Even the OP has evidence to support that most of the people with foreign origins migrated to Germany to enjoy welfare.
That's "people thinking immigrants are coming for the social benefits", not "immigrants are coming for the social benefits"
Even the OP has evidence to support that most of the people with foreign origins migrated to Germany to enjoy welfare.
Oh i need reading comprehension lol )))That's "people thinking immigrants are coming for the social benefits", not "immigrants are coming for the social benefits"
You mean like claiming that "Sharia law" has come to Germany and that "honor killings" were occurring. How she wants them all to "conform" to her own Christian standards, even those who are not even citizens?Even the Angela Merkel dosen't want to treat Muslims badly, just wants them to put a sock in their complaints!
Absolutely. Except that I do not advocate "intolerance of other cultures merely because they are different".I think it could be fairly said that intolerance of other cultures merely because they are different is the epitome of bigotry. Take the Jews in Nazi Germany, for instance.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_tableWhat do you consider to be the "most and least corrupt country"? And what does that possibly have to do with this topic?
Preferably by performing objective analysis of available data? Connected to my answer to Form, do you think it would be of benefit to Barbados to accept 100,000 Haitians or no?So please tell me how you "attempt to question whether any particular group of people is welcome" without doing either one of the two.
So if a hypothetical Eastern European nation arrived to Australia, but:I don't view work ethic or language skills or conservatism as "hostile to society".
You mean like claiming that Sharia law has come to Germany and that "honor killings" were occurring.
My point, Teekee, is that the same anti-immigrant prejudices and ideas have been around for a very long time. The arguments that people like you and Yeekim and Ayn Rand and whoever esle make were once made agains the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Italians, etcetera. Substitute "terrorism" for "anarchism" or "popery" and you're pretty much there.
So what do you base your own personal intolerance upon? How "corrupt" you think they are? Aren't you really judging how different their culture is when you try to conflate corruption with how you personally perceive their morals compared to your own?Absolutely. Except that I do not advocate "intolerance of other cultures merely because they are different".
Where the people who responded to this absurd question would prefer to spend their holiday?What do you think is the source of difference between Barbados and Haiti?
So if a hypothetical Eastern European nation arrived to Australia, but:
1) refused to do any work;
2) refused to send their kids to school;
3) refused to speak a word of English,
you would not consider them disruptive but actually beneficial to society?
Corruption was merely a convenient example. Say that Afghanistan was to join German Republic as 17th state tomorrow. Do you think it would create problems, or no? If yes, what would be the primary source of these problems?So what do you base your own personal intolerance upon? How "corrupt" you think they are? Aren't you really judging their culture when you try to conflate corruption with how you personally perceive their personal morals?
You can not answer or you don´t want to?Where the people who responded to this absurd question would prefer to spend their holiday?
I guess you know better, right? Would you then tell us where the US should be in that ranking and elaborate why?Do you honestly think the US is #19 in courruption worldwide?
So Muslims who emigrated from the country of Qatar would be slightly better citizens than Christians from Estonia? Is that what you are trying to say here?Corruption was merely a convenient example. Say that Afghanistan was to join German Republic as 17th state tomorrow. Do you think it would create problems, or no?
I think your premise is basically absurd. I think how a handful of people perceive corruption of public officials in various nations has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.You can not answer or you don´t want to?
Seeing how incredibly corrupt Congress is, I don't think it should even be in the top half, much less the top 10%.I guess you know better, right? Would you then tell us where the US should be in that ranking and elaborate why?
You change your goalposts with every post. You said youMeaningless question. Migrant groups don't behave like that. Hell no ethnic or national group does. People are individuals and have individual characteristics.
My example needs to do nothing with reality to show how absurd that is. Maybe I will take my time to find a cross-ethnic collection of individuals who do behave exactly like this.don't view work ethic or language skills or conservatism as "hostile to society".
Why don't you just answer my question, instead of trying to skirt it?So Muslims who emigrated from the Muslim country of Qatar would be slightly better citizens than those from Estonia? Is that what you are trying to say here?
So Muslims who emigrated from the country of Qatar would be slightly better citizens than Christians from Estonia? Is that what you are trying to say here?
