# les français de papier



## Benjy

i'm curious to know people think about this concept. i recently had to watch a documentary/do a presentation on memoires d'immigrés by yamina benguigui. it's basically a collection of interviews of immigrant parents and children from north africa and at one point while she's interviewing a bunhc of highschoolers she asks them where they are from and they call themselves fançais de papier (but of algerian/tunisian/magrébin) origin.   

basically i was wondering whether anyone sees this as a problem. is it representative of an feeling of alienation or just a way of expressing a duality of culture?

there's also a lot on integration. "what does it mean to be integrated? i pay my taxes, i have a job, i participate in the life of the nation yet for a lot of people i'm not yet integrated? what do they want from me?"

a penny for your thoughts


----------



## bernik

_" i recently had to watch a documentary "_

Was the subject imposed by a loony leftist teacher, or did you choose the subject ?

Although you are focusing on the French situation, I think the problem is the same in other European states, and in the United States.

_"what does it mean to be integrated? i pay my taxes, i have a job, i participate in the life of the nation yet for a lot of people i'm not yet integrated? what do they want from me?"_

Is it a question that was asked in benguigui's documentary ? I don't think that participants to this forum can speak in the name of immigrants, unless they are non-European immigrants themselves.

_" What do they want from me? "_

This I can answer. What I want from immigrants is for them to go back to their country of origin. The idea that it makes no difference for a European to live among his own people or among immigrants is absurd !

I am myself a "français de papier". I have french papers although I did not ask for them and I have no use for france. When you think of France, you should make the distinction between what I call "Francie", the territories around Paris that used to be ethnically french, and the rest of the hexagon. (An hexagon is a six-sided polygon, and french geographers used to argue that the map of France could be fitted into an hexagon -- well, an hexagon with a few dents).
Until not long ago, the whole southern part of France spoke languages that were probably closer to Spanish or Italian than to the dialects spoken in northern France. I think the disappearance of those languages is very recent, it dates back to the 20th century. The french administration had a policy of creating "French people" by destroying their identities. And now the administration is trying something even more daring. They are in the process of replacing the European population by third world immigrants ! It will be interesting to see if the experiment "succeeds", or if the whole thing collapses. Anyway, what will be left won't look like Europe.

In France, I think the immigration policy is more or less in continuation of the french tradition of having the state work against the people. But I know the same thing is happening in other countries. In the Netherlands, I hear that the four largest cities will have muslim majorities by 2010 (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht). European madness !


----------



## Brioche

In broad terms, the question is whether the new arrivals have come to the new country to make it their home.

Or have the come to milk the social security system, while holding themselves aloof from their hosts?

Or have they come with the intention of rejecting the host country and establishing enclaves?

Think of the behaviour of Europeans in the Treaty Ports of China after the Opium Wars. Europeans had their own clubs, race courses, churches, schools &c., and they even imposed their own laws in their concessions.

There are immigrant groups in France who are doing precisely this.


----------



## Benjy

as for the first bit in quotes it was a statement by un fils d'immigré de 30 ans. so it's not my question. it's his question to the french public i guess. 

the documentary was chosen for me by my teacher. i dont think she's a leftist loon though.

don't you think having brought all these people to france to make up for the post war demographic deficit in the work force it's a bit rediculous to turn around and say right, pack your things up and clear out? it's a situation of frances own creation.. these immigrants didn't just spontaneous move to france en masse.



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> _" i recently had to watch a documentary "_
> 
> Was the subject imposed by a loony leftist teacher, or did you choose the subject ?
> 
> Although you are focusing on the French situation, I think the problem is the same in other European states, and in the United States.
> 
> _"what does it mean to be integrated? i pay my taxes, i have a job, i participate in the life of the nation yet for a lot of people i'm not yet integrated? what do they want from me?"_
> 
> Is it a question that was asked in benguigui's documentary ? I don't think that participants to this forum can speak in the name of immigrants, unless they are non-European immigrants themselves.
> 
> _" What do they want from me? "_
> 
> This I can answer. What I want from immigrants is for them to go back to their country of origin. The idea that it makes no difference for a European to live among his own people or among immigrants is absurd !
> 
> I am myself a "français de papier". I have french papers although I did not ask for them and I have no use for france. When you think of France, you should make the distinction between what I call "Francie", the territories around Paris that used to be ethnically french, and the rest of the hexagon. (An hexagon is a six-sided polygon, and french geographers used to argue that the map of France could be fitted into an hexagon -- well, an hexagon with a few dents).
> Until not long ago, the whole southern part of France spoke languages that were probably closer to Spanish or Italian than to the dialects spoken in northern France. I think the disappearance of those languages is very recent, it dates back to the 20th century. The french administration had a policy of creating "French people" by destroying their identities. And now the administration is trying something even more daring. They are in the process of replacing the European population by third world immigrants ! It will be interesting to see if the experiment "succeeds", or if the whole thing collapses. Anyway, what will be left won't look like Europe.
> 
> In France, I think the immigration policy is more or less in continuation of the french tradition of having the state work against the people. But I know the same thing is happening in other countries. In the Netherlands, I hear that the four largest cities will have muslim majorities by 2010 (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht). European madness !


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy, you write as if these people were imported. Is that the case? Or, did they choose to immigrate to France in search of economic opportunities, or freedom from political harassment or something else?

The US viewpoint may be different from that of a European, for whom inbound migration is a relatively new experience. Here, all of the original population except the Native Americans (Indians) were immigrants. Starting in the late 19th century there was massive immigration from Europe to the US. Then after a few decades of restraint, it became massive again, but this time from the Americas and Asia.

What is the broad pattern here?  I'll generalize.  Anyone can find exceptions to some of this, but the broad pattern is true:

1. Immigrants arrive in large numbers, generally poor and uneducated.
2. They take menial jobs, and live in impoverished surroundings. They generally cluster by nationality of origin or native language.
3. They work hard, their children grow up as native AE speakers, and they gradually move away from the poor neighborhoods, and merge into the larger society.

The elapsed time for this is usually a couple of generations. During the earliest phase, they are the object of prejudice and discrimmination. Then they become, by hard work, members of the middle class. They form political blocs and gain not only economic but political power.

Example: late 19th to early 20th century: Irish, Italian, East European Jewish immigrants. All suffered discrimination and poverty. All worked hard and put a premium on education for their children. All eventually moved out of city slums, gained economic and political power, and became very much 'mainstream' members of the larger society.

It was often a painful trajectory.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Example: late 19th to early 20th century: A, B and C immigrants. All suffered discrimination and poverty. All worked hard and put a premium on education for their children. All eventually moved out of city slums, gained economic and political power, and became very much 'mainstream' members of the larger society.
> 
> It was often a painful trajectory.



This happens in any city/country.
And the vacancy left in the city slums will be filled by D and E immigrants. The "immigrant quarter" is usually the same place with each wave of incomers.
Ireland had a very small amount of immigration in the 19th century (We were shedding people, not looking for more) and they tended to congregate in certain areas. Now that we are taking people in in greater numbers than ever those same areas were the first to be focussed on by the immigrants. None of these is a slum area, but they're not the finest of housing stock. The first of our most recent wave of immigrants have almost all moved out now and the newer, Eastern European wave is moving in.
I think it is a feature of how cities 'work', if the politicians let it work and don't interfere, and if the incomers don't ghettoise themselves.


----------



## DDT

Benjy said:
			
		

> as for the first bit in quotes it was a statement by un fils d'immigré de 30 ans. so it's not my question. it's his question to the french public i guess.
> 
> the documentary was chosen for me by my teacher. i dont think she's a leftist loon though.
> 
> don't you think having brought all these people to france to make up for the post war demographic deficit in the work force it's a bit rediculous to turn around and say right, pack your things up and clear out? it's a situation of frances own creation.. these immigrants didn't just spontaneous move to france en masse.



