An Integrated Muslim

[Endovelico]

I can't see how being deeply illiberal to a minority within a minority can do much to promote social cohesion. It may well have the opposite effect.

Is locking your door, or putting bars on your windows, or setting a password in your computer, an illiberal behaviour?... Are rules and laws illiberal in essence?...

[Typhoon]

My contrary observation is that the places where everybody doesn't blend in are the most culturally, intellectually, and commercially vibrant.

Blending in doesn't mean giving up one's culture entirely. Only those aspects which may lead to conflict. A Japanese musician living in Paris doesn't have to start composing like Mozart, Prokofiev or Schönberg in order to blend. He may blend and continue to compose Japanese music. In that way he may be adding something to the host country's culture without generating any conflict. Blending in and adding to local cultural diversity are not mutually exclusive.

So just hats then?

It's not just hats, but insisting on not adopting the local dress code is a sure sign of unwillingness to blend. It's a statement not simply of difference but also of assumed superiority. "I am different, I want you to know I am different, I will never want to be like you, and I am telling you that my way is better than yours!" A punk does that too, but we don't mind because we know he will grow out of it. An orthodox jew or a burqa wearing muslim woman will not grow out of it and thus threaten the social cohesion.

This strikes me mostly as projection.

If some guys want to wear what look like fur lined tires as hats and heavy overcoats in the middle of the sweltering summer, then that's their choice as far as I'm concerned.

What does bother me is attempting to impose one's beliefs on others who do not share them:



The burqa is problematic only in that it provides a too high level of anonymity. One does not know with whom one is interacting.

Even then I'd tolerate it unless there is a conflict with the existing law.

Again, a women in a mini-skirt being harassed in, say, Japan, France, or the UK simply for passing through a particular religious-cultural extremist neighbourhood is unacceptable behaviour.

In Japan, considering some youth fashion, it would take far more than a tire hat or burqa to get a reaction from people passing by

[Endovelico]

Some of you choose to ignore that a community, any community, can only subsist with some amount of conformity. People who reject the community's way of life will never belong to it and thus threaten its very existence. No one has a right to live in a community other than his own, unless one specifically asks to be admitted, which requires respecting the community's usages, and is accepted as a member. This is simple common sense.

[Hans Bulvai]

I can't see how being deeply illiberal to a minority within a minority can do much to promote social cohesion. It may well have the opposite effect.

Speaking of...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zei ... 50241.html

Hamburg Recognizes Muslim Religious Holidays

Muslims are getting official recognition in Hamburg, Germany.

The German city-state of Hamburg plans to officially recognize Muslim holidays and improve Islam courses in schools. Many of the measures are already standard practice, but the agreement with Muslim groups is still viewed as a positive signal. Other states may soon follow suit.

[noddy]

I can't see how being deeply illiberal to a minority within a minority can do much to promote social cohesion. It may well have the opposite effect.

Is locking your door, or putting bars on your windows, or setting a password in your computer, an illiberal behaviour?... Are rules and laws illiberal in essence?...

funny clothes and a local community == wanting to bash and rape people and steal their stuff.

[Typhoon]

Burqa?

Amateurs.





[Watanabe Junya. Fall 2008 prêt-à-porter collection. Tokyo]

[Sparky]

I can't see how being deeply illiberal to a minority within a minority can do much to promote social cohesion. It may well have the opposite effect.

Is locking your door, or putting bars on your windows, or setting a password in your computer, an illiberal behaviour?... Are rules and laws illiberal in essence?...

I believe we were discussing religious and cultural minorities, not potential criminals - unless you equate the two? Can laws be illiberal in nature?

[Sparky]

My contrary observation is that the places where everybody doesn't blend in are the most culturally, intellectually, and commercially vibrant.

Blending in doesn't mean giving up one's culture entirely. Only those aspects which may lead to conflict. A Japanese musician living in Paris doesn't have to start composing like Mozart, Prokofiev or Schönberg in order to blend. He may blend and continue to compose Japanese music. In that way he may be adding something to the host country's culture without generating any conflict. Blending in and adding to local cultural diversity are not mutually exclusive.

