EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 368
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15739 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9280 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:02 Mohdoo wrote: If someone "can't" learn the language, how are their job prospects? In what way will they benefit society? Will they feel integrated? You don't need to know the language if you intend to live among your countrymen and your job is mosty about manual labor. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15739 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:19 Sent. wrote: You don't need to know the language if you intend to live among your countrymen and your job is mosty about manual labor. Haven't we very, very recently seen some pretty giant issues in Belgium with situations like this? It's not just a matter of respect for the language. Bad things happen when a group of people ends up feeling totally distinct from the rest of the population. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15739 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:24 Nyxisto wrote: In principle that's obviously true but it's always a little hypocritical given the huge numbers of Western expats who pretty much live in their own gated communities, The UAE are like 85% foreign workforce now. Is not adapting to the local culture okay as long as you're earning enough money? Do we have a recent issue with Western expats shooting up bars and concert halls? The situations are not the same. There are unique issues at play here and it doesn't make sense to draw comparisons to other populations. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
How about we keep things that involve <0.05% of any given population apart from stuff that effects the other 99%? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 09 2016 04:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Why would you move to a country and become a citizen if you can't learn the language. Perhaps to follow your family? Unlike this wave, most immigrants actually move as a family instead of sending only 20-year-old males. On January 09 2016 04:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: And "can't learn" is bullshit. Everyone can learn any language, if they try hard enough for long enough. Well that's just straight up untrue. And keeping someone in citizenship limbo just because they have trouble learning the language is more misguided than this refugee wave in general. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:24 Nyxisto wrote: In principle that's obviously true but it's always a little hypocritical given the huge numbers of Western expats who pretty much live in their own gated communities, The UAE are like 85% foreign workforce now. Is not adapting to the local culture okay as long as you're earning enough money? Always seems to me like adopting the local culture is a responsibility that primarily falls on the poor. Düsseldorf has a huge Japanese community which is completely isolated. Own kindergartens, own stores everything in Japanese obviously, no one actually cares though. More or less, yes. Because if you have enough money it means you aren't likely to commit crimes, and you are not burdening the other citizens. Also, in order to be rich in a country, you probably know the language, or at least know enough about the culture to get people there to buy your goods/services at high enough rates to make you wealthy. I don't know much about your Dusseldorf ethnic community, but its highly likely that many of those Japanese actually have jobs in the non-Japanese section of the city. Essentially, the only part of German culture they aren't adapting is the most superficial things, like food, while they have fully adapted to the laws and economic realities of Germany. So, your question is actually assumes incorrect premises. You cannot get rich in a society without understanding and adopting its norms. That huge swaths of your subculture is in poverty is indicative of a systemic failure of your subculture to do those two things. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And in countries where Westerners work as expats it's even more extreme. How many people working in Saudi-Arabia do you think adopt the local customs? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15739 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:31 Nyxisto wrote: Great, so now we're back at conflating the issue of language with terrorism. See this is why we can't discuss those things. So when the first Japanese guy goes bonkers that's the point when they'll all have to learn German? How about we keep things that involve <0.05% of any given population apart from stuff that effects the other 99%? We aren't conflating language with terrorism. We are drawing the connection between culturally isolated, poor Muslim communities and terrorism. We'll stop letting 0.05% stop bring a big deal when it stops shooting up concert halls and raping women on new years. You keep trying to point out percentages and drawing false parallels. It doesn't matter if other groups behave differently. Poor Muslim communities are becoming a focus because they are distinct. Japanese immigrants are not relevant. Is it that you're saying events like Cologne are a necessary evil? Not something to shift policy in response to? Would you be saying all this if it was someone you loved who got raped? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
If we're discussing sexual assault in a society we should discuss it as the systemic issue that it is. Many people have accused feminists of being "too silent" in this debate and obviously they are, because they have been pointing at this issue for decades to very little effect. It shouldn't come as a surprise that feminists aren't joining in on a debate that basically orbits around the idea of "only we are allowed to rape our women" | ||
|
Jan1997
Norway671 Posts