Looks like a clear analysis of the situation



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Benjy, you write as if these people were imported. Is that the case? Or, did they choose to immigrate to France in search of economic opportunities, or freedom from political harassment or something else?



Part of immigration to France was indeed a sort of cheap labour import promoted after WWII in order to "feed" French factories. It is a fact that integration has been mostly "refused" by both sides. French people didn't accept differences that much (even if highly placed VIP are always heartily welcome) and a considerable part of immigrants had a sort of propension to hold themselves aloof from the natives.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The US viewpoint may be different from that of a European, for whom inbound migration is a relatively new experience. Here, all of the original population except the Native Americans (Indians) were immigrants. Starting in the late 19th century there was massive immigration from Europe to the US. Then after a few decades of restraint, it became massive again, but this time from the Americas and Asia.



To a certain extent immigration to the U.S. was different, because on the part of immigrants there wasn't such a strong attitude not to become part of the hosting country. Moreover U.S. cultural traditions are due to immigrants from all over the world whereas in France there was a strong deep-rooted cultural richness dating to many centuries ago

DDT


----------



## LV4-26

A few interesting and true points have been made by cuchu, DDT and maxiogee. The problem in France is that ghettoisation isn't going to stop tomorrow. One of the main reasons is that when your surname doesn't sound truely French (especially if it sounds North-African or black) you have very little chance to get a job or a flat.

Poverty has been evacuated from the center of the cities and been sent to the suburbs by decades of housing policies. That started after WWII when the first immigrants from North Africa arrived. 

Things go on pretty well when the newcomers are spread "homogeneously" (I don't like the word - sounds like making a recipe - but my English isn't good enough for me to find a better one) in the native population. That was the case in the North of Paris for quite a long time. People from all origins (including native Parisians) lived together and mingled in an harmonious way.

As Cuchu rightly put it 





> 1. During the earliest phase, they are the object of prejudice and discrimmination.


 We're not finished with that here.





> 2. They generally cluster by nationality of origin or native language.


 (Sorry, Cuchu I know I put your sentences in the wrong order.). 2. is often the consequence of 1. 

But 1. isn't absolutely necessary for 2. to take place. The same thing happens whatever the kind of group. Put me in the middle of a crowd of, say, football supporters (I know very little about football ) and I'll feel uneasy an uncomfortable and I'll try to find somebody like me to talk with. Because I don't know the culture, the *codes*, the others understand each other and I don't understand them. That's probably what's called being a minority. 


			
				bernik said:
			
		

> The idea that it makes no difference for a European to live among his own people or among immigrants is absurd !


 If all the immigrants live in the same ghetto, that's pretty likely. Because then, *you* become the minority with all the uncomfort and uneasiness that goes with it and that I mentionned just above. *Even* in the total absence of hostility.

If we're dealing with the second and sometimes fourth generation of immigrants, then I don't see how they could go back to their country or origin. You can't go back where you've never been. Plus, they *are* already in their country of origin.

I don't *own* my country. I'm a citizen of the world who happens to live in France. It's not as if I'd bought my country as you buy a house or something. I'm glad to have a country that I can live in. I didn't do anything to deserve it and I don't see why others couldn't do the same.

PS : Any one can call me a "looney leftist". It's OK, I won't feel insulted.


----------



## MarcB

In the U.S all elements of society have emigrated from early times and much more so today. The poor the middle class and the rich. Many for different and some for the same reasons. The rich to avoid higher taxes or for religious, social and political reasons. The poor usually for economic opportunities but also some of the other reasons. The middle class for similar reasons.In Europe the same can be said if we look back historically.
What has happened recently is the number of people who are physically and religiously different has increased making the differences more obvious and the poor also stand out more than the other two.


----------



## bernik

Benjy said:
			
		

> don't you think having brought all these people to france to make up for the post war demographic deficit in the work force it's a bit rediculous to turn around and say right, pack your things up and clear out?


No. And they were not needed in the first place.



> it's a situation of frances own creation


not of my creation.

I'm not ready to give up on my country just because you are afraid that immigrants won't reajust properly in their own country. It seems immigrants had no trouble at all adjusting in Europe, even when they didn't speak the language, and even though most Europeans do not want to see them. I think they will find it even easier to adjust back to their own country, where they go regularly on holiday, and where half their family is living. It will be great. They won't have to endure racism any longer. We can help them financially. I think there is nothing inhumane about sending an Arab back to North Africa. They certainly don't care about our European countries. And what immigration is doing to Europe is awful.



> these immigrants didn't just spontaneous move to france en masse.


You are right about that. The french administration made them come. Now, the government is still importing more third-world population, and the media are encouraging that with non-stop propaganda. But I don't care whether the immigrants have received an invitation from De Gaulle, Giscard, Mitterrand, Chirac, or from the extreme left. Unless immigrants are stupid, they know they have never been wanted.


----------



## bernik

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The US viewpoint may be different from that of a European, for whom inbound migration is a relatively new experience. Here, all of the original population except the Native Americans (Indians) were immigrants.


 It doesn't make any difference that Americans are the sons of immigrants. The important thing is that they are European and most of them do not want to be replaced by third-world people. The important thing is who you are, not where you live. A European is a European whether he lives in Europe, Australia, or the USA. If I settle in China, I won't become Chinese and my children won't be Chinese.


> for whom inbound migration is a relatively new experience


 Maybe your grand-father saw European immigrants settle in the USA, but he was himself a European. I don't understand how it may have prepared you for welcoming half the population of Mexico and Africa.


> What is the broad pattern here?  I'll generalize.  Anyone can find exceptions to some of this, but the broad pattern is true:
> 
> 1. Immigrants arrive in large numbers, generally poor and uneducated.
> 2. They take menial jobs, and live in impoverished surroundings. They generally cluster by nationality of origin or native language.
> 3. They work hard, their children grow up as native AE speakers, and they gradually move away from the poor neighborhoods, and merge into the larger society.


 another broad pattern:

1. Immigrants arrive in large numbers, generally poor and uneducated
2. no one wants them
3. they mostly live on the dole
4. they make lots of kids
5. the crime rate soars
6. the whites are the object of prejudice and violent crime by immigrants
7. the population grows and people have less space
8. around the cities, former green belts are replaced with immigrant belts
9. working-class Europeans have to move out of the housing projects
10. you stop caring about your town, your country, and the people around you
11. you start seeing gang rapes in schools
12. parents have to send their kids to private schools
14. unemployment grows among the working-class
15. you have to introduce positive discrimination because no one will hire immigrants
16. they start setting fire to cars and schools
17. Europeans start having doubts about having children in such a crummy world
18. And so on.

Then, you wonder what you are doing on earth: 
are you a man ? or are you a dead fish floating down the river ?


----------



## bernik

DDT said:
			
		

> To a certain extent immigration to the U.S. was different, because on the part of immigrants there wasn't such a strong attitude not to become part of the hosting country. Moreover U.S. cultural traditions are due to immigrants from all over the world whereas in France there was a strong deep-rooted cultural richness dating to many centuries ago


 I think cultural traditions can be destroyed and recreated. France had a policy of destroying popular culture and replacing it with the study of French litterature at school. In the USA, they had their own rich culture, borrowed from several European cultures (mainly England, and the countries around it). Country music has been kept alive in the USA, while in most European countries, there isn't much left from the old traditional music. In Europe, a large part of our culture is gone. But I think today's American personality still has much in common with what it was back in 1776. We can definitely say that there IS an American identity. And it is not Mexican.