So just hats then?

It's not just hats, but insisting on not adopting the local dress code is a sure sign of unwillingness to blend. It's a statement not simply of difference but also of assumed superiority. "I am different, I want you to know I am different, I will never want to be like you, and I am telling you that my way is better than yours!" A punk does that too, but we don't mind because we know he will grow out of it. An orthodox jew or a burqa wearing muslim woman will not grow out of it and thus threaten the social cohesion.

This strikes me mostly as projection.

If some guys want to wear what look like fur lined tires as hats and heavy overcoats in the middle of the sweltering summer, then that's their choice as far as I'm concerned.

What does bother me is attempting to impose one's beliefs on others who do not share them:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N1eTvlMuyh0/S ... 4006__.gif

The burqa is problematic only in that it provides a too high level of anonymity. One does not know with whom one is interacting.

Even then I'd tolerate it unless there is a conflict with the existing law.

Again, a women in a mini-skirt being harassed in, say, Japan, France, or the UK simply for passing through a particular religious-cultural extremist neighbourhood is unacceptable behaviour.

In Japan, considering some youth fashion, it would take far more than a tire hat or burqa to get a reaction from people passing by

Yes, and it seems a better approach to legally promote tolerance rather than intolerance when it comes to trying to get people to rub along together, as it were.

[Endovelico]

I can't see how being deeply illiberal to a minority within a minority can do much to promote social cohesion. It may well have the opposite effect.

Is locking your door, or putting bars on your windows, or setting a password in your computer, an illiberal behaviour?... Are rules and laws illiberal in essence?...

I believe we were discussing religious and cultural minorities, not potential criminals - unless you equate the two? Can laws be illiberal in nature?

Are ghettos, even voluntary ones, legitimate institutions? Is preventing integration legitimate? Are we now accepting that apartheid (separate but equal) is a good idea? If one considers acceptable forbidding political parties which promote non-democratic rule (and democracy is a cultural trait), why must we accept social behaviour and practices which are disruptive? If the burqa loving Muslims were a majority, they would impose their dress code on all women, whether Muslim or not. Are we ready to accept that? It may sound far fetched, but it's the principle which we are dealing with.

Let's suppose you invite a few people for a party at your house and, once the party over, the guests refuse to leave. Are you entitled to throw them out? Is your house your property and therefore you are allowed to say who is allowed to stay or not? And what about your country or community? Once in, are you forced to indefinitely keep any guests, no matter how disruptive they are?

[Sparky]

I can't see how being deeply illiberal to a minority within a minority can do much to promote social cohesion. It may well have the opposite effect.

Is locking your door, or putting bars on your windows, or setting a password in your computer, an illiberal behaviour?... Are rules and laws illiberal in essence?...

I believe we were discussing religious and cultural minorities, not potential criminals - unless you equate the two? Can laws be illiberal in nature?

Are ghettos, even voluntary ones, legitimate institutions? Is preventing integration legitimate? Are we now accepting that apartheid (separate but equal) is a good idea? If one considers acceptable forbidding political parties which promote non-democratic rule (and democracy is a cultural trait), why must we accept social behaviour and practices which are disruptive? If the burqa loving Muslims were a majority, they would impose their dress code on all women, whether Muslim or not. Are we ready to accept that? It may sound far fetched, but it's the principle which we are dealing with.

+There is absolutely nothing illegitimate in *choosing* to live near one's co-religionists, fellow nationals or those with similar interests and the like. Nothing at all. Indeed, it seems to be a very natural thing for people to do.

+Is enforcing it legitimate, or even possible? "I'm sorry Mr. Abasi, we can't allow any more Kenyan Muslims to live here, but if you know any Chinese Christians looking for flats, we have room for another 27.666, and we're short one Venezuelan Satanist."

+Apartheid? What Apartheid? It's a question of inclination and income, nothing more.

