Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mediterranean migrants- specific questions
Comments
-
A Primal Nut wrote: »The Kurdish population in Syria is only 10-15%.
It's naive to think that Syria is somehow immune from the cultural beliefs of the surrounding countries.
"Secular" Tunisia has 56% support for sharia law as the law for their country.
Anyway, many refugees are from Afghanistan where they have a 99% support for Sharia Law, and Iraq which is at 91%.
No, it's naive and intellectually dishonest to try and use one country as a basis for another one. Or are you falling into the orientalist trap that all Arab countries are the same or can be used to describe one another?
As for the risk posed Afghani and Iraqi refugees, they account for 14% and 4% respectively.RandomName2 wrote: »100,000 people aren't going to be enough to overwhelm Europe - though there will be inevitable problems with that sort of number.
10 million would be enough to overwhelm Europe however; while even a million would be sufficient to potentially cause long term issues. At the moment, discussions are focusing on only a fraction of that number (800,000 in Germany).
Would 10 million be on the cards? Sure, why not? At the moment Europe (with the exception of Spain and Hungary) is actively helping anybody attempting to gain entry to the EU. I mean, if I were a poor man in Sudan or Niger, I'd hop on a dinghy and claim asylum as an Eritrean; but not before going to Germany, Sweden, the UK, France or Belgium first.
Not all people in Africa or Asia would be better off in the EU; but there'd be plenty who would: certainly enough to overwhelm the EU. It's already been implied that anyone coming from problem areas like Afghanistan will receive almost automatic permanent asylum; therefore all bets are off.
If we took in 10 million across Europe, it'd amount to less than 2% of the entire population of the EU. Hardly overwhelming. And that's assuming we took in that many.
Until then, looks like we're stuck using sources like the UNHCR.Wurzelbert wrote: »yes, let’s wait until they update their statistics, shouldn’t be too long…0 -
are these figures for people presenting with verified Syrian passports or other documentation or are they counting people claiming to be from Syria?Actually, it has. Between 2014 and the end of the second quarter in 2015, the number of Syrian refugees rose by over 100%
Particularly since July, August and part of September have seen more refugees arrive than the previous quarter combined. This is especially the case for Syrian refugees given the recent spending cuts to their aid, forcing them to head elsewhere.
A very significant part. Not a small part.
Hover over the coloured arrows.
Add together the numbers of Syrians (211431) and divide it by the total number of refugees and migrants (504588). 42% if my calculations aren't off.0 -
It hasn't. The number of Syrians as a percentage of the total has only increased slightly.Actually, it has. Between 2014 and the end of the second quarter in 2015, the number of Syrian refugees rose by over 100%
Particularly since July, August and part of September have seen more refugees arrive than the previous quarter combined.
This is especially the case for Syrian refugees given the recent spending cuts to their aid, forcing them to head elsewhere.
And yet in the asylum seeking statistics they aren't represented in very significant numbers.A very significant part. Not a small part.0 -
Not quite. you're using data before the migrant crisis reached its worst period, particularly for Syrians. Turkey began using air strikes against the PKK in late July and the recent cratering of aid to Syrian refugee camps.jackofalltrades wrote: »It hasn't. The number of Syrians as a percentage of the total has only increased slightly.
And yet, they represent 42% of those crossing Europe's borders illegally (Frontex) or 51% of those crossing the Mediterranean (UNHCR)jackofalltrades wrote: »And yet in the asylum seeking statistics they aren't represented in very significant numbers.
Keep in mind numbers are likely to change significantly, given two thirds of new arrivals have come within the last 3 months (and thus not included in the Eurostat figures)0 -
are these figures for people presenting with verified Syrian passports or other documentation or are they counting people claiming to be from Syria?