> Moreover U.S. cultural traditions are due to immigrants from all over the world


 No. The U.S. common cultural tradition is mainly due to immigrants from North-Western Europe.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Bernik,

You and I don't see all of this through the same eyes.  





			
				bernik said:
			
		

> It doesn't make any difference that Americans are the sons of immigrants.  It does to us.  We are accordingly more open-minded about the subject.  As a nation, some of us share your prejudices, but a great many of us see immigration as a source of continuing vitalization of our culture, which is eclectic, not Euro-centric. Our European heritage is tremendously important, but it is not the entirety of what defines us.   The important thing is that they are European That is a crock.  We ceased being European when the majority of residents were born here.  You confuse heritage with the totality of one's identity.   and most of them do not want to be replaced by third-world people. Wrong again.  Immigration is additive, not a replacement.  Tens of millions of Americans are descended from parts of Europe that were, economically, the 'third-world' countries of their time.
> Maybe your grand-father saw European immigrants settle in the USA, but he was himself a European. I don't understand how it may have prepared you for welcoming half the population of Mexico and Africa. Both my grandfathers were European. They emigrated from Europe to the U.S.  They added American ways to their European culture.  My parents were born in the US, and are not European, although they are pleased to have European heritage, to accompany their predominantly non-European culture and experience.  They and I welcome millions of Asians, Mexicans, Africans, Ecuadorians, Dominicans, and immigrants from dozens of other countries.
> We don't fear them, nor do they do us harm.
> 
> I'll address your list in another post.


----------



## Outsider

Benjy said:
			
		

> i'm curious to know people think about this concept. i recently had to watch a documentary/do a presentation on memoires d'immigrés by yamina benguigui. it's basically a collection of interviews of immigrant parents and children from north africa and at one point while she's interviewing a bunhc of highschoolers she asks them where they are from and they call themselves fançais de papier (but of algerian/tunisian/magrébin) origin.
> 
> basically i was wondering whether anyone sees this as a problem. is it representative of an feeling of alienation or just a way of expressing a duality of culture?


I think it can be either, or both. Feeling like you don't entirely belong in your host country is an unavoidable consequence of immigration. The alienation is perhaps avoidable in theory, but terribly difficult to resist in practice, at least for immigrants of few resources or discriminated ethnicities. (I'm sure Madonna doesn't feel alienated in the U.K.)



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> there's also a lot on integration. "what does it mean to be integrated? i pay my taxes, i have a job, i participate in the life of the nation yet for a lot of people i'm not yet integrated? what do they want from me?"
> 
> a penny for your thoughts


Good question. That word has become a bit loaded lately. I'm starting to dislike it.
For example, I don't accept that there is one, true way of being 'European' (or 'English', or whatever), and that whoever doesn't act according to that standard has 'failed to integrate'. But many people seem to believe that sort of thing.
On the other hand, if unemployment is scandalously higher among immigrants and their descendants than among the natives of a given country, then I would say there is a indeed a 'failure of integration' to fight, there.


----------



## cuchuflete

Text in black was quoted from Bernik.  My replies are blue.

another broad pattern:

1. Immigrants arrive in large numbers, generally poor and uneducated Exactly like the huge majority of immigrants who populated the US from its earliest days as a colony of Spain, France, Holland, and Britain.   
2. no one wants them Some are unwanted, but many are welcomed. What makes you an expert on what everyone else thinks and feels.  Have you interviewed the population of my country, or any other?  
3. they mostly live on the dole Not here.  If you want to generalize about the whole world, present some fact to back up your statements.  Otherwise, you will not deserve to be taken seriously.
4. they make lots of kids The highest birth rates in my country are found among religious fundamentalists, not immigrants! Check your facts before making ridiculous statements.   
5. the crime rate soars I await proof from you.  I think you are absolutely wrong.  Crime rates in major cities in the US have declined in recent years, along with increases in the immigrant populations in the same cities.   You are wrong!
6. the whites are the object of prejudice and violent crime by immigrants  Most crime in the US is committed by poor people against other poor people in their own communities.  Is your place different?
7. the population grows and people have less space This is a total falsehood.  European nations, with few exceptions, would have population declines were it not for immigration.
8. around the cities, former green belts are replaced with immigrant belts Not in my country, nor in most others.
9. working-class Europeans have to move out of the housing projects Working-class people usually like to escape housing projects as soon as they are able.
10. you stop caring about your town, your country, and the people around you I trust you are speaking for yourself.
11. you start seeing gang rapes in schools Oh?  Do you have proof?  Were there never crimes in schools in whatever you consider to be the 'golden age'?  Europeans are capable of crime.  So are Americans.  If you try to paint immigrants as predominantly criminal, you will need to adduce something more than imagination. 
12. parents have to send their kids to private schools Parents who care about education often send their kids to private schools, in order that they may escape the broken educational systems created and maintained by both progressive and conservative politicians.
14. unemployment grows among the working-class You have no facts to demonstrate a correlation between immigration and unemployment.  Further, if there were such a correlation, it would not demonstrate causality!  According to you, immigrants are, by definition, mostly working-class.  Hence, when unemployment increases, they would suffer.  
15. you have to introduce positive discrimination because no one will hire immigrants Immigrants get hired in the US without benefit of positive discriminiation.
16. they start setting fire to cars and schools Define "they"!
17. Europeans start having doubts about having children in such a crummy world European birth rates started dropping a long time ago.  Can you demonstrate why?  I won't just take your word for it that immigration is the cause.
18. And so on. Prejudice has its own internally consistent logic: blame someone else for all that is wrong with the world.
I suppose you also blame immigration for the rise to power of Mussolini and Hitler.  The Guerra Civil Española must also have been the result of immigration.  How about the 'troubles' in Ireland?  Another result of immigration?  Did you notice that Germany enjoyed an economic resurgence in the 1960s and beyond, with the necessity and aid of immigrants?



Then, you wonder what you are doing on earth: 
are you a man ? or are you a dead fish floating down the river ? When the ice melts, I walk across the street and swim in the river.  Then I climb out, and return to a fine community in which many of my neighbors are immigrants.  They are good neighbors.  Some even come from third world countries.


----------



## Cath.S.

> what do they want from me?


 
I can only answer in my own name, I think it is really pretentious to speak as the spokesperson of one's fellow countrymen.

What I want from immigrants is very simple *: I want from them what I want from anybody else.*

Ang what might that be, will you ask?

*I want people to be reasonably happy, so that they don't make the world more miserable than it already is.* 

I strongly disagreee with Bernik's generalisations, I'm sorry to have to call them racist clichés.
But then again I am the grand-daughter of Armenian immigrants who "invaded" France nearly a century ago - so I must be biased.


----------



## Outsider

If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. currently has one of its lowest rates of unemployment ever, in spite of centuries or decades of immigration.


----------



## geve

I'm afraid this will sound almost off-topic considering the turn this thread has taken, but you know, not all immigrants in France are from North Africa... Let's take the example of a family with Vietnamese origin. When the parents arrived in France, they didn't speak a word of French, had no properties of their own. They were warmly welcome and given help to settle down, find a job and get started with a new French life that, yes, maybe they had not chosen at that time. 
25 years later, they have settled down, they have good jobs and a nice house in the suburbs. But they will never feel as 'integrated' as someone who was born and raised in France ; because they became French when they were adults, and they can't obliterate their previous life in Vietnam, it's a part of themselves. And yet, when occasionnally they go back to Vietnam, they don't feel welcome, they're not 'integrated' there any more, they're viewed differently, because they left the country and the story continued there without them in it. 
They have and will always have two countries in their heart, which makes it hard to fully 'belong' to one of them. Maybe that's the dilemna of these "français de papier".
So when bernik says...
_(bernik) I think they will find it even easier to adjust back to their own country, where they go regularly on holiday, and where half their family is living. It will be great. They won't have to endure racism any longer._
I don't think that's true.

