Immigration and cultures.

Sparkywolf wrote:

Pishkirlin wrote:People are not just the place where they happen to be born.

If you tried to look at me as the sum of my ancestors, well, I'm half Ukrainian, an eighth Native American and three-eighths German (probably, anyway, as that line of the family came over around the Mayflower, so it's diluted). Now, James, where should I stay put under your immobility of humans theory? Further, where is your boundary of "place"?

You belong to the nation of your father (or your father's father or his father). I'm 1/4 german on maternal line but I'm hungarian cause my father is hungarian. If we would look on the maternal side we can say that Habsburgs are hungarians. Not just hungarians but descent's of Árpád. Let's see (if the ancestry is maternal I'll write the name of the husband too and their offspring after them)
1. Árpád
2. Zoltán
3.Taksony
4.Michael
5.Vazul
6.Béla I.
7. Sophie second wife: Magnus Billung
8.Wulfhilde Billung wife: Henrik Welf
9.Wulfhilde Welf wife: Rudolf Pfullendorf
10.Ita Pfullendorf wife: Albrecht Habsburg

Still, everyone says that they are germans...

As we all know, United States of America has no typical nation/nations. People don't live there cause their ancestors lived there too. They just came to have a better life. Saying "I'm american" tells nothing about your ancestors, your culture or even your language. And I (and I think James too) believe that saying where you live tells a part of your personality, cause your parents have effect on you, and your parents are influenced by theirs. Your language and the culture of your homeland even has effect on you.

Sorry for the anarchic composition of my comment.

I forgot to log off my bro's account on the other computer. The last comment is mine >.<

And I (and I think James too) believe that saying where you live tells a part of your personality, cause your parents have effect on you, and your parents are influenced by theirs. Your language and the culture of your homeland even has effect on you.

Couldn't agree more.

Oremus wrote:

You insist on human beings being inanimate objects (in both senses.) This is dehumanizing. People are not just defined by where they happen to be born or they culture they grow up in but also by self-determination - the choices they make. Your lack of belief in human free-will as you hysterically seek to "defend" cultures and countries is ridiculous. You will defend these countries but what will you sacrifice in their defence? Free-will? The right of goverments to make their own immigration laws?
The world you see in your dreams solves many problems - but it creates many more. Indeed, it is a nightmare.

Oremus.

Not at all it is the essence of humanity to belong, to family, and tribe, up to nation.

People are defined by by their origins, like it or not.

For my nation I would give my life, what will you give for your personal individual free will to invade other people's lands?

Governments have been deliberately ignoring the public's will on this area, only the rise of fringe parties is forcing them to do something closer to what we want. It is not even just one country but many, it is a common human natural demand. Roma being deported by France right now, for example.

No it solves all problems involved, and is how things naturally should be in a world so fully or over populated, certainly here the public want immigrants gone. A poll a little while ago done on the anniversary of a famous speech, had half wanting the government to 'encourage' immigrants home. That is stronger than the actual policies of the strongly anti immigrant fringe parties!

Piratus wrote:
I care about humans and we should accept as many immigrants as is economically and demographicaly possible.
.

So you believe in restricting migration then! Just a matter of numbers not principle. Who is going to pick and choose? Why will you prevent more 'deserving' migrants than those that get in first before you decide you are full up?

Piratus wrote:
imagine how many jobs these people have created by starting buisnesses, and by consuming Swedish products!

However reports into the effects of immigration here, have shown no net financial advantage from it. Not that financial gain is a reason to sell out your nation even if there was a financial gain.

Piratus wrote:

As long as the plants in them are productive and there is room for them it is stupid to discard them as weed.

LOL I pull weeds out of my vegetable garden too! However productively they are making more weeds!

Pishkirlin wrote:
I'd change an Italian criminal for a honest Zulu anytime. Humanity and common sense should suffice to create a bond among men of good will no matter where they were born.

That is first of all never an option, and completely unacceptable in principle. You are picking and choosing and disposing of those you dislike. You are responsible in a national way for your own criminals, not to push them onto other nations. Nor should you take those you perceive as good away from other nations to 'improve' your own.

Bond with whom you like, they just have no right or place moving nationality. Even current weak national laws go nowhere near permitting such impractical wanderings of people. Passports, borders, visas, permissions, all needed.

Sparkywolf wrote:

Well, let's take this to its logical extreme. If people weren't supposed to move around, my country would not even exist.

Which is why migration is wrong in this age. Previous ages had less humans and more space, effectively empty lands still to fill.

Life is very, very, different for the old lands long full, now over full. Yet even the USA is creating more means to stop and control immigrants sneaking in, and from reports it is very popular.

JamesStGeorge wrote:They are absolutely right. All migration in this age is wrong. It is invasion by devious means.