On January 09 2016 05:22 Mohdoo wrote: Haven't we very, very recently seen some pretty giant issues in Belgium with situations like this? It's not just a matter of respect for the language. Bad things happen when a group of people ends up feeling totally distinct from the rest of the population. This is pretty basic psychology. Hardly anything good comes from having a few individuals whose life is astranged from it's surroundings and population. It cannot be dealt with on a professional level unless somebody claims the position as an active accomplace in the aid with intent to fix the specific issue. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2716 Posts
On January 09 2016 06:00 Nyxisto wrote: Well sure you can get rich in a society without adapting the norms. Those Japanese guys don't actually have jobs in non-Japanese companies, they're running Japanese companies and business is traditionally done with a translator. They've adopted the law, they don't have adopted any customs, language or culture. And that is true all around the world. If you're rich enough you're not obligated to integrate, and what kind of obligations you have towards a society arguably shouldn't be determined by your wallet. And in countries where Westerners work as expats it's even more extreme. How many people working in Saudi-Arabia do you think adopt the local customs? As I said, you don't have to embrace the local customs you have to accept them. Japanese expats in Germany are there to work and they respect German laws and customs. Expats in Saudi Arabia respect (or at least follow) the local laws and customs. If you go to a country to work without planning to stay there for the rest of your life that's fine as long as you respect and follow their society while your there. I don't have problem with Polish people working in other parts of the EU even if they only learn enough of the local language or English to get by. Because they don't cause any trouble. Now the big, big difference here is that if your an ex-pat you go to a country with either having a job already or being very certain of getting one and then you plan to move home. If your a migrant you go to country to stay there forever and then you hope to get a job. Now if you want to get a job and you have poor prospects you better learn the language to improve your odds and if you plan to live in a country as your new home you better at least accept their customs (like views on women, religion and law). If you don't your basically moving there to live on welfare and cause trouble. Why would I as a citizen of that country support and pay for that? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22109 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2716 Posts
On January 09 2016 06:37 Gorsameth wrote: The conundrum is that a section of Europeans don't actually want them to integrate, because if they integrate they will stay here. And they want them to go back to Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan as soon as the war is over (tho there is no end in sight at the moment) Nope. Sweden have been extremly pro immigration historically and is today. Goverment was ultra pro immigration, media is ultra pro immigration, Swedes were pro immigration. Like everyone everywhere liked immigrants, wanted them to stay etc. Did it work? No it didnt. There is only one party which is anti immigration in Sweden. 4 elections ago they got 1.2 % and no one knew about them. 3 elections ago they got 2,4 % and no one knew about them. 2 elections they got 5,7 % and got into parliment. Last election last year they got 12,7 %. And if you look at polls know they have close to 30 % and are the biggest party. So there is no way to say Swedes hating immigrants was the problem in the past but integration failed miserably even back then even though the ammount of immigrants were order of magnitudes lower. The reasons that middle eastern and african immigrants have trouble integrating is 1. Unskilled jobs are replaced by robots, manual labour is doomed. 2. They dont have the necessary skills to compete in other parts of the labour market. 3. They prefer not to integrate and live in their own communities instead. 4. Those communities and that culture is not conductive to breaking the isolation and getting education and integration as required. Trust me that most helpfull things have been tried. What you need to do is to force integration by demanding that they learn the language, not allowing them to live in closed communities and having swift and meaningfull (but not excessive) punishment for behaviour that is wrong. An example is a big debate about public baths which are rife with sexual harassment and people are suggesting id checks and immediatly blacklisting people if they start groping girls. It sounds harsh but its the only way that will work if you want integration for real. | ||
|
gsgfdf
Greece2 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 09 2016 07:13 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Nope. Sweden have been extremly pro immigration historically and is today. Goverment was ultra pro immigration, media is ultra pro immigration, Swedes were pro immigration. Like everyone everywhere liked immigrants, wanted them to stay etc. Did it work? No it didnt. There is only one party which is anti immigration in Sweden. 4 elections ago they got 1.2 % and no one knew about them. 3 elections ago they got 2,4 % and no one knew about them. 2 elections they got 5,7 % and got into parliment. Last election last year they got 12,7 %. And if you look at polls know they have close to 30 % and are the biggest party. So there is no way to say Swedes hating immigrants was the problem in the past but integration failed miserably even back then even though the ammount of immigrants were order of magnitudes lower. The reasons that middle eastern and african immigrants have trouble integrating is 1. Unskilled jobs are replaced by robots, manual labour is doomed. 2. They dont have the necessary skills to compete in other parts of the labour market. 3. They prefer not to integrate and live in their own communities instead. 