The Martyr from the Netherlands

[Gabryel Karolin]

Did I not say that I'm not trying to address immigration? I recall saying that I'm very open about immigration but that I don't have anything worthwhile to say about it. Rather, I'm trying to talk about integration.

OK, yet in your very next paragraph you jump to immigration.

You want to halt immigration? Fine. Personally, I'm not exactly eager to see the face of another Swedish immigration officer after the last and only time (the attitude towards foreigners seemed all too clear to me).

I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience with Swedish customs. That you managed this travelling from one EU country to another is in itself spectacular, I've never gotten anything but a tired glance and a nod from customs offiders even in the more high-profile airports such as Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle. He must have had a really bad day or something.

But what is your reason? Is it because you want to stop the entry of people belonging to undesirable cultural groups?

I want to limit immigration of such groups as have been proven near impossible to integrate into Swedish society to those who have a genuine need for refuge.

Such a motivation would not serve you well in solving the problems of integration.

Are you actually saying that in order to successfully integrate those who are already here we need to bring more in? This seems very odd to me. If thats not what you're saying please clarify.

Issues about race and culture bleed even into economic discussions such as those regarding employment. I think it's certainly hard to separate concern about your own people from xenophobia.

Even if "my own people" encompassed multiple ethnicities and religions? I guess that per definition "my own people" are more known to me than those who are not "my own people" but by this logic anyone who has a sense of self and identity is a xenophobe and only the true altruist (who does not exist) is not.

You have to be very honest about whether there really is a desire to integrate immigrants or whether you see it more as assimilating them into your superior culture or something.

Not neccecarily superior, but in some cases so different that it clashes with that of the immigrant. In such cases it is always the immigrant who has the obligation to adapt and change his ways. Customs and practices which does not clash with that of the country he fled to he might keep, if he likes. To answer your question then it is a mix of assimilation and integration.

The first step is to look at your attitude and change it if necessary. Again, it's a two-way thing.

Since I did not ask these persons to come here it is not an equal two-way thing. My duty as a fellow human being is to treat them civilly and to 'give them a chance' so to speak. However it is likewise my duty as a citizen not to encourage practices which are damaging to the country as a whole, which imo the immigration from certain parts of the world have proven to be for Sweden.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Assimilation is ridiculous. I would even say demanding it operates against all reasonable conceptions of freedom. Integration requires persons to become part of society enough to function properly, while leaving enough space for keeping old traditions that do not fundamentally conflict with the functioning in the new society. Assimilation would mean that if I am Brazilian and go live in Sweden, I cannot practice Candomble or make Pao de Queijo because that would be un-Swedish.

I do not believe anyone in this thread is in favour of assimilation.

 

[Quackers]

Assimilation is ridiculous. I would even say demanding it operates against all reasonable conceptions of freedom. Integration requires persons to become part of society enough to function properly, while leaving enough space for keeping old traditions that do not fundamentally conflict with the functioning in the new society. Assimilation would mean that if I am Brazilian and go live in Sweden, I cannot practice Candomble or make Pao de Queijo because that would be un-Swedish.

I do not believe anyone in this thread is in favour of assimilation.

So you think if we get every single ethnic, racial, religious and cultural group and put them equally numbered in a society they would learn to respect each others differances, nay celebrate there differances. It is a utopia - it's never going to happen.

 

[Bill3000]

So you think if we get every single ethnic, racial, religious and cultural group and put them equally numbered in a society they would learn to respect each others differances, nay celebrate there differances. It is a utopia - it's never going to happen.

 

[Quackers]

Yeah slavery and racial aparthied in the American south. USA is a beacon of diversity.

 

[bhsup]

I almost agree with Bill completely. But... Go walk through Watts in LA with a big ghetto blaster cranking out Hank Williams Jr's "IF the South Woulda Won" and see how much they respect your cultural differences.

EDIT: Btw, Quackers, it's a common problem for foreigners, but the north is just as bad as the south. Boston, Detroit, etc are probably some of the most racially problematic towns in the USA.

 

[Bill3000]

Yeah slavery and racial aparthied in the American south. USA is a beacon of diversity.