But their children ? Their children are 100% French. They were born and raised in France, French is their native language, France is the only home they know. 
_(bernik) I'm not ready to give up on my country_
Well, neither are they!
France is their country too. The only difference is the color of their face. Same story with color black or brown. Is that the only criteria on which we should judge who is allowed to stay in the country ? Should I then tell my friend of Corean origin, who was adopted as a baby by French parents, to go back to 'her' country ?



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> it's basically a collection of interviews of immigrant parents and children from north africa and at one point while she's interviewing a bunhc of highschoolers she asks them where they are from and they call themselves fançais de papier (but of algerian/tunisian/magrébin) origin.


I find it hard to understand how you can call yourself "Français de papier" when France is where you've always lived... how much of a mediatic concept is it here, I wonder...

For the "what do they want from me" part, I wouldn't be able to phrase it better than Jean-Michel and Egueule already have!


----------



## bernik

Me: "It doesn't make any difference that Americans are the sons of immigrants."
Cuchuflete: "It does to us."

I know the American rhetoric about being a nation of immigrants, and I think it is nice rhetoric, as long as you don't take it seriously. If you think carefully, it doesn't make much sense, so don't use it to justify Mexican immigration.

Cuchuflete: "As a nation, some of us share your prejudices"

Not prejudices, but *Preferences !*

Cuchuflete: "but a great many of us see immigration as a source of continuing vitalization of our culture"

Be honest ! Third-world immigration does not vitalize your culture, it makes your life more miserable.

Cuchuflete: "We ceased being European when ..."

You make me think of the English and the Russians.
They like to argue that they are not European !

Cuchuflete: "Tens of millions of Americans are descended from parts of Europe that were, economically, the 'third-world' countries of their time."

You like to play with words !


----------



## bernik

_(I am quoting only part of Cuchuflete's replies)_

"2. no one wants them"
Cuchu: "What makes you an expert on what everyone else thinks and feels.  Have you interviewed the population of my country, or any other? " 

I have read that most Americans want the Mexican border to be placed under surveillance by the army.

"6. the whites are the object of prejudice and violent crime by immigrants"  
Cuchu: "Most crime in the US is committed by poor people against other poor people in their own communities."

I think that most crime is committed by colored people and that they have a predilection for finding white victims, which explains why white people have to leave the housing projects.

"8. around the cities, former green belts are replaced with immigrant belts" 
Cuchu: "Not in my country, nor in most others."

I know it doesn't work the same way everywhere. In the USA, colored people tend to concentrate in the urban areas.  But still, you find similar developments. I am told that Los Angeles used to be a pleasant leafy place, about 50 years ago.

"9. working-class Europeans have to move out of the housing projects"
Cuchu: "Working-class people usually like to escape housing projects as soon as they are able."

But now, they have to go away for safety reasons.

"10. you stop caring about your town, your country, and the people around you"
Cuchu: "I trust you are speaking for yourself."

In the first half of the 20th century, in the suburbs around Paris, people used to enjoy taking a turn along the rivers. Now, they get away from Paris every week-end, if they can afford it. In England, people are buying houses in France and Spain for their retirement. It doesn't seem like they enjoy their home country that much. My guess is that immigration is part of the explanation.

"11. you start seeing gang rapes in schools"
Cuchu: "Were there never crimes in schools in whatever you consider to be the 'golden age'?"

I have not heard of gang rapes in schools before the start of immigration. Did you often throw planes against skyscrapers before Zacarias Moussaoui came to your country to get a pilot's licence ?

"12. parents have to send their kids to private schools"
Cuchu: "Parents who care about education often send their kids to private schools, in order that they may escape the broken educational systems created and maintained by both progressive and conservative politicians."

So now we have two good reasons to send our kids to a private school: progressive educationists, AND the presence of immigrant's children, who tend to be "restless" in the classroom.

"14. unemployment grows among the working-class"
Cuchu: "You have no facts to demonstrate a correlation between immigration and unemployment."

Just use your common sense. We can't even give work to unqualified local people, and we keep bringing in immigrants who can't read !

"17. Europeans start having doubts about having children in such a crummy world"
Cuchu: "European birth rates started dropping a long time ago. "

Use your common sense once again. Each African family has almost a dozen children and lives on child benefits. Without that cost, there would be so much more money for helping European families. When European families have to flee the housing projects, I think they settle for small apartments or houses  where they can't have as many children. The consequence of unemployment is also that young people have less children. It is obvious that immigration has increased the general pessimism. This is not an encouragement to make children, although immigrants are making plenty of them. If we expel the immigrants, morale will soar among Europeans, and we'll have a European baby boom.

"18. And so on."
Cuchu: "Prejudice has its own internally consistent logic: blame someone else for all that is wrong with the world."

I have a preference for preserving Europe's existence. I don't think immigrants are out to destroy the European identity, but this is what will happen nevertheless. I blame the government and the loony leftists for organizing immigration. There is a simple remedy: helping immigrants resettle in their own country. Of course, this is not at all what European governments plan to do.


----------



## bernik

There is something wrong with you crazy immigrationnists. You are intent on bringing half the world's population to Europe, the United States, and Australia. A few lunatics also want Japan to open its doors to immigration. But why don't you demand African immigration to China or American immigration to Syria ? You don't care about European opinion, so why should you care about Chinese or Syrian opinion! Let's just bring them immigrants. Let's start again the European colonization of Africa. Why did we leave after WW2 ? They have a right to enjoy cultural diversity. Let's vitalize their cultures !


----------



## Cath.S.

Bernik said:
			
		

> You don't care about European opinion


You mean, about _your _opinion. You are _one_ European among hundreds of millions of us, there are lots of different approaches.

I am a European too, and I do not share your opinions.
I daresay I'm not the only one.

As an aside, I'd like to remind you that "true Europeans'" forebears (yours ? my mother's ?)*invaded *these territories a few centuries ago : the Celts could not resist the Romans, who in their turn could not resist the Germanic tribes.
Those newcomers did not come with their families, asking for work and shelter, but with a sword in their hand. 

Why do I say this?

Because the land where our _tribes _are now settled have no more "natural right" to them than any other human being on the planet. 

Why should history and time freeze and stand still ? Tomorrow will not be like today, no one really likes getting old, but it's a fact of life and it should not make us bitter.


----------



## anangelaway

bernik said:
			
		

> There is something wrong with you crazy immigrationnists. You are intent on bringing half the world's population to Europe, the United States, and Australia. A few lunatics also want Japan to open its doors to immigration. But why don't you demand African immigration to China or American immigration to Syria ? You don't care about European opinion, so why should you care about Chinese or Syrian opinion! Let's just bring them immigrants. Let's start again the European colonization of Africa. Why did we leave after WW2 ? They have a right to enjoy cultural diversity. Let's vitalize their cultures !


 
Have you lost your mind Bernik??????  
You're having the same dialogue as _Le Pen's_ political party: that is *SO SAD*!!! 

I don't see the point in debating with you, as we seem to be the evil ''crazy immigrationnists-looney-leftists'' you blame for the world's biggest dilemma - immigration  , if we do not agree with your ideas. 




