those that are here are here. That's a bridge we have to cross as their population grows. Keep a secular State is the best hope we have.

It is fine to not admit more people from the Muslim world, however. US MUslims are actually more integrated than elsewhere in the world, and the problems tend to be young people who are radicalized—frequently by Muslims from the Muslim world. That's a pattern seens not just in the US, but also in Europe. Kids that grew up in the West radicalized by guys like the blind sheik (trade center bombing in '93).

A better option would be to make somekind a psychological test, to somehow probe the mind of a newcommer, to see whether he/she is thinking about making a better live for themselves or something sinister.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

A better option would be to make somekind a psychological test, to somehow probe the mind of a newcommer, to see whether he/she is thinking about making a better live for themselves or something sinister.

I have been a clinical psychologist. Forget the idea, it is not possible. And any questionaires you might consider can be cheated by spreading the word on what kind of "right" answers the subject is expected in order to pass the test.

That is one of the problems with the integration test that has been implemented in Germany two years ago - by decision of bureaucratically thinking politicians who do not have a clue on what they were talking about when assuming they could test the willingness to integrate by a test on knowledge about German history and culture (a test of knowledge that even many native Germans would fail to pass, btw. ).

I for example could learn American history and the design of the political system and it'S institutions, and I even could answer with the mandatory "yes" when the question is asked wheter or not I believe in a theistic deity (during the interview migrants to the US have to answer with "yes" if they want to get permission for citizenship - so it was reported in a German docu movie some years ago, and confirmed by the American embassy in Berlin). But whether my replies are meant honest and serious or not, and whether I want to do harm to the US or not - remain to be things unanswered by such a "test". It means nothing.

Psycho-Tests only make sense if the subject voluntarily accepts to be honest or has a sufficiently strong own-interest in being honest even if that honesty could lead to failing the test, or is mentally incapable to be dishonest (due to a deranged state of mind). In case of migrants wanting to gain any kind of permission or access, you can safely assume that they have a bigger interest to give the answers that they think will get them what they want, instead of being honest even if that means they fail.

And then there is the psychological problem of internal psychological tension and dissonance - a person can desire to be honest indeed even if that means disadvantages, but then still has to deal with inherent tendencies in it'S cognitions and behavior to give the answers that subconsciously are expected to be the answers that get him/her a passing for that test. It is a variation of the old dilemma that when you are being told to be spontaneous - by that order alone you already can no longer be spontaneous. If you try to be spontaneous because you "try", then you are not - becasue you "try". If you try to be spontaneous because you are being told to be so - you are not, because you follow a demand.

[tater]

Once people are here in the US, they have freedoms ("Natural Rights") they would not have elsewhere in the West. I'll defend their broad 1st Amendment Rights as I defend my broad 2d Amendment Rights, etc. I cannot do otherwise and claim to care about what the US is all about.

Immigration certainly is a tool we can—and should—use to shape the country, however. To use the "melting pot" analogy, we're making our, um, fondue, and we should pick what cheese we want to add. Someone at the pot-luck might well have dropped some limburger into the pot—a tiny amount—and we cannot get rid of that, it's melted in. We can stop dropping any more in though, and maybe keep away from adding other things that won't add to the mix, at least not in large enough quantities to spoil the meal.

This, combined with an incredibly strict separation of church and State (ie: a strict reading of the 1st Amendment), along with an equally strict reading of the rest of the 1st (Freedom of Speech) is enough to deal with the rest, frankly. (the Wilders trial is exactly what we should avoid—it's a measure of the lack of freedom there that he could even be brought to trial for exercising political speech (boggles this American mind). Should he lose—disagree with him or not—it's an indication that freedom of expression is an illusion in places most people had assumed were incredibly liberal ("liberal" in the classical sense, not the partisan sense).

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by tater

Once people are here in the US, they have freedoms ("Natural Rights") they would not have elsewhere in the West. I'll defend their broad 1st Amendment Rights as I defend my broad 2d Amendment Rights, etc. I cannot do otherwise and claim to care about what the US is all about.

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

If you were a business owner you'd immediately understand that you have greater rights in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't open a store on Sunday, right - not to mention extremely strict hours of permitted operation otherwise.

What about compulsory civil/military service? Or what about the mandatory distribution of half your assets (is this just liquid?) to your nearest relatives despite your will? What about truck driving laws?

What you're talking about is the classic security v. liberty argument. The culture you come from has decided that they prefer security. Our culture has gone for liberty. Like it or not, that means we are a freer nation than most others, with all the problems incumbent upon that freedom.

It is a tradeoff to be sure. Here, we accept the perhaps .0001% chance of getting murdered at any moment in exchange for exapanded freedoms. Germans, for instance, prefer a .000001% chance (those numbers are for dramatization purposes only) so they have further restrictions. Neither side is right or wrong.

For me the discussion falls into what I believe are universally inalienable rights. Ultimately I believe that all rights are subordinate to that of self-determination. Perhaps one can make the argument that, say, gun ownership is inherent to self-determination but I find that to be academic at best, as simply being able to walk down the street in the reasonable manner of your choosing to the reasonable destination of your choosing as more inherent to freedom.

Ultimately that means that none of us should be slaves to any birthright or the determination of another man, and we are only restricted by the impact our decisions would make upon others. The Muslim world does not agree with me on that premise, hence the the worldwide emmigration of not simply the individuals but the culture of Islam which is outright opposed to self-determination especially in the case of gender.

Gimpy has made some excellent points, although I do not agree necessarily with his conclusion. There is way too much "imported oppression" going on, and its typically originating from the Muslim world. The quote from Roosevelt that August posted was excellent, and I agree with it in whole. This goes back to the discussion that Skybird and I have been engaged in for months now, that essentially freedom makes no sense when it is used to destroy itself.

Hence my idea about self-determination being the unalienable human right.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

Is there a State church in Germany? Even if not powerful as it once may have been, what we'd call a "blue law" in the US, is there separation—explicit—of church and state? How about political speech? Can you be a Nazi in Germany if you like? Hateful as that might be, you cannot ban a party and have free political speech, the two are mutually exclusive. The US never banned the Communist Party (CPUSA) even though it was funded, and completely controlled by Moscow, for example.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Betanov, that post provides little of any substance and sounds like vague generalisations taken straight from a very low market tabloid.
Can you perhaps point me to some of these strange muslim protests over tax?
Hey would that mean the muslims are joining the tea party?

what's with everyone misspelling my name

they're bitching about having the same social security as the rest, they bitch about having not enough culture centres, they're bitching about having to speak the countries official language at public offices, soon they'll start bitching about the taxes. Shure, it's generalisattion, the only time when one could not generalise is when each and every person is handled one by one. Dou you want a 7 billion people long list on this thread??? You have to put people in groups, but this is only acceptable if one is put in to a group by his actions rather than background. I didnt say all muslims are bad. I like muslims, some of my best friends are muslim immigrants. It's just that some immigrants demand too much without wanting to give something back