4. Those communities and that culture is not conductive to breaking the isolation and getting education and integration as required. Trust me that most helpfull things have been tried. What you need to do is to force integration by demanding that they learn the language, not allowing them to live in closed communities and having swift and meaningfull (but not excessive) punishment for behaviour that is wrong. An example is a big debate about public baths which are rife with sexual harassment and people are suggesting id checks and immediatly blacklisting people if they start groping girls. It sounds harsh but its the only way that will work if you want integration for real. That's actually quite a good post, I agree with most of it, but just to point out something : the immigrants actually are less problematic than their kids. Because the immigrants, mostly, want to integrate, and even if there are indeed problems, they usually lay low and adopt the behaviors of a minority, conscious of its position and acknowledging its domination. For the kids of the immigrants, born in the country, the question is even more problematic : they are torn between their desire to be part of the nation that welcomed their parents and the desire to defend the dignity of their parents, culturally dominated, especially for old colonies. Add to that the fact that Islam, like most religion, is rather conquerant. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On January 09 2016 09:35 WhiteDog wrote: That's actually quite a good post, I agree with most of it, but just to point out something : the immigrants actually are less problematic than their kids. Because the immigrants, mostly, want to integrate, and even if there are indeed problems, they usually lay low and adopt the behaviors of a minority, conscious of its position and acknowledging its domination. For the kids of the immigrants, born in the country, the question is even more problematic : they are torn between their desire to be part of the nation that welcomed their parents and the desire to defend the dignity of their parents, culturally dominated, especially for old colonies. Add to that the fact that Islam, like most religion, is rather conquerant. There is also the reality of everyday 'systemic racism' that every immigrant child will experience sooner or later. When you are taught that all men are equal and your destiny is only determined by your character, when everybody tells you with a straight face that this country respects all cultures because it does not divide the population into groups but sees every human as an individual and then you grow up and apply for a job for the first time or get in contact with the police for example and you realize most of it was bullshit, wrong name, wrong address, wrong clothes, wrong skin color, you become disillusioned and sometimes radicalize. Individual rights are just words on a piece of paper, it is the everyday reality that defines a society. For the first generation immigrant it was somewhat acceptable to be treated like a special group of people. After all they did move into a different culture and did have objective disadvantages like language that held them back. But for the second generation it is not acceptable at all, they were born here just like everybody else but get treated like they were not. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15739 Posts
On January 09 2016 06:27 Nyxisto wrote: There is no automatic process that leads from being a cultural distinct group, or being poor, to terrorism. Even extremism isn't the same thing as terrorism. The overwhelming majority of political or religious fundamentalists aren't violent. It is absolutely nonsensical to throw every topic together. And personal experiences or anger generally are very bad starting points for policy making. Also as I said before rape and sexual assault are very common. Every third women in Europe will experience sexual assault in their lifetime, another reason why we shouldn't be so quick handing out the judgments and utilizing crime as a to conjure up images of the savage foreigner. If we're discussing sexual assault in a society we should discuss it as the systemic issue that it is. Many people have accused feminists of being "too silent" in this debate and obviously they are, because they have been pointing at this issue for decades to very little effect. It shouldn't come as a surprise that feminists aren't joining in on a debate that basically orbits around the idea of "only we are allowed to rape our women" I understand the reasoning behind a lot of what you're saying, but there's one problem I have: It doesn't allow for there to ever be a breaking point. This idea of unrelenting giving and hospitality doesn't make sense. There should never be the kind of absolute forgiveness that you are conveying. Statistics are showing many sexual assaults, a notable spike as a result of migrants. What if reports showed there were 2000 extra rapes in Germany as a result of taking in 400,000 migrants? What if it was 100,000 extra rapes? I realize 100,000 is totally unreasonable, but my point is that your line of thinking does not seem to allow for there being a tipping point. You aren't allowing for there to be a potential outcome where there's no way out, where it isn't possible to help the world while still preserving your own country's safety. You are holding on to the idea that if we just try out damned best and give it our all, we can help the world and not lose ourselves along the way. However, I really do not see the world as forgiving and blessed. How many migrants are worth an innocent EU native being raped? Does it make sense to allow for 1 German teenager to be raped if it means 30 migrants? What is your conversion factor? If every migrant ended up raping 1 teenager, I am sure you would be against it. You would not advocate for shipping in truck loads of rapists. So where do you draw the line? Do you see what I mean when I say there is a certain cost that is being paid? We can say with 100% certainty that these migrants are more sexually deviant, as a whole, than your typical German population, meaning we are in essence agreeing to raise the rate of sexual assault by taking in large numbers of migrants. So what is your cutoff? When do you say it's too much rape? | ||
|
kongoline
6318 Posts
| ||
| ||