			
				Bernik said:
			
		

> What I want from immigrants is for them to go back to their country of origin.


oh! That should make you happy to know that some are actually coming back to their country of origin: my father inside his coffin all the way to his little village in Kabylie. 
One less you shouldn't fear/be worry about I guess...
Also, perhaps you could help us to find his oldest brother who fought and whose body has never been found during WWII.

I'm so mad...


----------



## tonyray

Bernik, I totally agree with you as far as immigration in cities is concerned. I'm from Atlanta and I know a lot of people who are VERY disgruntled with the way things are going here as far as immigration goes. 

I lived in Mexico for 9 months and I can tell you that the Mexico/U.S. border can be a dangerous place.

However, I do think that the immigrants do vitalize our culture.


----------



## bernik

egueule said:
			
		

> You mean, about _your _opinion. You are _one_ European among hundreds of millions of us, there are lots of different approaches.


 Most of you here don't care about what the majority thinks, and you care even less for reality and common sense. I am sure most Europeans/Americans do not want any more immigration. Yet our governments allow continuous immigration, and the media brainwashing never stops. This is certainly not democracy. I may be isolated on this forum, but I am close to popular opinion in the real world.

I would like you to explain something: why is the extreme left clamoring for more immigration in European countries, and at the same time, supporting Iraqi "insurgents" against western imperialism ? (the BBC likes to speak of Iraqi terrorists as insurgents). Why do you think third-world countries must be protected from any Western intervention, while the Western world must be drowned in third-world immigration ? Why so much respect for other countries (even dictatorships), and so little consideration for our own right to exist ?


----------



## geve

Bernik, I think you're going rather off-topic there. You're talking about immigration policies or how governments allow more immigrants to come to the country (and I'm not sure this topic would fit on this forum...)
I believe Benjy's question was about the situation of former immigrants (or children of) who already live in the country.


----------



## Aupick

bernik said:
			
		

> 1. Immigrants arrive in large numbers, generally poor and uneducated
> 2. no one wants them
> 3. they mostly live on the dole
> 4. they make lots of kids
> 5. the crime rate soars
> 6. the whites are the object of prejudice and violent crime by immigrants
> 7. the population grows and people have less space
> 8. around the cities, former green belts are replaced with immigrant belts
> 9. working-class Europeans have to move out of the housing projects
> 10. you stop caring about your town, your country, and the people around you
> 11. you start seeing gang rapes in schools
> 12. parents have to send their kids to private schools
> 14. unemployment grows among the working-class
> 15. you have to introduce positive discrimination because no one will hire immigrants
> 16. they start setting fire to cars and schools
> 17. Europeans start having doubts about having children in such a crummy world
> 18. And so on.
> 
> Then, you wonder what you are doing on earth:
> are you a man ? or are you a dead fish floating down the river ?


I'm never quite sure how to react when confronted with this kind of drivel. It's tempting, as a first option, to refute the arguments point by point as various people have done. It's quite easy, after all. The supposed correlation between unemployment and immigration, for example, falls apart when you look at France in the past, or at most other countries in the present. Ten years ago Britain had an unempoyment rate as high as France's, above 10%. Now it's half that. Because Britain sent all the immigrants back? Yeah, right! 

Le Pen likes to point out that there are three million immigrants and three million unemployed as if a nation can handle [current population:] 60 million minus [immigrants/unemployed:] three million = 57 million people. How a country like the US can manage with a population of 280 million is beyond me. The Bush administration must be lying! There are surely 223 million unemployed hidden away! We want the truth!

Common sense is enough to see that immigrants, if employers are not too prejudiced to offer them the jobs that they deserve, contribute to the economy, therefore generating other jobs, just like any "non-immigrant" French person. The guy who owns the cafe at the end of my road who was born and grew up in Algeria, for example, the one who feeds me more cheaply than anyone else in the neighbourhood, the one who stops me whenever I'm walking past to give a hunk of bread to my daughter because she loves it, the one who pays his taxes, his social security, the one who subsidises my child allowance, therefore -- he's just a sponger, right? He should go back to Algeria, which he hasn't even visited since 1986, and stop being such a drain on the economy.

I know, I know: you think he's an exception. But even if seventy, eighty, ninety per cent of immigrants are like him, even if ninety-nine per cent of immigrants would be like him if they had the chances that "non-immigrants" get, they're still exceptions to you, bernik, because you're so fixated on this image of immigrants, so dependent on it, it's so central to your whole political outlook that facts have to bend to the fantasy and not the other way round. It's a question of faith. That's why it serves no purpose to talk about facts, or to prove you wrong.

Another option would be to point out that everything you've said has been said before, in one way or another, by other nationalists. I could demonstrate, line by line, that everything you say was written about Jews: by Edouard Drumont, for example, an anti-Semite and nationalist, in _La France juive_, a thousand page book stuffed with the kind of accusations you make, that went through two hundred editions between 1886 and 1914. The same claims continued to be made by the likes of Maurice Barrès, Georges Valois (author of _Le fascisme_), Jacques Doriot and other French fascists of the 1930s, or by the Paris collaborators Pierre Drieu La Rochelle and Robert Brasillach during the war.

La France aux Français, for example, was Le Pen's Drumont's slogan. Your claims about the birth rate are a comic imitation of what was _the_ obsession of the Third Republic (1870-1940). Then it was Jews, now it's North Africans -- always someone else. The charge of sexual deviancy, too, within the larger accusation of criminality (as if "non-immigrants" have never committed crimes, including gang rapes) was consistently levied against immigrants and Jews back then. (What's going on in _your_ unconscious, bernik?)

The problem is that even though we can learn from the past that a) minorities are not the source of a nation's problems, b) blaming them for the nation's problems leads to injustice, violence and, if you're not careful, the extermination of six million of them, you still won't listen. Either you claim that such "unjust" comparisons are an attempt to silence you, to censor you, like Le Pen does everytime he appears on television (which occurs very frequently for someone who is supposed to be "censored") or you join the illustrious examples of Bruno Gollnisch and David Irving and deny that such things ever happened. Or you do both.

Because when it comes down to it, claiming persecution (point number 6), claiming to be the victim, the censored, the minority point of view is also part of that fixation, that fantasy, and you would be surprised -- if not disappointed -- to find too many people agreeing with you. It's like the _Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion_ -- a persecution fantasy.

But in the end I'm not sure what option to take. People who believe the things you do tend to cling to them. Like religion it's question of faith, and you're a fundamentalist. Disproofs are merely temptations testing the strength of your resolve. You need them, you like them, and once you've finished responding to each of our refutations, you feel a buzz. Indignation gives you a high, but it's addictive, and like all hard drugs it's harmful to the rest of society.

But my point of view probably doesn't count for you. I'm just another immigrant after all.


----------



## maxiogee

bernik,
As an Irishman who has seen huge emigration in his youth and is now witnessing huge immigration (Ireland has the highest per capita immigration in Europe) I have three things to say on the subject.
a) Ireland could not have coped in the twentieth century without the safety-valve of emigration. The people who left were often the brightest and best and they gave a lot to the countries they went to. (Although a neutral country many Irishmen joined the British Army - as they had been going for generations - and fought with distinction. Irishmen built post-war Britain and many Irishwomen staffed the growing NHS.) We were economically too poor to employ or feed our own people. Why this was so need not bother us here now.

b) The incoming immigrants now are welcomed - we know what they are going through. We know from first or second hand experience that it is not easy to leave the land you were born in and travel to seek what you need to survive.

c) I find your attitude to immigrants difficult to accept. You seem to do a good line in "sweeping generalisations".