Already addressed in the thread: personally I'm not sure how they determine nationality, but if it was merely a case of relying on what the refugee/migrant says themselves, the number of Syrians would surely be a lot higher than 40-50%, given Syrians have a 96% acceptance rate for asylum.0 -
Advertisement
-
possibly except for language and other things which might stop someone claiming to be Syrian as well as those found to have no knowledge of the country or place they claim to have lived after a cursory interview. there are ways of ruling out people at a very early stage so a figure of 40-50% which includes quite a lot of economic migrants is entirely possibleAlready addressed in the thread: personally I'm not sure how they determine nationality, but if it was merely a case of relying on what the refugee/migrant says themselves, the number of Syrians would surely be a lot higher than 40-50%, given Syrians have a 96% acceptance rate for asylum.0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »it is really a migrant crisis which actual refugees are merely one element of…and while you are right in that sharia law won’t be introduced around here anytime soon, this is only a question of majorities and therefore of time…and of course sharia law already “applies” in many ghettos all over europe…
Agree, and Saudi Arabia offering to build mosques for these migrants in the countries they arrive in (offered to pay for building 200 in Germany alone), wont help matters.“Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”
0 -
possibly except for language and other things which might stop someone claiming to be Syrian as well as those found to have no knowledge of the country or place they claim to have lived after a cursory interview. there are ways of ruling out people at a very early stage so a figure of 40-50% which includes quite a lot of economic migrants is entirely possible
You're engaging in a large amount of conjecture here. Personally, I'm not sure how the UN, IOM and Frontex determine nationality but the onus is on you to show they're relying on self-assessment. Which doesn't sound very likely for such organizations.0 -
You're engaging in a large amount of conjecture here. Personally, I'm not sure how the UN, IOM and Frontex determine nationality but the onus is on you to show they're relying on self-assessment. Which doesn't sound very likely for such organizations.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/we-will-hurt-eu-if-migrant-crisis-is-not-fixed-says-italian-pm-matteo-renziMore than 57,000 migrants and asylum seekers have been rescued at sea and brought to Italy so far this year – up from 54,000 at the same time last year – Renzi said, and Rome wants both a long-term solution and help from other countries now.
It wants the EU to forge repatriation deals with African nations and share the cost of returning home would-be economic migrants, who currently make up around 60 percent of those arriving by boat.0 -
I think I've made it clear that my claims are based on the current asylum seeker data.Not quite. you're using data before the migrant crisis reached its worst period, particularly for Syrians. Turkey began using air strikes against the PKK in late July and the recent cratering of aid to Syrian refugee camps.
And yet, they represent 42% of those crossing Europe's borders illegally (Frontex) or 51% of those crossing the Mediterranean (UNHCR)
Keep in mind numbers are likely to change significantly, given two thirds of new arrivals have come within the last 3 months (and thus not included in the Eurostat figures)0 -
Advertisement
-
No mention of sources there. Considering both Frontex and UNHCR have over two thirds of arrivals being from Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea, this article seems to only be referring to arrivals in Italy.
This tallies with here whereas 81% of those migrants entering Greece can expect to receive refugee status. This number drops to 46% for Italy. In total, the Economist highlights that three quarters of new arrivals are very likely to receive refugee status. As such, it's far more valid to call it a refugee crisis than a migrant one.
Also, the Guardian article from June, when as highlighted earlier in the thread, arrivals from January to June are third of the total number of arrivals.0 -
jackofalltrades wrote: »I think I've made it clear that my claims are based on the current asylum seeker data.
It's hardly current. It's a few months old and the crisis only reached its current levels since July, which takes into account the new factors pushing Syrians out.0 -
-
jackofalltrades wrote: »Current in that it's the most recent data available, Q3's data isn't out yet.
Yes but of dubious value given how much the situation has escalated since then.
Relying on data before a crisis has peaked isn't of much help.0 -
When East and West Germany were founded, there were still Germans who had lived longer than the formation of a German state. Germany is still a very new country, at the time, I'm not sure how pervasive the idea of a common heritage was.
Pervasive enough for Bismark to create 'Germany' in the first place and a certain Austrian born corporal to launch a war on the premise of German racial superiority and a greater Reich.Really? After decades of communism, even contemporary Eastern Germany has a majority of atheists compared to just to just 10% in the West.