+One should be free to be as confrontational as one likes, within the law. Indeed, without this sort of social friction, all manner of rather desirable cultural traits we enjoy today would not have easily arisen: democracy, universal suffrage, racial equality, the trade union movement, etc., etc. Bit of a strange objection from you, really. "Revolutionary Socialists Against Disruption!" has to my knowledge never graced a protest banner.

+If. But yeah, if they were, and they won the day at the ballot box and the battle of ideas, then that's democracy, no? Of course we're not ready for that, because it's so vanishingly unlikely that it's only seriously considered as a "thing just on the horizon" by the loopiest Islamists, the queerest Fascists, the nuttiest conspiracy freaks, etc.. Cranks and the like. Oh, and by cynical pressmen who find it a useful trope to fill column inches and sell papers on quiet news days.

Let's suppose you invite a few people for a party at your house and, once the party over, the guests refuse to leave. Are you entitled to throw them out? Is your house your property and therefore you are allowed to say who is allowed to stay or not? And what about your country or community? Once in, are you forced to indefinitely keep any guests, no matter how disruptive they are?

Guests? What about people with the same citizenship, rights and responsibilities as ourselves? Perhaps you should read your little bit about the undesirability of Apartheid again.

[Endovelico]

Being a citizen and belonging to a community are two very different things. You may be a citizen, from a strict legal point of view, and never belong to the community, and you may be an alien and be perfectly integrated in the community. And this distinction is so important that a number of countries - including the US - can, under certain conditions, legally strip someone of his citizenship. What concerns me is not a person's citizenship, is that person's ability to integrate in the community and strive to make it better, more prosperous, more just. Why is it that the US requires candidates to the American citizenship to pass an examination on American history and institutions? Certainly because they don't want to be burdened with people who do not share the same values. Nobody has a right to be accepted in our midst unless he has shown he is willing to integrate and accept our country's basic values. People who cut themselves out from our community are not welcome. Their loyalty lays somewhere else and they would rather replace our values and customs with theirs. That's definitely a wrong basis on which to build a community. A country that doesn't protect its way of life will not prevail. Which doesn't mean that all means to achieve that are acceptable. But the principle is perfectly legitimate.

[Ibrahim]

My contrary observation is that the places where everybody doesn't blend in are the most culturally, intellectually, and commercially vibrant.

Blending in doesn't mean giving up one's culture entirely. Only those aspects which may lead to conflict. A Japanese musician living in Paris doesn't have to start composing like Mozart, Prokofiev or Schönberg in order to blend. He may blend and continue to compose Japanese music. In that way he may be adding something to the host country's culture without generating any conflict. Blending in and adding to local cultural diversity are not mutually exclusive.

So just hats then?

It's not just hats, but insisting on not adopting the local dress code is a sure sign of unwillingness to blend.

Oh, so if a Muslim or Sikh wants to wear a turban they are showing their "unwillingness to blend." What should they dress like? A businessman? A laborer? A goth? Punk? Hip Hop fan? MMA enthusiast? Hippie? Grad student?

I don't see people blending in regardless of origin, but you reserve your enthusiasm for conformity for immigrants. Not to mention that you haven't explained why immigrants need to blend in beyond obeying the same laws as anyone else, or why not looking like you're blending in means you're not blending in, or harms anything.

It's a statement not simply of difference but also of assumed superiority. "I am different, I want you to know I am different, I will never want to be like you, and I am telling you that my way is better than yours!"

An illogical statement, and also a sign of an inferiority complex. Other peoples' taste in clothing is not an indictment of your lifestyle.

A punk does that too, but we don't mind because we know he will grow out of it.

Many don't, but anyway...

An orthodox jew or a burqa wearing muslim woman will not grow out of it and thus threaten the social cohesion.

How? What is "social cohesion?" You have repeated some version of this attack on immigrants as long as you've been on these various forums, but never once been able to justify exactly what the problem is beyond vague pronouncements of this sort. It "neither picks your pocket or breaks your leg," so why the hangup about non-whites dressing in their strange, foreign garb?

[Ibrahim]

I can't see how being deeply illiberal to a minority within a minority can do much to promote social cohesion. It may well have the opposite effect.