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:
			
		

> bernik,
> As an Irishman who has seen huge emigration in his youth and is now witnessing huge immigration (Ireland has the highest per capita immigration in Europe) I have three things to say on the subject.
> a) Ireland could not have coped in the twentieth century without the safety-valve of emigration.
> 
> b) The incoming immigrants now are welcomed - we know what they are going through. We know from first or second hand experience that it is not easy to leave the land you were born in and travel to seek what you need to survive.


 
It's true that from the mid 19th century onwards, lots of Irish people went to work in England/Scotland. They are a bit of a special case. Generally, they already spoke English, and there was (and still is) no immigration control between Ireland and UK. Irish people can vote in British elections, and British people can vote in Irish parliamentary elections (not presidential or referenda)

However, prior to the early 1950s, the Irish were subject to considerable prejudice in Great Britain, this was partially "racial" and partially sectarian. They were at the bottom of the social ladder.

When the coloured Commonwealth Immigrants began to arrive in Britain from the West Indies after the Second World War, the Irish (on the whole) did not say, "We know what you are going through". The Irish, who were now one rung up the social ladder, but were still competing for similar jobs, exhibited greater prejudice towards the coloured immigrants than the general community.

It is actually a fairly common occurrence that the second to last group of immigrants displays hostility to the most recent arrivals.

The Republic of Ireland also feels threatened. Which is why Irish held a referendum to change the Constitution. As of 1 Jan 2005, just being born in Ireland no longer gives citizenship.


----------



## maxiogee

Much of the impetus for that change came from our fellow-members oof the EU. I think we were, up to that time, the only country which gave automatic citizenship to anyone born within its borders.
The EU's role in this was not much discussed in the run-up to the referendum.
Also, most of our illegal immigrant activities are at the behest of England, with whom we share their only common border with another country.

There has been some efforts to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment here by "the usual suspects" but these never amount to anything. Indeed our Trade Union movement has been prominent in defending the immigrant population from exploitation.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Much of the impetus for that change came from our fellow-members oof the EU. I think we were, up to that time, the only country which gave automatic citizenship to anyone born within its borders.


 
You didn't even have to be _within the borders_ of the Republic of Ireland. 
Anywhere _on the island_ of Ireland was enough. Belfast was a good as Dublin.


----------



## maxiogee

Was that opportunity not rescinded some time previously. I know I had two families of cousins in Tyrone born between the late 40s and early 60s who had the option to chose British or Irish citizenship. I thought the British  had us close that off some time ago. I could be wrong.


----------



## bernik

geve said:
			
		

> Bernik, I think you're going rather off-topic there. You're talking about immigration policies (...)
> I believe Benjy's question was about the situation of former immigrants (or children of) who already live in the country.


Let's go back to Benjy's question :

_" they call themselves français de papier (but of algerian/tunisian/magrébin) origin.
basically i was wondering whether anyone sees this as a problem. is it representative of an feeling of alienation or just a way of expressing a duality of culture? "_

Maybe we need some text explanation.
français de papier = french by papers
It implies the idea that you have french papers although you are not french.
I think most French people and most immigrants living in France are in agreement on this question.

_"is it representative of an feeling of alienation ?"_

No, it just means that Arabs feel they are Arab, not French.

_"or just a way of expressing a duality of culture? "_

No, not a dual culture, but a unique culture which is Arab and not French.


----------



## bernik

maxiogee said:
			
		

> b) The incoming immigrants now are welcomed - we know what they are going through. We know from first or second hand experience that it is not easy to leave the land you were born in and travel to seek what you need to survive.


 The Irish government is not even trying to choose the immigrants who have the hardest time in their home country. By allowing Pakistanis to settle in Ireland, you are destroying your own country, but it does nothing to help malnourished children in Africa. And if you want to help children in Africa, the best way is not to invite the African population to come and live in Ireland.


----------



## bernik

Aupick said:
			
		

> I'm never quite sure how to react when confronted with this kind of drivel.


 Thank you.

_"facts have to bend to the fantasy and not the other way round"
"That's why it serves no purpose to talk about facts, or to prove you wrong"
_
I would say the same thing about you. Like most defenders of immigration, you are statistically challenged. You will never analyze rationally the relation between immigration and unemployment, birth rate, crime rate, etc.

_"I could demonstrate, line by line, that everything you say was written about Jews"
"a) minorities are not the source of a nation's problems"_

One difference between the Jews and our immigrants today :
How many Jews in France in 1940 ? I don't know. Maybe 100.000 ?
How many in Brittany : maybe a hundred ?
And now, how many immigrants in france ? 10.000.000 ? and rising !
It is not a small minority, and it is changing my life radically.

_"Because when it comes down to it, claiming persecution (point number 6), claiming to be the victim, the censored, the minority point of view is also part of that fixation, that fantasy"_

If I am the victim of persecution, I would say the persecutors are mainly the government, the media, and people like you. I don't think immigrants are out to get me. They don't care about me or my country. When I said (point number 6) that the whites are the object of prejudice and violent crime by immigrants, I was replying to people who blame us for victimizing immigrants and want to increase immigration nevertheless. Well, although the media keeps denouncing European racism, the truth is that the main victims of racist violence are the whites. The real reason why I want the immigrants out of here is because I want my country back. For me, the crime rate is mainly a useful argument. But it is a valid argument.

_" b) blaming them for the nation's problems leads to injustice, violence and, "_

I'm not blaming them for the nation's problems, I just say that they cost a lot. My real problem is not how much they cost, but how their presence is destroying Europe's identity.

_" and, if you're not careful, the extermination of six million of them "_

Taking immigrants back to their home country is not the same as killing them. I am sure Europe will have a lot of racial violence in the near future. But the fault will lay with people like you, not with people like me who have always resisted immigration. Besides, I am sure it is not enough for you to exclude any repatriation: I bet you want more of them ! Why didn't you choose to live in Morroco ?


----------



## bernik

In reply to Cuchuflete, who wrote: 
_"Most crime in the US is committed by poor people against other poor people in their own communities."_

I had forgotten to say this:
It doesn't matter to me whether criminals are responsible for their acts or not. You can always find mitigating circumstances. Maybe we should consider it is a normal thing to commit crime when your income is less than 1000 € per month. But, as long as we can see that immigration increases the crime rate, it is a valid argument against immigration. And when you visit a European prison, you can see that most inmates are not European.


----------



## Ana Raquel

bernik said:
			
		

> I think there is nothing inhumane about sending an Arab back to North Africa.


people are not to be sent, parcels are, and Arab countries are primarily in Asia.

*egueule wrote:*
_the land where our tribes are now settled have no more "natural right" to them than any other human being on the planet._ 

very well said egueule.


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> By allowing Pakistanis to settle in Ireland, you are destroying your own country,



Please back that up with some details.

How many Pakistanis are we allowing into Ireland?
How many French people are living in Ireland?
Cite any one way in which Pakistanis are destroying our country in which the French people in Ireland are not.
Is it only our acceptance of Pakistanis which is destroying our country, or are there others you would advise us to reject?



> but it does nothing to help malnourished children in Africa. And if you want to help children in Africa, the best way is not to invite the African population to come and live in Ireland.



I think we need not go into levels of Irish aid both governmental and non-governmental to Africa, but suffice it to say that we don't require lessons from France on how to treat Africans!