Yet, what is the religious heritage of East and West Germany. It is of course Christianity, going back to the Holy Roman Empire.Generations of East Germans were raised being taught a completely different form of history than their West German counterparts. They managed.
Completely different? More like different tints rather then completely different. I dare say you protest too much.I'm not sure why people make such a big deal about ethnicity as a factor in assimilation. You only need to look at the Arabs or the Slavs to see how people of the same ethnicity can be so categorically different from one another.
Would a Russian have more in common with a Serb or to a Nigerian? It obviously matters, otherwise why have nation states?It's quite fascinating but also depressing watching educated, literate people from the West discussing Syrians as if they're from Mars or something.
It is not the 'person' people are wary of. It is the religious extremism which they see nightly on TV that makes them cautious. E.g. more British Muslims are fighting for ISIS then for the crown forces.Possibly but we're not discussing assimilating 15 million Syrians. We're talking about a fraction of that.
So, then you do concede the point.0 -
German nationalism is a comparatively recent concept (Nationalism is a highly nineteenth century ideology). Bismarck forged a unified German state but this says far more about the remarkable capacities of Bismarck than a "pervasive" concept of German identity which even after unification was heavily divided on religion (kulturkampf and regional differences (Bavarian nationalism for example)Pervasive enough for Bismark to create 'Germany' in the first place and a certain Austrian born corporal to launch a war on the premise of German racial superiority and a greater Reich.
As for Hitler, his entire ideology was based on ethnicity and racism rather than nationality: hence Anschluss and the invasion of the Sudetenland to unify German speakers. Nothing to do with any civic concept of a German nation-state.
The German state is a very new one. When East Germany was founded, it had many inhabitants older than Germany itself.
It's hardly valid to claim a common religion when they've undergone deep divergence from it. What religious similarities does East Germany (the most atheist place on earth) have with West Germany (where just 10% are atheist)Yet, what is the religious heritage of East and West Germany. It is of course Christianity, going back to the Holy Roman Empire.
Yup, do you honestly think East Germans were merely taught a "differently tinted" view of history, rather than one which adhered to Marxism's strikingly different theory of history?Completely different? More like different tints rather then completely different. I dare say you protest too much.
Nation states aren't based on ethnicity, at least, not in the West. They're based on civic nationalism: that regardless of your ethnicity, religion, beliefs or sexuality, you're a welcome part of the state.Would a Russian have more in common with a Serb or to a Nigerian? It obviously matters, otherwise why have nation states?
Ireland is a good example: our citizenship isn't based on something as vague as "ethnicity". What would that even mean? Someone who can trace their ancestry back to the Celts? What about the Vikings? Does it include Protestants?
Yeah, the media has a huge role in shaping people's fears of the threat posed by the refugees. As mentioned previously, the threat of terrorism they pose is minimal, likewise, there's little evidence of a threat by religious extremism.It is not the 'person' people are wary of. It is the religious extremism which they see nightly on TV that makes them cautious. E.g. more British Muslims are fighting for ISIS then for the crown forces.
Replace "Irish" with "Muslim and "English" with "European" and you basically have the kind of stuff being thrown around nowadays about Muslims.Benjamin Disraeli wrote:The Irish hate our free and fertile isle. They hate our order, our civilisation, our enterprising industry, our sustained courage, our decorous liberty, and our pure religion. The wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their fair ideal of human felicity is an alteration of clannish brawls and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.’