Oremus wrote:

What about the original human beings who evolved in Africa and then spread out across the rest of the globe?

That old line. Then there were no nations. There were no borders. All in a very, very, different age, not here and now.

Here and now in this age all migration is wrong.

I've largely said what I believe on the subject, however, I will clarify a few points.

JamesStGeorge wrote:

Not at all it is the essence of humanity to belong, to family, and tribe, up to nation.

People are defined by by their origins, like it or not.

I agree. However, your argument is that people are defined solely by their family, tribe and nation. This I disagree with for the reasons stated above.

Indeed, the fact that you stop at "up to nation" when talking about "belonging" is quite ridiculous.

The fact that you can talk about "humanity" as a group at all shows that we all belong to a group larger than our "nation" - the family of the human race. Do you not see the paradox of your statement?

I am not arguing for a "New World Order" or even saying that the family of the human race is or should be anywhere near as strong between the ties of relatives or countrymen. But it is there. And it is this recognition of humanity of other races that you seem you lack - I repeat my earlier point - this IS dehumanizing.

Governments have been deliberately ignoring the public's will on this area, only the rise of fringe parties is forcing them to do something closer to what we want.

Three words: The European Union.

I come from England - a country where immigration is in the hundreds of thousands every year. (In the early 1990s it was only in the tens of thousands.) A left wing goverment and overriding policies of the EU have made immigration a big problem in England. I firmly believe - as do most English people that immigration should be reduced dramatically. I believe that immigration should be mutually beneficial to both the country and to the immigrant. Not just one.

However, this absolutely does not mean I disagree with immigration in principle or even all immigration. And particularly not for the reasons you highlight.

Oremus.

JamesStGeorge wrote:

For my nation I would give my life, what will you give for your personal individual free will to invade other people's lands?

I would never give my life for my nation. I would give my life for the honest people living in my nation, or the honest people who would like to live in my country.

Governments have been deliberately ignoring the public's will on this area, only the rise of fringe parties is forcing them to do something closer to what we want. It is not even just one country but many, it is a common human natural demand. Roma being deported by France right now, for example.

Governments have the actual figures of how much immigration has costed/earned for their country, the parties are only doing guesswork, they will pull number out of the blue, or grossly miscalculate the costs, like "forgetting" completley that immigrants pay taxes.
I have seen figures (from the Swedish authorities, not parties or activist groups) that indicates a >50% employment among immigrants after only 5 years of living in this country.
There are figures that proves that "Immigrants" as a social group, pays more in tax that the cost to support them. In order words: they are making a money for my beloved country.
Theese figures where not published by the authorities, but was calculated using data from the goverment and calculated heavily in the favor of the opposition.
I can post the links over here if you want proof, but unfortunatley they are in Swedish. If you want to, I will do my best translating some important qoutes.

Piratus wrote:
I care about humans and we should accept as many immigrants as is economically and demographicaly possible.
.

So you believe in restricting migration then! Just a matter of numbers not principle. Who is going to pick and choose? Why will you prevent more 'deserving' migrants than those that get in first before you decide you are full up?

It will be though choice to choose who will get in, and it will not be totally fair, I admit that. But restricting migration completly will be even worse.

Piratus wrote:
imagine how many jobs these people have created by starting buisnesses, and by consuming Swedish products!

However reports into the effects of immigration here, have shown no net financial advantage from it. Not that financial gain is a reason to sell out your nation even if there was a financial gain.

I would like to see thoose reports, please.
I still find it hard to belive that supporting a native child for many years until he can get a job makes more sense than supporting an adult immigrant until he can. Especially since a whole bunch of them already have high a education and only needs to learn the native language.

Piratus wrote:

As long as the plants in them are productive and there is room for them it is stupid to discard them as weed.

LOL I pull weeds out of my vegetable garden too! However productively they are making more weeds!

If seeds dropped from the sky and planted itself in your vegetable garden, would you throw them away? Surley the cost of taking care of them would pay off just the same as any other seeds?

Pishkirlin wrote:
I'd change an Italian criminal for a honest Zulu anytime. Humanity and common sense should suffice to create a bond among men of good will no matter where they were born.

That is first of all never an option, and completely unacceptable in principle. You are picking and choosing and disposing of those you dislike. You are responsible in a national way for your own criminals, not to push them onto other nations.

I agree that we can't dump our own criminals in other countries, but that was not his point!
What he was saying is that he would rather have honest people in his country than criminals, no matter their nationality. Wich makes absolute sense unless you belive in the whole immigration = invasion thing, wich makes every single immigrant some kind of enemy of the state!

Nor should you take those you perceive as good away from other nations to 'improve' your own.