----------



## cuchuflete

I should much prefer the company of an immigrant who takes great risks and endures hardship in order to be able to work to improve his circumstances (and those words characterize well millions of immigrants to my country), to that of someone who responds to an honest difference of viewpoint by ---

-name-calling ["you crazy immigrationnists."]
-hyperbole ["half the world's population..."]
-insults ["lunatics"]

Persuasive arguments, as opposed to bitter rants, are characterized by reason and logic and facts. Facts are conspicuously absent from the message quoted below. If there is reason and logic in it, it is sufficiently tainted by venom as to be of little interest.




			
				bernik said:
			
		

> There is something wrong with you crazy immigrationnists. You are intent on bringing half the world's population to Europe, the United States, and Australia. A few lunatics also want Japan to open its doors to immigration. But why don't you demand African immigration to China or American immigration to Syria ? You don't care about European opinion, so why should you care about Chinese or Syrian opinion! Let's just bring them immigrants. Let's start again the European colonization of Africa. Why did we leave after WW2 ? They have a right to enjoy cultural diversity. Let's vitalize their cultures !


----------



## bernik

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Please back that up with some details.
> How many Pakistanis are we allowing into Ireland?


I don't know if you have Pakistanis settling down in Ireland. I just took a guess. I was trying to illustrate my point that the Irish immigration policy is not designed to help people from poor countries survive, as you suggested earlier. I think the Irish government is just following the disastrous example set by the USA, Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands... I know nothing of the way your government chooses its immigrants, but I trust them to have a loony immigration policy, because European governments always have a loony immigration policy. If until recently, you had a policy of granting citizenship to anyone who came to Northern Ireland to have a baby, it is enough to show that Irish people are as crazy as anyone else in Europe. I don't understand why a referendum was necessary to change the rules.

_"How many French people are living in Ireland?"_

I don't know. Ask someone else !
By the way, I am not french at all, even though my country is occupied by france.

_"Cite any one way in which Pakistanis are destroying our country in which the French people in Ireland are not."_

It is Irish people who make Ireland Irish. If you change the population, it is no longer Ireland. Now, if the Irish were replaced on their island by French people, the change would obviously be less noticeable than if you were replaced by Pakistanis, who are not European. If I was Irish, I wouldn't want to be replaced by anyone. Anyway, most French people who work in Ireland do not plan to stay there their whole life.

You don't need to change the whole population to have a big impact on society. It is enough to bring in a sizable minority. European societies used to be homogeneous, real, cohesive societies, and Ireland has stayed that way until recently. But immigration helps produce an atomized society. Of course, if french immigration kept on increasing until they made up ten percent of the population living in Ireland, the loss of cohesion in Irish society would be much smaller than with ten percent of Pakistanis, and the Irish would be much less upset.

I am not at all in favor of Ireland being colonized by the French. In fact, I want the French out of Brittany (at least their administration). When the Danes joined the EU, I think there was a special clause to prevent rich Germans from buying up the Danish littoral. I think it was a sound policy. However it did not make sense to want protection against the Germans and let in Muslims in massive numbers.

_"Is it only our acceptance of Pakistanis which is destroying our country, or are there others you would advise us to reject?"_

Any population you import to replace the Irish population will destroy Irishness, although I'm not saying that Ireland itself will sink to the bottom of the ocean. For example, if you decide that it would be cool to replace the Irish population by Chinese people, then Ireland will become like a piece of China, instead of being a piece of Europe. My question is : why would you want to do that ? The Chinese wouldn't like China to be repopulated with Europeans !

_"I think we need not go into levels of Irish aid both governmental and non-governmental to Africa, but suffice it to say that we don't require lessons from France on how to treat Africans!"_

I am speaking as a European. What I say is valid for any country: France, Ireland, or any other one.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> By the way, I am not french at all, even though my country is occupied by france.



I was taught that Brittany was settled by immigrants from Britain who arrived in the fourth century AD. So in a sense, _*you *_are the immigrants in _*their *_country. And not only that, you obviously refuse to assimilate in your host country despite having lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years. 

Or do I have it backwards? ​


----------



## cuchuflete

bernik said:
			
		

> European societies used to be homogeneous, real, cohesive societies


  Ah yes, back in 'the good old days'.  Back when there was little immigration, and Hitler ran Germany, Mussolini was in charge in Italy, Franco ruled Spain,
Salazar was master of Portugal...all those nice, neat, little realms uninfected by the immigrants....

You might check ebay for a used time machine...the road to happiness goes towards the past for some folks of limited memories.


----------



## bernik

Cuchuflete: _"I should much prefer the company of an immigrant who takes great risks and endures hardship in order to ..."_

You should invite every earthling who is nice and cool and courageous to come and live in the USA.
And you would expel American conservatives who say mean things about people like you.

But if you ask a Chinese living in China, or a Mexican living in Mexico, I bet their views on immigration to their countries will be closer to mine than to yours.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Ah yes, back in 'the good old days'.  Back when there was little immigration, and Hitler ran Germany, Mussolini was in charge in Italy, Franco ruled Spain...



I think you are a little confused. Hitler and Mussolini were not around in the 4th century AD. What I have read about your people is that you immigrated to France and that you've resisted assimilation for quite a while and that you even have signs in two languages in some towns. 

I don't think Hitler and Mussolini were from _Bertaèyn _so I think we would learn much more from your immigrant status if you spoke about your people.


----------



## geve

I can't believe what I'm reading. Sorry, bernik, but could we just stick to the topic here, instead of throwing a dozen posts full of general assumptions with no figures whatsoever to support them ? 
Otherwise, we'll just end up calling each other names, like 'loony extreme-leftist', 'crazy immigrationnists' or racist extreme-right passeist.
And we certainly don't want _that_ to happen, do we ? Not on that friendly, enriching, _international_ community. 
I know I don't.


----------



## bernik

Residente Calle 13: _"So in a sense, you are the immigrants in their country"
_
If we go back one thousand years, a lot of us are immigrants, but I don't think this is a good argument in favor of immigration from outside Europe.

cuchuflete: _"Ah yes, back in 'the good old days'. Back when there was little immigration, and Hitler ran Germany"_

I am a traditionalist, not an admirer of Hitler, and I would just like Europe to stay European a little longer. (In fact, Hitler was into social engineering, just like you !)


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> I don't know if you have Pakistanis settling down in Ireland. I just took a guess. I was trying to illustrate my point that the Irish immigration policy is not designed to help people from poor countries survive, as you suggested earlier.


That is NOT what you were doing.
You said that we were _destroying_ our country by allowing certain people (when you don't even know if we have any here) into our country.





> If until recently, you had a policy of granting citizenship to anyone who came to Northern Ireland to have a baby, it is enough to show that Irish people are as crazy as anyone else in Europe. I don't understand why a referendum was necessary to change the rules.


What are you talking about? What people were coming to Northern Ireland to have babies so that the parents could get citizenship?
What do you know of any of this? You are talking a load of misunderstood, second-hand, rubbish. You don't even seem to know what _Ireland_ is!
This is typical of reactionary extremists of many types. Spout a load of claptrap and hope you won't be challenged to give examples. Well I'm asking you now to either give details to back up that statement, or else just admit that you're just a racist bigot.




> By the way, I am not french at all


Your passport, if you have one, would say otherwise - as would the government to which you pay your taxes.





> It is Irish people who make Ireland Irish. If you change the population, it is no longer Ireland. Now, if the Irish were replaced on their island by French people, the change would obviously be less noticeable than if you were replaced by Pakistanis, who are not European. If I was Irish, I wouldn't want to be replaced by anyone. Anyway, most French people who work in Ireland do not plan to stay there their whole life.


Why do you keep using the word "replace"? Nobody is being replaced, these incoming people are 'extra'.

The French who own houses in many parts of Ireland, and have moved here permanently would tell you that they 'do' plan to stay here.





> Of course, if french immigration kept on increasing until they made up ten percent of the population living in Ireland, the loss of cohesion in Irish society would be much smaller than with ten percent of Pakistanis, and the Irish would be much less upset.


Why are you so preoccupied with Pakistanis?