Corruption was merely a convenient example. Say that Afghanistan was to join German Republic as 17th state tomorrow. Do you think it would create problems, or no? If yes, what would be the primary source of these problems?
You can not answer or you don´t want to?
Preferably by performing objective analysis of available data? Connected to my answer to Form, do you think it would be of benefit to Barbados to accept 100,000 Haitians or no?
It has everything to do with this topic. If someone was to suggest that it would be a good idea to join Afghanistan to Germany as 17th state, he would rightly be considered fit for insane asylum.You mean the one which obviously has nothing to do with this topic?
It depends where. I am sure they would be much more welcome in dozens of countries, primarily in Mideast. Also, I will repeat, this time in larger front: Corruption was merely a convenient example.And why aren't you answering my question? Are Qatar Muslims slightly better citizens than Christian Estonians because some people perceive their public officials to be slightly less corrupt?
Culture is quite a bit more than skin color and national cuisine.So, in other words, your point has got little or nothing to do with culture?
Well, because you asked for three "hostile" behaviours which a migrant group, as a whole, could exhibit. (Since everyone belonging to a particular cultural or ethnic group is the same, apparently).No, see, what happened is you listed three things as "hostile" behaviours which a migrant group, as a whole, could exhibit. (Since everyone belonging to a particular cultural or ethnic group is the same, apparently)
You are defining "hostile" in too narrow terms to make any sense. Anything "intentionally malevolent" would obviously be illegal, wouldn't it? But ignorance and laziness, if widespread enough, will reduce a country to a hellhole just as quickly as any civil war. That should be self-evident enough.But no. Hostility implies intent and malevolence. These things you listed are just individual traits that some people have. Some individuals just don't like working. Some people, particularly many adults, find languages very difficult. Some people just have a conservative outlook. None of these three things are group traits exhibited en masse by any ethnic group, migrant or otherwise.
And none are particularly "hostile". Nobody attacks broader society with their laziness or their inability to learn a language.
Culture is quite a bit more than skin color and national cuisine.
It was in a response to a discussion as to the usefulness of the term "ghetto" in application to any and all immigrant enclaves. Nothing more.Ok so this is where we must be specific. No one has ever said anything bad about Chinese immigrants, they do not cause trouble. It is Muslim immigrants that people are angry about, especially the recent Homegrown terror plots of German-Muslims.
Are suggesting that there is such as a thing as "accidental hostility"? I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but that simply doesn't make any sense. Hostility is defined by a negative attitude towards something, it is not merely incidental to it.You are defining "hostile" in too narrow terms to make any sense. Anything "intentionally malevolent" would obviously be illegal, wouldn't it? But ignorance and laziness, if widespread enough, will reduce a country to a hellhole just as quickly as any civil war. That should be self-evident enough.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you - you seemed to be insinuating that there were no remarkable cultural differences between Barbados and Haiti. So you think the biggest problem is the capacity of host country, (presumably, as in availability of literal space and natural resources)?What? I asked how you could ask who is or who is not welcome in a thread about multiculturalism without making normative judgements about values or labeling whole groups of people and you cited an example that has more to do with the capacity of the host country. If anyone is trying to equivocate or move goal posts, it's you.
I don't think even the most ardent proponents of ethnically pure nation states care how the "potential" immigrants behave themselves at their country of origin. To the contrary, I believe they would rather advocate that these people have the right to be left alone with their customs, however backwards they may be. The debate is so closely connected to immigration because proponents of multiculturalism insist that people must be ever accepting of foreigners despite their potentially adverse economic effect. For instance, I got bogged down in this debate as I was asked why I wouldn't like "a lot" of Muslims immigrating to Estonia.PS: Also, quite typically you try to shift a debate about multiculturalism and tolerance towards a more economic one about immigration. No wonder you think there is some sort of objective data analysis to be done. Instead of tolerance, we're talking capitalism here. Frankly, it's unsurprising coming from one of those who like to quantify everything, whether or not they are actually quantifiable by themselves without some sort of obfuscation.
This was the post that started it all. In this context, I believe you could safely substitute "hostile" with "detrimental".Are suggesting that there is such as a thing as "accidental hostility"? I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but that simply doesn't make any sense. Hostility is defined by a negative attitude towards something, it is not merely incidental to it.