Do I concede it's easier to assimilate 880,000 people than 15 million? Of course I do.So, then you do concede the point.0 -
When East and West Germany were founded, there were still Germans who had lived longer than the formation of a German state. Germany is still a very new country, at the time, I'm not sure how pervasive the idea of a common heritage was.
what do you mean? germany has been around for some 1200 years, albeit in different incarnations…Really? After decades of communism, even contemporary Eastern Germany has a majority of atheists compared to just to just 10% in the West.
we are talking 40 years, not more…takes longer than that to completely erase culture and religion, and the churches and religion played a pivotal role in toppling the gdr btw…Generations of East Germans were raised being taught a completely different form of history than their West German counterparts. They managed.
two generations like, and the old ones were still around as well, and the 2nd of those generations only spent its younger years in the gdr…I'm not sure why people make such a big deal about ethnicity as a factor in assimilation. You only need to look at the Arabs or the Slavs to see how people of the same ethnicity can be so categorically different from one another.
what makes you think ethnicity would not be important? i’d say it’s the foundation of any people…arabs or slavs were never a people…i think what you mean is more like race or something…It's quite fascinating but also depressing watching educated, literate people from the West discussing Syrians as if they're from Mars or something.
certainly from a completely different and historically hostile culture and religionPossibly but we're not discussing assimilating 15 million Syrians. We're talking about a fraction of that.
for now...yet now the flood gates are open...0 -
No it hasn't. The German peoples certainly existed but they were not a unified country. The Thirty years war springs to mind. Likewise, the 1866 Austrian-Prussian War saw various Germanic states fighting with each other.Wurzelbert wrote: »what do you mean? germany has been around for some 1200 years, albeit in different incarnations…
And yet, East Germany remains the most atheist region on the planet. I never said Christianity was completely erased. But atheism was the dominant denomination in East Germany and continues to be.Wurzelbert wrote: »we are talking 40 years, not more…takes longer than that to completely erase culture and religion, and the churches and religion played a pivotal role in toppling the gdr btw…
Yes, two generations. Two generations who knew no other life than the GDR and its communist regime. Yet they proved capable of integrating into a western, liberal democracy.Wurzelbert wrote: »two generations like, and the old ones were still around as well, and the 2nd of those generations only spent its younger years in the gdr…
Slavs and Arabs are ethnicities, not races.Wurzelbert wrote: »what makes you think ethnicity would not be important? i’d say it’s the foundation of any people…arabs or slavs were never a people…i think what you mean is more like race or something…
Ethnicity is only as important as people choose to make it. Once you start bolstering large divisions between people, they will respond as such. A good example is the Rwandan genocide, where Hutus believed in the Tutsi/Hutu division enough to commit genocide, and yet, prior to the arrival of Europeans, there was very little difference between them.
You sound like the British discussing the Irish in the nineteenth century.Wurzelbert wrote: »certainly from a completely different and historically hostile culture and religion
"They're not like us! They're drunken and violent and incompatible with our way of life" Etc
Flood gates? You make it sound we're witnessing the end of civilisation. Hypberbolic much?Wurzelbert wrote: »for now...yet now the flood gates are open...0 -
No it hasn't. The German peoples certainly existed but they were not a unified country. The Thirty years war springs to mind. Likewise, the 1866 Austrian-Prussian War saw various Germanic states fighting with each other.
And yet, East Germany remains the most atheist region on the planet. I never said Christianity was completely erased. But atheism was the dominant denomination in East Germany and continues to be.
Yes, two generations. Two generations who knew no other life than the GDR and its communist regime. Yet they proved capable of integrating into a western, liberal democracy.
Slavs and Arabs are ethnicities, not races.
Ethnicity is only as important as people choose to make it. Once you start bolstering large divisions between people, they will respond as such. A good example is the Rwandan genocide, where Hutus believed in the Tutsi/Hutu division enough to commit genocide, and yet, prior to the arrival of Europeans, there was very little difference between them.
You sound like the British discussing the Irish in the nineteenth century.
"They're not like us! They're drunken and violent and incompatible with our way of life" Etc
Flood gates? You make it sound we're witnessing the end of civilisation. Hypberbolic much?
oh well, i’d say we just leave it at that as far as german history is concerned, at least you seem to be in line with the anglo-french version of european history somehow, and this isn’t the thread for an in-depth german history discussion anyway…0 -
Do I concede it's easier to assimilate 880,000 people than 15 million? Of course I do.