That makes sense, except that the immigrants are moving in on their own free will. They are very well aware of the fact that their country will loose them, and that makes the decision to move harder to make. Like I said earlier, people will not emigrate over small potatoes. They feel as sense of national pride, just like you do, wich means that most of them will not move unless the standard of living/liberty/saftey is terrible in their home country.

By your definition every country should only look after their own intrests. So if immigration is beneficial to the host country than that is not their problem. And the logical step would be that the countries that are facing emigration should be the ones building walls and hiring border guards to protect their country, not the other way around.

Piratus.

For now here are links to a major report into The costs or benefits of immigration.


PDF report itself

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

London Newspaper about it.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23467548-lords-report-exposes-labours-lies-on-the-benefits-of-mass-immigration.do

Left wing newspaper article by chairman of the report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/immigrationpolicy.immigrationandpublicservices

Intresting. They start out with an abstract summary. Where they make some key points

Many businesses and public services at present make use of the skills and hard
work of immigrants. But this is not an argument for immigration on a scale which
exceeds emigration and thus increases the population of the country. We do not
support the general claims that net immigration is indispensable to fill labour and
skills shortages. Such claims are analytically weak and provide insufficient reason
for promoting net immigration. Vacancies are, to a certain extent, a sign of a
healthy economy. Immigration increases the size of the economy and overall
labour demand, thus creating new vacancies. As a result, immigration is unlikely to
be an effective tool for reducing vacancies other than in the short term.

If you read this in another way than they intended you too, you will see that this proves once and for all that immigrants will not take natives' jobs!

If there is an influx of labour, the market will adapt and create new jobs in long run. This is something I belive I have been arguing for for a long time.
Sure, there is still the fact that the benefits are small for the native population, but as long as there are jobs for everyone, there is really only one problem: Overpopulation. The report will go into detail about that in chapter 6, which I will bring up later.


The report later states that you can't assume that increased immigration will be a way to pay for future pensions. Since immigrants will grow old just like natives.
This makes sense, but the report later claims that the immigrant families have on average 0.8 more children than the Brits, this seems like a healthy addition to the ageing brittish popultaion.

In fact, on page 11, right below a table (that clearly shows that without immigration, the population of the UK would decrease) you can read that Immigrants account for 10% of your population, yet they account 12% of the people in working age. - They have 20% more working aged people than the native brits have!

I will put the report down for a while and continue later. I am not reading it all at once and I don't excpect anyone to read all my points at once.

The election results are in, and so is SD.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/europe/20sweden.html?scp=4&sq=sweden&st=cse
[quote='New York Times']Young, slick and tough-talking, the leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Akesson, 31, campaigned for a 90 percent reduction in immigration. He described Muslim population growth as the greatest foreign threat to the country since World War II. He has also called for the immediate withdrawal of Swedish troops from Afghanistan. [/quote]

I feel ashamed that a party that are saying the same things about the muslims as the Nazis said about the Jews could get into the swedish parlament.

A party wanting an end to more incomers is very very very different to one that simply exterminated them.

If truly concerned, adopt their concerns and take action so they do not need to come to power and act. They sound softies anyway only 90%.

JamesStGeorge wrote:A party wanting an end to more incomers is very very very different to one that simply exterminated them.

That's true, I didn't mean they wanted do exterminate them, but they speak about them in much the same way as the nazis did.
They think they are too different, they are freeriders on our society, they harm our culture etc. Jimmy Åkesson even told a swedish newspaper that they consider muslims to be the greatest threat to swedish society.

If truly concerned, adopt their concerns and take action so they do not need to come to power and act. They sound softies anyway only 90%.

We need to take action - yes. But the truth is that most of their points are invalid. They are only taking advantage of the fears people have and play around with numbers to make some statistic that puts the blame on the immigrants. We need to examine if this is really a problem of immigration and culture, or if it is about social status, wealth and living conditions.

Personally I belive xenophobia*, unemployment and crappy neighbourhoods are to blame, but convincing the Sweden Democrats will not be easy.

Well I wish them well.

They are right.

However if you are of the group that thinks nations are just a variation on companies you can pick and choose for self interest you will never understand. Perhaps until too late.


Edit, a UK newspaper article and comments. About Sweden's election.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/21/sweden-democrats-election-immigration?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Posts can be recommended, see what side is overwhelmingly more supported. This on a far left reputation paper.

JamesStGeorge wrote:However if you are of the group that thinks nations are just a variation on companies you can pick and choose for self interest you will never understand. Perhaps until too late.

Yes, I belive a nation should work more like a company in many ways. If someone is willing to work and obey the rules of a company he should have the right to get hired. And if someone is willing to work and obey the law of a country he should not be treated as a freerider or an enemy.

It's the bottom line that counts, not the backround of the worker.