Is locking your door, or putting bars on your windows, or setting a password in your computer, an illiberal behaviour?... Are rules and laws illiberal in essence?...

I believe we were discussing religious and cultural minorities, not potential criminals - unless you equate the two? Can laws be illiberal in nature?

Are ghettos, even voluntary ones, legitimate institutions?

They are not institutions at all.

Is preventing integration legitimate?

Is coercing integration legitimate?

Are we now accepting that apartheid (separate but equal) is a good idea?

I think you need to brush up on how apartheid actually worked.

If one considers acceptable forbidding political parties which promote non-democratic rule

In many countries this is not forbidden, and in any case why would it matter?

(and democracy is a cultural trait),

What does this even mean?

why must we accept social behaviour and practices which are disruptive?

Because (and I'm referring to a number of different Constitutions here) freedom of thought, expression, and speech is valued more highly than social conformity. The alternative you are advocating has some unflattering historical parallels.

If the burqa loving Muslims were a majority, they would impose their dress code on all women, whether Muslim or not. Are we ready to accept that? It may sound far fetched, but it's the principle which we are dealing with.

Not quite correct. A group wanting to impose a form of dress in, say, the United States or Canada, would actually need to amend the Constitution, which would require more than a simply majoirty.

That said, yes if a supermajority of the population of a country agreed on imposing any form of dress (burqas, jorts, what have you) then that would indeed be legitimate. That's the basis of all democratic and republican government.

But even this entire digression is irrelevant. You're talking about coercing a minority to conform to a majority. By your own logic if burqa-wearing people were in the majority then the rest of the population should knuckle under and wear them too for the sake of "social cohesion."

Let's suppose you invite a few people for a party at your house and, once the party over, the guests refuse to leave. Are you entitled to throw them out? Is your house your property and therefore you are allowed to say who is allowed to stay or not? And what about your country or community? Once in, are you forced to indefinitely keep any guests, no matter how disruptive they are?

And this is the rub of it. Immigrants aren't "guests in your country." You don't own a country. Immigrant citizens are on exactly the same footing as you are, not second-class citizens that are subject to your taste in fashion.

Your analogy is flawed, they aren't guests but neighbors.

[Hans Bulvai]

Endo,

I can't tell a difference between your view and that of Saudi Arabia's on dress.
"You must wear what we dictate, otherwise you are not welcome here".

How is a women wearing a Burqa, shadour, hijab, etc, forcing herself on anyone?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se ... -the-burqa

Ahmas, 32, French, a divorced single mother of a three-year-old daughter, puts her handbag on the table and takes out a pepper spray and attack alarm. She doesn't live on the high-rise estates but on a quiet street of semi-detached houses. The last time she was attacked in the street a man and woman punched her in front of her daughter, called her a whore and told her to go back to Afghanistan. "My quality of life has seriously deteriorated since the ban. In my head, I have to prepare for war every time I step outside, prepare to come up against people who want to put a bullet in my head. The politicians claimed they were liberating us; what they've done is to exclude us from the social sphere. Before this law, I never asked myself whether I'd be able to make it to a cafe or collect documents from a town hall. One politician in favour of the ban said niqabs were 'walking prisons'. Well, that's exactly where we've been stuck by this law."

[Endovelico]

I'm trying to figure out where I am different from some of you on this question.

I believe people have a right to live in a cultural environment which is natural and pleasing to them. By definition we all have that, in our own community. The problem only arises when, for whatever reason, one decides to leave one's community and move to another, where culture and customs are different from one's own. If the difference is small, no problem. One adjusts. But what happens when the difference is very big?

In view of the right to one's own environment, the emigrant should respect the host's culture and customs. Trying to preserve, in one's private life, as much as possible of one's own culture, but knowing that one's children, exposed to a different life style, will eventually come to adopt some or most of the host's customs and culture. That conformity to the host country's environment is the price one is required to pay in order to be accepted by the host community. If that conformity is too much to be asked, and there is a clear rejection of the host's life style, then one should not emigrate.