Not the question I asked. I asked would it be harder to assimilate 15 million Syrians/Arabs then 15 million East Germans. If you said 'possibly' then the rest of your post is just your version of a History leason.
Again, though would a Russian have more in common to a Slav or a Nigerian?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah in that case, no. I don't see much of a difference between absorbing 15 million people, regardless of their origin.Not the question I asked. I asked would it be harder to assimilate 15 million Syrians/Arabs then 15 million East Germans. If you said 'possibly' then the rest of your post is just your version of a History leason.
That said, this is all theoretical: Germany adapted to absorb millions of Easterns who'd undergone a different approach in education, political instruction and culture. I daresay Germany can manage a fraction of those numbers for refugees.
You have a very ethnic approach to nationality. Are immigrants to Ireland capable of becoming Irish? Or will they always be an alien to you.
Well that would depend on the Russian, the Slav and the Nigerian, wouldn't it? I'm not sure why you throw in ethnicities and nationalities here (Russia as a country is multiethnic, while there is no Nigeria ethnicity).Again, though would a Russian have more in common to a Slav or a Nigerian?
At any rate, I'm not sure what your obsession is with having people in common. How much does an Irish person raised in Britain have in common with a British Jew or Hindu? Does this prevent them from functioning within a British society or make some of them less British than others?0 -
Ah in that case, no. I don't see much of a difference between absorbing 15 million people, regardless of their origin.
That said, this is all theoretical: Germany adapted to absorb millions of Easterns who'd undergone a different approach in education, political instruction and culture. I daresay Germany can manage a fraction of those numbers for refugees.
You have a very ethnic approach to nationality. Are immigrants to Ireland capable of becoming Irish? Or will they always be an alien to you.
Well that would depend on the Russian, the Slav and the Nigerian, wouldn't it? I'm not sure why you throw in ethnicities and nationalities here (Russia as a country is multiethnic, while there is no Nigeria ethnicity).
At any rate, I'm not sure what your obsession is with having people in common. How much does an Irish person raised in Britain have in common with a British Jew or Hindu? Does this prevent them from functioning within a British society or make some of them less British than others?
To take the broader view though we live in a world system that is still formed on the 18/19th nation state idea, and that involved the formation of a national identity generally along ethnic lines or more accurately the idea of an ethnic identity.
Obviously their are multiple exceptions to this, the USA being perhaps the most successful example (Nigeria being a less successful state that tries a similar idea) and historically the USSR, in these states their is a recognition of different origins and background but with a deliberate emphasis on national identity and pride in the system of government throughout the society.
Using Britain/the UK probably isn't the best way of selling your idea, its a country with growing internal tensions within England and with distinct nationalist movements in its peripheries either continuing to be supported (NI) or growing in support (Scotland & Wales).
The thing is neither the mono-ethnic nor the "idea" based nation is popular with a certain type of left wing liberalism, this is fine but an alternative should be presented to prevent the continued formation of a mobile elite without ties to a polity or culture having the capital and resources to survive while the good parts of nationalism are dismantled and the rump of local populations are abandoned.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »...while the good parts of nationalism are dismantled...
What do you perceive those to be, as a matter of interest?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »What do you perceive those to be, as a matter of interest?
Welfare state and associated social safety nets, tendency to reinvest within areas and communities, tendency to take decisions purely based of the most ruthless profits bottomline, encouraging longterm thinking in regards to being a stakeholder in the nation to benefit ones or ones friends/families offspring etc.
I would tend to think of the good parts of nationalism as a bit like a credit union.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »Welfare state and associated social safety nets, tendency to reinvest within areas and communities, tendency to take decisions purely based of the most ruthless profits bottomline, encouraging longterm thinking in regards to being a stakeholder in the nation to benefit ones or ones friends/families offspring etc.
I would tend to think of the good parts of nationalism as a bit like a credit union.