I thought you liked apartheid?

I almost agree with Bill completely. But... Go walk through Watts in LA with a big ghetto blaster cranking out Hank Williams Jr's "IF the South Woulda Won" and see how much they respect your cultural differences.

Feh, that's just regionalism (and for that matter there is a similar divide between north and south England, apparently)

 

[Quackers]

I almost agree with Bill completely. But... Go walk through Watts in LA with a big ghetto blaster cranking out Hank Williams Jr's "IF the South Woulda Won" and see how much they respect your cultural differences.

EDIT: Btw, Quackers, it's a common problem for foreigners, but the north is just as bad as the south. Boston, Detroit, etc are probably some of the most racially problematic towns in the USA.

Aye I just chose the south as its the most well known worldwide.

I thought you liked apartheid?

How so? I don't support aparthied.

 

[RedRalph]

I almost agree with Bill completely. But... Go walk through Watts in LA with a big ghetto blaster cranking out Hank Williams Jr's "IF the South Woulda Won" and see how much they respect your cultural differences.

My dad was the double-bass player in a play of Hank Williams' life.

 

[aelf]

OK, yet in your very next paragraph you jump to immigration.

Dude, I'm talking about the attitude behind your views on immigration, which affects your relations with the immigrants who are already there (or are you thinking of kicking them out too?). I thought I said that as well. Maybe I wasn't too clear. But somehow I'm getting the feeling that something is clouding your ability to understand. It's like the word "immigration" just seems to hit on a nerve or something.

I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience with Swedish customs. That you managed this travelling from one EU country to another is in itself spectacular, I've never gotten anything but a tired glance and a nod from customs offiders even in the more high-profile airports such as Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle. He must have had a really bad day or something.

It isn't really spectacular. All I had to do was simply not be white and have a little mishap on the way there (in the form of the airline counter in the UK failing to return my return flight booking confirmation paper because they were in a rush). This ensured that the Swedish customs officer, who spoke perfect English, would not only fail to understand the concept of a British student visa and but also which country I am from despite it being clearly stated on my passport. I then had to deal with hostile airport security. Who knew, maybe I wanted to steal from your welfare system or something because I'm not white or British but is suspiciously living in Britain on something that is called a student visa but probably read more like 'welfare thief' to them on the official document that is stamped onto my passport.

I want to limit immigration of such groups as have been proven near impossible to integrate into Swedish society to those who have a genuine need for refuge.

Therein lies your problem. You think that it's impossible to integrate them. Perhaps it is, on the kind of terms that you seek.

Are you actually saying that in order to successfully integrate those who are already here we need to bring more in? This seems very odd to me. If thats not what you're saying please clarify.

Of course not. I think what I'm saying is quite obvious if you would just stop obsessing over the idea of immigration. Take a deep breath. It's not that bad.

If you still don't get it, refer once again to my first paragraph in this post, where I explained again where I'm coming from.

Even if "my own people" encompassed multiple ethnicities and religions? I guess that per definition "my own people" are more known to me than those who are not "my own people" but by this logic anyone who has a sense of self and identity is a xenophobe and only the true altruist (who does not exist) is not.

That the idea of your people can encompass people of different ethnicity and creed must be a pretty peculiar thing in Scandinavia for you to even ask this question. Of course it does. At the same time, there will be groups that are marginalised until they are eventually integrated, if ever.

Your interpretation of my logic is so ridiculous that I don't know what to say. I don't even know what the heck you mean by "the true altruist". I suspect, due to this apparent and unhealthy obsession with immigration, it has something to do with bending over and letting foreign people rape your country. No. Having a sense of self-identity is not xenophobic. However, when you start thinking about protecting the jobs of your own people and etc, it becomes rather difficult to keep xenophobia out of the picture. That is the experience in my own country as well.

Not neccecarily superior, but in some cases so different that it clashes with that of the immigrant. In such cases it is always the immigrant who has the obligation to adapt and change his ways. Customs and practices which does not clash with that of the country he fled to he might keep, if he likes. To answer your question then it is a mix of assimilation and integration.