Does that mean that the emigrant is asked to give up his right to a cultural environment which is natural and pleasing to him? Absolutely not, because such an environment exists in his own community, in his home country. But the host community may lose that right if immigrants insist on maintaining their own life style, at any cost. If immigrants become a majority, the original community will have lost its right without recourse, because there will be no place where their culture and customs will be prevalent.

So, what some of you are saying is that immigrants rights are superior to the host community's rights. Immigrants may not lose the right to their own culture, but the host community may. Immigrants will have a place to go back to, the host community won't. The host community must learn to live with people who have different life styles. Immigrants are spared that requirement. I'm sorry but I don't buy that...

[Parodite]

The host community that operates its territory will decide who can be a guest, who can become a full member, set the laws and institutions that manage behavior inside the territory.

The requirements set by a community to become a member and laws regulating the community are very different per territory. Endo's main point seems the be that communities have the full right to decide what those requirements and laws are. I would think it is not so much of a "right", but more of a natural necessity that comes with a community operating a territory. One does not go without the other.

On that level, Saudi Arabia is not different from Sweden as they operate the same natural principle. Yet they can have opinions about each other such as the other's laws are not "right", or even that their culture in general sucks, is immoral, too liberal or too illiberal, intolerant... or not as God wants it to be according to a holy book, etc. But those opinions are of second order and merely re-affirm the inherent differences between those communities that already exist.

All of us here as members of a certain type of society tagged as "Western" will probably be of the opinion that it is "right" that full members can be very different individually and are allowed to form distinct groups ranging from sports clubs, political parties, to religious clubs etc. To allow for a rich patchwork of internal differences on many levels is considered a virtue; that of tolerance. The same principle of tolerance can also exist between bigger units like countries, but there it may be called "being good neighbors" or something. It seems to me that the ability to "tolerate" differences (or even sometimes learn to like them) aqa being good neighbors, is what creates a healthy society or neighborhood of societies. When this ability degenerates, those societies are doomed to crumble or end up in war with each other.

Western societies like nation states that promote the value of allowing for maximum internal differences also must deal with more people rubbing against each other, because they will simply meet much more frequently in the public domain; "borders" are more frequently challenged. It is relatively easy for Sweden and Saudi Arabia to be "good neighbors" because they don't have much in common apart from say oil interests and respecting the status quo of territorial borders. Internally diverse "multi-cultural" societies must deal with more "border issues" and neighborhood rubbing due to a much richer public domain where all those members meet, work together, go to the same schools, join the political process etc..

As long as this organic diversity can be maintained and is allowed to evolve and change, it seems to me that such societies will always be the most successful, dynamic, and the best places to live for any human being. (But that is only because I am programmed to think that way of course ). Among some of my liberal pro-multi-culti compatriots however there has rooted an illusion in their perception; the idea that such diverse liberal societies is served best by allowing anyone who wants and is able to put on a smile on their face become a member of our wonderful diverse societies. To get a pass(port) you do not really need much: just learn to say Hello in the new language, be able sing the anthem, the location and name of the capital city, some basics about multi-cultural values and how politics works here. Very little and it won't go even skin deep. Hallelujah come and join, be as different as you wanna be.

It all sounds very tolerant, modern, and very multi-culti correct but those liberal compatriots are as deluded as the "deregulators" in the financial industry. The illusion that "free play" means less or no regulation. In my view, the freest play, the most tolerant diverse societies do indeed need less rules...but all the more so are needed the core ones and the basic cultural skills and knowledge to deal with diversity are required for new immigrants... They have to be engraved in stainless steel so to speak.

To become a full member it is not enough to say Hello or sing the anthem: you have to go to boot camp first to learn the drills, be exposed to what you may encounter in a diverse culture with freedom of expression, free speech etc., learn on a basic but sufficient level the law here, the philosophy and values behind them...and the history of the host nation, the language up to a sufficient level, a profession etc. Such boot camp could easily take a year and requires an exam that will give them a pass, or not... The bar is simply much too low in many cases; at least here in the Netherlands in my opinion.

[Azrael]

Burqa?

Amateurs.





[Watanabe Junya. Fall 2008 prêt-à-porter collection. Tokyo]

Could be useful if the ozone hole gets bigger.

[Ibrahim]

I'm trying to figure out where I am different from some of you on this question.

I believe people have a right to live in a cultural environment which is natural and pleasing to them.

Absurd. People don't have the right to live in a place where everybody else behaves the way you want them to behave and nothing offends you. Rights, as they have been delineated by numerous constitutions over the past two centuries contain nothing like this, and seem to have provided more in the way of personal freedom than any other period in history.

By definition we all have that, in our own community.

It seems like you are asserting that %100 of people find the place they live "natural and pleasing." I think this is a stretch.

The problem only arises when, for whatever reason, one decides to leave one's community and move to another, where culture and customs are different from one's own. If the difference is small, no problem. One adjusts. But what happens when the difference is very big?

As we know, people don't always adjust, even when the difference is small.

In view of the right to one's own environment, the emigrant should respect the host's culture and customs.

This is a false assertion. The emigrant is compelled to obey the law, nothing more.

Trying to preserve, in one's private life, as much as possible of one's own culture, but knowing that one's children, exposed to a different life style, will eventually come to adopt some or most of the host's customs and culture. That conformity to the host country's environment is the price one is required to pay in order to be accepted by the host community. If that conformity is too much to be asked, and there is a clear rejection of the host's life style, then one should not emigrate.

Similarly false assertion. Immigrants/emigrants are required to do no such thing, only to obey the law of the land wherever they reside. As for children of immigrants expressing more similarity to the cultural majority than their parents, this is true but is not a sign of conformity or adaptation so much as natural cultural synthesis.

Does that mean that the emigrant is asked to give up his right to a cultural environment which is natural and pleasing to him? Absolutely not, because such an environment exists in his own community, in his home country.

He is not asked to give up anything.

But the host community may lose that right if immigrants insist on maintaining their own life style, at any cost.

Absolutely false. You have no right not to be offended or look at foreign-born people wearing odd hats. If the Portuguese constitution differs on this point please let me know.

If immigrants become a majority,

This is impossible. No society admits more than %51 of its current population through immigration. What you must then be referring to are the children of immigrants, which you imply are somehow different than yourself or possess some different form of citizenship. They are not, they do not.

the original community will have lost its right without recourse, because there will be no place where their culture and customs will be prevalent.

Still false. You have to right to cultural stagnation at a point that is pleasing to you. Culture is even more democratic and fluid than politics.

So, what some of you are saying is that immigrants rights are superior to the host community's rights.

Absolutely false claim. What is being stated is the simple fact that there are no legal instruments to force immigrants to conform to your preferred cultural norms. They are compelled to obey the law, nothing more.

The host community must learn to live with people who have different life styles. Immigrants are spared that requirement.

Completely false. Both groups are clearly required to live with different lifestyles. If anything the assertion that immigrants are subject to less culture shock than the residents of their adopted home is laughable.

[Endovelico]

Ibrahim,

You are clearly obsessed by legal considerations. I'm concerned with maintaining harmony in the community where I live. Since I can't impose harmony by law, I prefer to limit access to my community to those who are ready to make the necessary concessions to our life style. If they want to blend and integrate, they are welcome. If they don't, they aren't, and should be sent back. That doesn't mean that we should reject any changes or novelties brought by immigrants, but they shouldn't be of such a nature that will clash with our own values. Portugal is a pretty tolerant country and we have been able to accept and welcome many immigrants from many origins. But that has been made easy by the fact that immigrants have not tried to impose their cultural idiosyncracies on us. Whether they come from Portuguese speaking countries, or Romania, Ukraine, China or Morocco, they all seem to blend easily enough while at the same time contributing to our cultural heritage, mostly in the arts and in cooking, but also in religion. Originally a mostly Catholic country, we now have significant Orthodox, Muslim and Hindu minorities, without any problems. Our merit, up to a point, but mostly a sensible approach by our immigrants. As a result there haven't been any calls for the expulsion of immigrants. I hope we can keep it that way.