Interesting. I don't see that a nation-state is a prerequisite for any of them. If anything, nationalism is about restricting such concerns to members of an in-group to the exclusion of "others".
As an example, the EU is largely built on principles such as you've outlined. To the extent that it fails to achieve them, it's largely because of nationalist concerns outweighing a broader consensus.0 -
Fortunately, not in the West where civic nationalism is the norm. Unfortunately, this is being dismantled with the rise of ethnic nationalism in countries like France.RDM_83 again wrote: »To take the broader view though we live in a world system that is still formed on the 18/19th nation state idea, and that involved the formation of a national identity generally along ethnic lines or more accurately the idea of an ethnic identity.
Disagree: only Northern Ireland has nationalism as a toxic form and even then, it was British identity that was a moderating factor (providing equal access to education and the NHS for example)RDM_83 again wrote: »Using Britain/the UK probably isn't the best way of selling your idea, its a country with growing internal tensions within England and with distinct nationalist movements in its peripheries either continuing to be supported (NI) or growing in support (Scotland & Wales).
Welsh and Scottish nationalism are heavily based on civic rather than ethnic nationalism. Ditto for Sinn Féin really: they've been fairly vocal in their support for refugees and promoting an inclusive concept of Irish-ness.0 -
Europe is storing up some big problems for itself because of the way it has treated the migrants. It would have been wonderful from a PR perspective if Europe had been much more welcoming. A lot of bad feeling will have built up among the migrants because of the reception they have received.0
-
realitykeeper wrote: »Europe is storing up some big problems for itself because of the way it has treated the migrants. It would have been wonderful from a PR perspective if Europe had been much more welcoming. A lot of bad feeling will have built up among the migrants because of the reception they have received.
Well, its obviously not that bad if they keep coming.
I see Hungary is now deploying its army with rubber bullets.
The big problem Europe is going to have is sectarianism in my opinion. The Swedish Democrats are flying ahead in the polls in Sweden. The National Front is also polling very strong in France....meanwhile Ban Ki Moon is telling Europeans that they need to do more..I personally think he should send this message to the Arab states and his own country.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Interesting. I don't see that a nation-state is a prerequisite for any of them. If anything, nationalism is about restricting such concerns to members of an in-group to the exclusion of "others".
As an example, the EU is largely built on principles such as you've outlined. To the extent that it fails to achieve them, it's largely because of nationalist concerns outweighing a broader consensus.
This should be the ultimate lesson then. All this 'theory' about getting rid of nationalism and borders is just theory, just like Marx and Communism. Sounds great on paper but in reality does not work. The EU would be the classic example of this.
A Union of like minded nations all banding together for both social and economic good in the 50's,60's and 70's has turned into a German centric union where the needs and wants of the bigger nations outweigh many others. Where is the German 'good will' for example when it came to Ireland or the euro? What we have now is Germany literally using the EU for its own domestic needs and to hell with anyone else, essentially threatening the eastern EU nations that if they do not get with the program of EU quota's then certain EU funding may be 're-examined'. It is no wonder the many in the UK want out.
Now I am not going to go into rabble about the EU as I think with all that said and done it has been the best thing to happen to Ireland since the state was given independence, yet I am not a blind fanboy of it either and can recognise that in the past 10 years especially the EU has turned away from its simple aims and origins. Many here would rather stick their head in the sands rather then admit that the EU is ever at fault. e.g. Euro has been a disaster yet get a fanboy to admit it? You will get a Pasileyesque 'never, never, neverrrrrr!
So why is this? Well as I said nation states, like people are inherently self interested. It is part of the human condition and if you deny it then you are essentially deny anthropological and biological truth. Merkel will be more concerned with German people in Colonge rather then the Irish people and in Cork. After all, is is they that elect her. Its only natural. Likewise we in Ireland would be more concerned with our own problems rather then problems in Italy or Spain.