Why is there an obligation to adopt your customs? Where did that obligation come from? Why isn't living together something that both sides have to work on? When your girlfriend moved in, did you ask her to adapt to your habits or leave?

Since I did not ask these persons to come here it is not an equal two-way thing. My duty as a fellow human being is to treat them civilly and to 'give them a chance' so to speak. However it is likewise my duty as a citizen not to encourage practices which are damaging to the country as a whole, which imo the immigration from certain parts of the world have proven to be for Sweden.

If you let people come into your country, you invited them. If you think that these people have to somehow lose their own cultural identities upon moving there or, worse, if you don't want them to be there in the first place, then you should just close your borders to immigrants. That sounds more like something you're keen on talking about, doesn't it? And I'm sure some countries do that already. Check out the likes of the DPRK.

I'm sure Scandinavian countries don't need immigrants anyway.

 

[Miles Teg]

It's somewhat disturbing to see smart people supporting freedom of speech, and idiots who haven't figured out that the mooslims aren't going to kill them in there sleep* fighting side by side. But still, crappy laws preventing idiots from saying what they want are still crappy laws.

*Sorry, I meant the brave men and women fighting for the TRUTH that has been SUPPRESSED by the whiny muslim-hugging LIBERAL ELITE that wants WESTERN CIVILIZATION to be killed in it's sleep by FOREIGNERS who are breeding too fast and taking all of our jobs.

 

[sysyphus]

Radical Islam is a plague.

Radical anything is a plague. Moderate anything is just fine.

Being or not being muslim is irrelevant.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Radical anything is a plague. Moderate anything is just fine.

Being or not being muslim is irrelevant.

And overdosing on anything will poison you, whether water or cyanide, but we still refer to the one as poisonous and the other not.

 

[Ecofarm]

Radical anything is a plague. Moderate anything is just fine.

I can think of alot of things that being a moderate is not ok. Some things are just plain right or wrong, black and white.

 

[willemvanoranje]

So you think if we get every single ethnic, racial, religious and cultural group and put them equally numbered in a society they would learn to respect each others differances, nay celebrate there differances. It is a utopia - it's never going to happen.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Please go over my words carefully again, and then try to respond again:

"Assimilation is ridiculous. I would even say demanding it operates against all reasonable conceptions of freedom. Integration requires persons to become part of society enough to function properly, while leaving enough space for keeping old traditions that do not fundamentally conflict with the functioning in the new society. Assimilation would mean that if I am Brazilian and go live in Sweden, I cannot practice Candomble or make Pao de Queijo because that would be un-Swedish."

That's why I am in favour of integration, not assimilation. Assimilation means newcomers cannot keep any of their original identity. That is ridiculous. It means that if you support Liverpool but go live in Brussels, you would have to start cheering for Anderlecht. It means you'd be frowned upon if you still drink English lager at room temperature. But how does something like that harm society? That's why I think integration is the only reasonable option... nothing more, certainly nothing less.

But still, crappy laws preventing idiots from saying what they want are still crappy laws.

True... but I do not think that Wilders will lose this one... the prosecutor herself has doubts.

*Sorry, I meant the brave men and women fighting for the TRUTH that has been SUPPRESSED by the whiny muslim-hugging LIBERAL ELITE that wants WESTERN CIVILIZATION to be killed in it's sleep by FOREIGNERS who are breeding too fast and taking all of our jobs.

Lovely!

 

[sysyphus]

I can think of alot of things that being a moderate is not ok. Some things are just plain right or wrong, black and white.

Sigh... if you must be picky about it, yes, murder comes to mind as do a considerable number other crimes.

I guess I should have made specific reference to religion, philosophy, creed and nation.

@Eric M: Well said.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm going to have to side with Ecofarm in that the USA are #1. First off, despite general anxiety towards Muslims, we'd never elect an idiot like this to office

Sometimes, you browse through old threads and find little gems like these.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Seven years is a long time in politics, as people are wont to say.

It's also a long time in thread years and we'd prefer that people don't resurrect long-dead threads without something really compelling to add. Thank you.