[Ibrahim]

Ibrahim,

You are clearly obsessed by legal considerations.

Laws determine who has powers to do what, and therefore they are the crucial consideration in any society governed by law rather than force.

I'm concerned with maintaining harmony in the community where I live. Since I can't impose harmony by law, I prefer to limit access to my community to those who are ready to make the necessary concessions to our life style.

Regardless of what your wishes may be, it would still be legal mechanisms that implemented whatever scheme you envision.

If they want to blend and integrate, they are welcome. If they don't, they aren't, and should be sent back.

It's not clear what you are referring to except your fantasy world in which you personally control immigration by fiat.

That doesn't mean that we should reject any changes or novelties brought by immigrants, but they shouldn't be of such a nature that will clash with our own values. Portugal is a pretty tolerant country and we have been able to accept and welcome many immigrants from many origins. But that has been made easy by the fact that immigrants have not tried to impose their cultural idiosyncracies on us.

Throughout this thread you have conflated immigrants not conforming to your satisfaction with immigrants trying to impose things on you or implying their superiority to you. This is obviously absurd.

[Hans Bulvai]

This is interesting.
We all have humble beginings.

http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/portugal.html

Its name (Portucelia, Terra portucalensis) was derived from the little seaport of Portus Cale or Vila Nova de Gaia, now a suburb of Porto, at the mouth of the Douro. Its inhabitants, surrounded by Moorish and Christian enemies and distracted by civil war, derived such rudiments of civilization as they possessed from Arabic or Leonese sources. But from these obscure beginnings Portugal rose in four centuries to be the greatest maritime, commercial and colonial power in Europe.

[Endovelico]

Throughout this thread you have conflated immigrants not conforming to your satisfaction with immigrants trying to impose things on you or implying their superiority to you. This is obviously absurd.

You try very hard to make us believe that as long as people do not break the law everything is fine. It isn't. Just as two people who were madly in love may end up hating each other and divorcing, so two groups of people may have such different views on most things that living together becomes impossible. If that's the case do not expect the natives to leave so that the immigrants may take possession of their land. You only have to look at what happened to Native Americans - in the US as well as in Canada - to realize what unbridled immigration can do to a people. And ask colonized peoples what they think of imposed acculturation by the colonizers. My only doubt is whether you are being exceptionally naive, or whether you have some hidden agenda.

[Ibrahim]

Throughout this thread you have conflated immigrants not conforming to your satisfaction with immigrants trying to impose things on you or implying their superiority to you. This is obviously absurd.

You try very hard to make us believe that as long as people do not break the law everything is fine.

A complete misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding. What I'm saying is that there is no method besides the law for making people do anything, including conform to your preferred ethno-cultural norms.


You seem committed to avoiding any specifics, so let's try to narrow this down: what do you actually want to DO?

1. Do you want to strip people of their citizenship and deport them if they don't behave in the way you personally think is appropriate? This is currently a legal impossibility, and to implement this plan you would reduce your country to a Nazi-esque disgrace of historic proportions. It would require shredding your existing laws and writing new ones.

2. Do you want to implement immigration policies that prevent non-white people from immigrating to your country, or at least doing so without promising that they will in such a way as to satisfy your desires for cultural conformity? This is the most realistic option available to you, and it would be implemented via amending your immigration laws.

3. Do you want non-white immigrants and their children to possess a kind of second-class citizenship, in which their behavior is under constant review and possible correction. This too would involve setting up laws to impose that on people and create a kind of neo-apartheid system.


Beyond these options there is no way for anything you are talking about to actually take place in the real world. The only extra-legal option available is the skinhead (ie informally harassing/killing immigrants) option, which you don't seem to be advocating.

You only have to look at what happened to Native Americans

So immigrants shouldn't be allowed to inflict genocide on the population of their adopted country. Check. I think we've got that covered already.