Anyway, what is the broader consensus here? There is no evidence that the broader consensus is one of open borders and unlimited migration. In fact the broader consensus from across the EU voting public is that we should help BUT in an orderly and limited way. In 10./15 years time when we have governments that are even more nationalistic and anti-EU then we can look back at the present EU leadership and see where the seeds of this movement was sown. The GFC gave rise to a popular leftist anti-austerity politics across the EU. This crisis has the potential to add a nationalist anti-immigration hue to the mix. A dangerous mix where the center ****ed it up and we in Europe revert back to dangers hard left and hard right politics.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah in that case, no. I don't see much of a difference between absorbing 15 million people, regardless of their origin.
I think you are utterly wrong. First of all the German people would never support such a measure as they did reunifying Germany in 1990. There in lies a hint of why you are wrong in your gross assumption.You have a very ethnic approach to nationality. Are immigrants to Ireland capable of becoming Irish? Or will they always be an alien to you.
They can become 'Irish' but what do you mean by Irish? I am an Australian citizen as well as an Irish one so I do have some understanding in this regard. Yet, I would not call myself Australian to be honest. I have only been here 6 years yet would identify myself as Irish first and foremost. Ask me in 30 years maybe. No doubt many migrants in Ireland who came in the last 10 years would still call themselves Polish, Latvian and so on more so then Irish. Many an American would call themselves Irish yet would never have set foot in the country. This is going off topic though and can be a thread in itself.
My approach to nationality differs depending on the nation state. Immigrant nations like the USA's and Australia are different of course to the Germany's and France of this world. The old world vs the new. It is no surprise so that migration and multiculturalism is more successful in the former then the latter, for two reasons. The old world does not have the same history of migration and the concept of assimilation is not as strong as the former where certain things are expected of you in that regard. Hence why you have ethnic ghettos in the old world where the concept is almost alien in the new world. If all of a sudden we think that Poland or France can become like USA and invite millions of non French nationals to the state with no push back or political repercussions then people need a desperate reality checkWell that would depend on the Russian, the Slav and the Nigerian, wouldn't it? I'm not sure why you throw in ethnicities and nationalities here (Russia as a country is multiethnic, while there is no Nigeria ethnicity).
So in other-words you take the politicians way out and refuse to answer the question. How very Hamlet of you. An average Russian will have more in common with an average Serb then an average Nigerian as they are Slavs and the Nigerian isn't. Russia is regarded as the 'Protector of the Slavs'. One can use all the words in the world they want but its the truth, just like how the Irish have more in common with the English then say the French (no matter what the Shinners say). Once you travel the world a bit you see that people are just people but have very very different cultures, morals and views on sometimes very simple and subtle things. The whole 'we are all the same' is feel good stuff that grows old when you reach primary school. Yes, we are all people but scratch the surface people want vastly different things and are self interested in their own way. Spend a month in China and then tell me that they have as much in common with a West German as an East German.At any rate, I'm not sure what your obsession is with having people in common. How much does an Irish person raised in Britain have in common with a British Jew or Hindu? Does this prevent them from functioning within a British society or make some of them less British than others?
I do not know, they may both speak English for example or follow Arsenal and work for the Royal Mail. It is really a mindset more then anything and it depends how each of them assimilate to British life, which of course is the more important thing. If each state set out rules for assimilation many people who feel more at ease. However the word assimilate is a dirty word yet I think it is imperative to successful immigration policy and multiculturalism. One has to adhere to a framework that under pins that society and culture and we in the West have certain values in this regard. If large numbers of people do not adhere to these values and in fact reject them outright then that can cause many issues down the line as we are seeing now with 2nd generation Muslims across the Western world. Again, more British Muslims are fighting for ISIS then the British army, a worrying statistic. Another example, the BBC editorial policy expressly forbids any mention, depiction or insults to the Prophet Mohammad, because it may offend British Muslims. This is a state tax payer funded broadcaster censoring opinion because of a minority grouping. Why did this happen?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/01/is-the-bbc-reconsidering-its-restrictions-on-depicting-mohammed/0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement