"German multicultural society has failed" - Merkel

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Granted one immediately thinks of the past when we read about things like this. But does it really mean the past will come back to haunt us once again? I bet big money it will not as most Germans are ashamed to be German and are all too willing hate themselves for the sins of their fathers. There just doesn’t seem to exist a culture where a nationalist movement could take off. Oh there might be a some civil unrest between Germans and Turks in the near future. But most likely the good Germans will just debate and complain beyond measure, but in the end nothing will be done and the Fatherland will just fade away with just a small reminder when the name is changed to Germanistan.

Oh, I reckon it'll happen again, just not in Germany. Who can say where?

[Rockstar]

No doubt, it can happen again. I just don't think Germany will ever rise like it did in the thirties and forties. If they would stop being so afraid of that shadow and realize sometimes you got to kick some arse. I could almost guarantee the good Chancellor nobody here would complain over some action like that. Heck, I'd even be happy for them if they kept on going down to Greece. Put them lazy gyro eaters to work building a wall around Turkey.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

No doubt, it can happen again. I just don't think Germany will ever rise like it did in the thirties and forties. If they would stop being so afraid of that shadow and realize sometimes you got to kick some arse. I could almost guarantee the good Chancellor nobody here would complain over some action like that. Heck, I'd even be happy for them if they kept on going down to Greece. Put them lazy gyro eaters to work building a wall around Turkey.

One of the reasons those "lazy gyro eaters" got bankrupt was that they were buying German tanks and submarines because of Turkey. The wall is there alright and much more so in Cyprus. And I'm fed up with "greek bashing" so try to keep it civil (I know I am )..

Gimpy, with your clothing "adopting of culture" are you going to equally complain about the Hasidics or the Amish?
What about the Mormons, are they un-american?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Gimpy, with your clothing "adopting of culture" are you going to equally complain about the Hasidics or the Amish?
What about the Mormons, are they un-american?

This is actually a good point, but tangential to immigration. Those already here, are Americans, and have the right to be as separatist in lifestyle as they wish. They get "grandfathered in." That's why in my post I specifically only mentioned immigration quotas. The number of people from given places is already chosen arbitrarily. This is an avenue where the US can be as discriminatory as we wish (in the good sense of making intelligent choices, unlike, say an indiscriminate immigration policy).

Demographics that have shown themselves to not integrate in whatever arbitrary way we (the electorate) decides is appropriate, can very well (and legally) be denied immigration status. Drop the quota from X thousand from Saudi Arabia to 100 (or whatever).

The mormans is an interesting example of a near theocracy in the US. Luckily our system protects us from state-imposed religion, but in Utah, fro a long time, being LDS was pretty much required or you were in fact within their social structure a 2d class citizen. It's fair to try and prevent this in the future I think.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Oh, I reckon it'll happen again, just not in Germany. Who can say where?

These days it's mirrored in the words "Kill all Westerners", and "God Hates Fags". Thankfully the latter have a relatively small following. It's interesting how many psycho elements have come out of the woodwork since 9/11.


Anyway, I'm behind Germany's chancellor on her stance. The immigrants moved to Germany; they should either adapt or go back to where they came from. That should be applicable anywhere in equal measure. If they want us to adapt to their way of life, on our own respective soils, they've got another thing coming.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Gimpy, with your clothing "adopting of culture" are you going to equally complain about the Hasidics or the Amish?
What about the Mormons, are they un-american?

the thing is, the Amish and hasidics don't make their women cover their faces.
Also, the men adhere to their "dress code".There seems to be a clear type of clothing that men wear, and a type of clothing that women wear. Since the style of dress is unilateral, I see no reason why it is oppressive. Men in radical Islam do not need to cover their faces...but women do.

Also, like was said before, the Amish have been here for a long time...and they don't expect us to conform to their beliefs. They also don't try to kill people when they depict their god or holy persons.

the thing is, the Amish and hasidics don't make their women cover their faces.

What is the difference between covering arms legs or heads and covering faces.
Since your objections are essentialy about the dress code then you must object to all such dress codes being imposed eh?

Also, the men adhere to their "dress code".

So what? Is the dress code very different for women?

Also, like was said before, the Amish have been here for a long time

When did the first Muslim arrive? after all if you want to bend rules so they are based on time then you have to establish a cut off date.

Those already here, are Americans, and have the right to be as separatist in lifestyle as they wish.

There lies the problem tater, baning it for new immigrants doesn't work , plus of course when a new immigrant becomes a citizen he gets equal protection as a citizen so can do exactly what established citizens can do.
I suppose you could go the nativist route but how would that apply to children of immigrant citizens?
It does leave an option though, you can introduce a rather outdated model where you have citizens and 2nd class citizens who don't really count as people.



One thing that always gets me is how people miss a real major factor in all this "intergration" nonsense.
Why is there the problem of 2nd 3rd and 4th generations "reverting" back to something which their immigrant forbears never even were.
Such a simple factor but one which some people are so uncomfortable with as it puts some of the problems created the "other" right back in their own lap as their own creation.

[Betonov]

The main difference between the amish and some german immigrants (the disliked ones) is that there's a substantial difference between a group, that isolates itself because of their reliogus belives and does aboslutely no harm and a group that is living amongst other citizens, tries to inforce their believes, sucks the life out of a country by demanding some serius minority priviliges, even when regular citizens suffer because of them and then at the end of the day protest against the goverment for being racist and nationalistic just because they have to pay same tax levels as regular citizens

the term 'regular citizen' has been used to describe integrated, law abiding, tax paying working inhabitants of a country, be it an immigrant or a 120th generation

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 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

[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).