[Endovelico]

1. Do you want to strip people of their citizenship and deport them if they don't behave in the way you personally think is appropriate? This is currently a legal impossibility, and to implement this plan you would reduce your country to a Nazi-esque disgrace of historic proportions. It would require shredding your existing laws and writing new ones.

If an immigrant conducts himself in such a manner as to endanger social peace and integration by other immigrants, then a court of law should be able to strip that person from citizenship (if he had acquired citizenship by naturalization) and deport him. Such a power exists in many countries, including the US.

2. Do you want to implement immigration policies that prevent non-white people from immigrating to your country, or at least doing so without promising that they will in such a way as to satisfy your desires for cultural conformity? This is the most realistic option available to you, and it would be implemented via amending your immigration laws.

Citizenship should only be granted to people who have already proven that they are integrated in the community. Forget that nonsense about "cultural conformity".

3. Do you want non-white immigrants and their children to possess a kind of second-class citizenship, in which their behavior is under constant review and possible correction. This too would involve setting up laws to impose that on people and create a kind of neo-apartheid system.

Unless you are illiterate you already know what I think about such nonsense.

You only have to look at what happened to Native Americans

So immigrants shouldn't be allowed to inflict genocide on the population of their adopted country. Check. I think we've got that covered already.

There are plenty of Native Americans around, so genocide was not the only problem. Those who were not exterminated were reduced to living in reservations and their land was stolen from them. According to your previous posts this should be all right since it was done by the majority (democracy), and in accordance to the laws specially enacted to allow for such theft.

[Ibrahim]

1. Do you want to strip people of their citizenship and deport them if they don't behave in the way you personally think is appropriate? This is currently a legal impossibility, and to implement this plan you would reduce your country to a Nazi-esque disgrace of historic proportions. It would require shredding your existing laws and writing new ones.

If an immigrant conducts himself in such a manner as to endanger social peace and integration by other immigrants, then a court of law should be able to strip that person from citizenship (if he had acquired citizenship by naturalization) and deport him. Such a power exists in many countries, including the US.

Ah good, now that we've got you making references to actual laws in the real world, perhaps you could give me an example of an infraction for which you would strip somebody of citizenship and deport them. Perhaps you should also clarify where you stand on native-born citizens who want to indulge in cultural behavior you personally dislike.

2. Do you want to implement immigration policies that prevent non-white people from immigrating to your country, or at least doing so without promising that they will in such a way as to satisfy your desires for cultural conformity? This is the most realistic option available to you, and it would be implemented via amending your immigration laws.

Citizenship should only be granted to people who have already proven that they are integrated in the community. Forget that nonsense about "cultural conformity".

You are the one advocating cultural conformity. What else does your vague "integration" mean aside from keeping your head down, fitting in, and not pissing off the people with "real" citizenship, lest they expel you for wearing the wrong hat?

3. Do you want non-white immigrants and their children to possess a kind of second-class citizenship, in which their behavior is under constant review and possible correction. This too would involve setting up laws to impose that on people and create a kind of neo-apartheid system.

Unless you are illiterate you already know what I think about such nonsense.

Based on what you've written in this very thread, you support it. You think immigrants are second-class citizens who can be scrutinized and stripped of their citizenship if you believe they aren't conforming appropriately. You are an enthusiastic proponent of second-class citizenship and thus de-facto apartheid between people who can be deported for not living up to your standards of conformity, and people like yourself who are immune to such scrutiny and sit in judgment of their inferiors.

You only have to look at what happened to Native Americans

So immigrants shouldn't be allowed to inflict genocide on the population of their adopted country. Check. I think we've got that covered already.

There are plenty of Native Americans around, so genocide was not the only problem. Those who were not exterminated were reduced to living in reservations and their land was stolen from them. According to your previous posts this should be all right since it was done by the majority (democracy), and in accordance to the laws specially enacted to allow for such theft.

Spare me the lecture as you missed the point. Comparing your fantasy of imposing conformity on immigrant groups to the entire European colonization of North America is frankly idiotic. Skip the digressions.