> Any population you import to replace the Irish population will destroy Irishness,


We are not "importing" people (you make it sound like an industry!)

What *is* Irishness - only the resultant mix of centuries of immigration over the pre-history of Europe, followed by Vikings, Normans, English, Scottish arrivals who liked the place enough to stay. If we were to develop in 100 years a thriving ex-Asian population, and their Irish offspring, then what is currently "Irish" would moderate as it has done frequently in the past, to encompass what wonders these people would bring to the mix.

You use some very emotive language. You should probably go and lie down now or you'll upset yourself.
So, once again, I challenge you to back up this comment of yours....





> If until recently, you had a policy of granting citizenship to anyone who came to Northern Ireland to have a baby,


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> Residente Calle 13: _"So in a sense, you are the immigrants in their country"
> _
> If we go back one thousand years, a lot of us are immigrants, but I don't think this is a good argument in favor of immigration from outside Europe.


Neither do I but since we're sending people back I would like to suggest that Bretons be sent back to where they came from, that people in Normandy go back to Scandanavia and while we're at it, have the Franks go back to Germany. Where did the Celts come from? Hungary? Send them back!

White Australians and New Zelanders should go back to England, Black Americans should go back to Africa and Native Americans in Mexico should just go right back across the Bering Strait where they came from. Everybody go back! We'll all end eventually up in East Africa where the earliest human fossils are found!

I really don't care about France and its immigration policy. It's not my business. But I find it quite rich when sons of immigrants (or grand-sons) tell other people to go back home.


----------



## cuchuflete

bernik said:
			
		

> Cuchuflete: _"I should much prefer the company of an immigrant who takes great risks and endures hardship in order to ..."_
> 
> You should invite every earthling who is nice and cool and courageous to come and live in the USA.
> And you would expel American conservatives who say mean things about people like you.
> 
> But if you ask a Chinese living in China, or a Mexican living in Mexico, I bet their views on immigration to their countries will be closer to mine than to yours.


I welcome every earthling who is nice to come and live in my country. Unlike you, I don't see a benefit or a need to expel those who disagree with me. Some are actually nice people; others are good for comic relief; still others are simply lost in a non-existent, mythical past. And yes, some are racists, full of bitterness and bile and a profound sense of victimization.

Hundreds of thousands of very conservative Cubans immigrated to my country. I welcomed them, not because of nor in spite of their political views, but because they are human beings. Many leftist and centrist refugees from Videla and his arch-conservative wooden-headed butchering murderers immigrated to my country. I welcomed them because they are human beings. I never asked the Cubans or the Argentines if they agreed with my personal political views.
I don't ask the millions of Mexicans who come here about their politics. They come to work and live as decent humans in search of opportunities to support their families. That's all I need to know.

I'm sure some bigots and racists and others with delusions as great as their cowardice were among the immigrants. I don't worry about it. The surrounding society is healthy enough to envelop them in kindness and common sense, which should, in time, cause them to shed some of their mental defects.

Much of the beauty and strength of European culture comes from the assimilation and ammalgamation of different viewpoints and ways...whether from conquerors or immigrants or evolution. Cultures that are frozen in place--without new infusions of different viewpoints and styles-- suffer entropy. They become stultified, inbred, boring, and paranoiac. They decay, and their members embrace little more than fear and anger. 

Immigrants and their host nations are symbiotic, and not antagonistic by nature. Hostility is doomed to fail, and does nothing but cause pain for all concerned, victimizing both its targets and its sources.


----------



## Aupick

bernik said:
			
		

> Like most defenders of immigration, you are statistically challenged. You will never analyze rationally the relation between immigration and unemployment, birth rate, crime rate, etc.


Since I'm so statistically challenged, perhaps you could provide some of your own statistics to convince me and everyone else of what you say. I must be reading the wrong ones. I don't understand, for example, why Britain's unemployment rate is at its lowest in decades despite having the highest immigration rate in decades, if immigrants "steal our jobs". I don't understand why France, which has one of the highest immigrant populations in Europe, has one of the highest birthrates, when birthrates are supposed to decline in the face of immigration. Perhaps you can explain what I'm missing when I read that in the UK "economic migrants contributed £2.5bn more in taxes [in 2002] than they took out in benefits" (source), if immigrants are such a drain on the economy. Why would politicians look to immigration as one answer to the demographic crisis of an aging population if they're a demographic problem in themselves, as well as being a huge burden on the nation? I don't dispute that there is a much higher percentage of immigrants in jail and that the unemployment rate is twice as high among immigrants. It's a testament to the prejudice they are subject to. You said yourself that people refuse to give them a job (point 15).


			
				bernik said:
			
		

> One difference between the Jews and our immigrants today :
> How many Jews in France in 1940 ? I don't know. Maybe 100.000 ?
> How many in Brittany : maybe a hundred ?
> And now, how many immigrants in france ? 10.000.000 ? and rising !
> It is not a small minority, and it is changing my life radically.


There were 300,000 to 350,000 Jews in 1940. (Source: _Vichy France and the Jews_, Michael Marrus & Robert Paxton, Stanford, 1981 [Vichy et les Juifs, Livre de Poche, 2004]). Yes, that's far less than the number of "immigrants" in France today. So what you're saying is that the problem with pre-WWII racism is that it wasn't quite justified by the numbers, whereas now it is? Had there been as many Jews then as there are immigrants now, everything that happened would have been OK?


			
				bernik said:
			
		

> The real reason why I want the immigrants out of here is because I want my country back.


_Your_ country?


			
				bernik said:
			
		

> I'm not blaming them for the nation's problems, I just say that they cost a lot.


Being statistically challenged, I'm not even able to _see_ your statistics on this.


			
				bernik said:
			
		

> Taking immigrants back to their home country is not the same as killing them.


Nostalgia for a French or Breton identity is quite a reason to send "10 million" men, women and children to countries that many of them have never even been to. Have you thought of the practical issues? Would you allow immigrants who are married to "French" people to stay, or are you going to split up couples? Or are you going to force the spouses of immigrants to emigrate to North Africa too? What about children of mixed marriages? Are they immigrant enough to be sent back? Are you going to draw up charts of how "immigrant" someone has to be before they can stay? You can save yourself sometime and borrow those created in 1935 in, ooh where was it, Nuremberg? And what about the houses, businesses and other property of those forced to leave? Do you propose that the French government pay them a good price for them? Or are you just going to confiscate it all and funnel the money into Swiss bank accounts?


			
				bernik said:
			
		

> My real problem is not how much they cost, but how their presence is destroying Europe's identity.


This is what I knew all along. The problem with immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants and everything to do with the identity crises and insecurities of those, like you, who claim that immigrants are a problem. Whether it's immigrants or Jews or black people or homosexuals or asylum seekers, the prejudice is the same, rooted deep in your personal identity and in the way you position yourself in relation to groups. That, ultimately, is why you won't be able to come up with statistics or facts or anything of substance to support your case. They're irrelevant to you. Your nationalistic speech doesn't depend on it. It gets all its fuel from your own identity issues.


			
				bernik said:
			
		

> Why didn't you choose to live in Morroco ?


I love France. I love its culture, its history, its people. Immigrants are an important part of that, always have been and always will be.


----------



## hald

I have a question about who is a "legitimate" french and who is not.

My neighbour's ancestors came from Madagascar five generations ago, and the family always stayed in France since they first came. They all speak french with no more accent than I do.
If I look what my own ancestors were five generations ago, here's what I find : catalans, bretons (who, according to Bernik, I shouldn't count as french people), corses (I have no clue as to whether they thought they were french or not), alsaciens (between 1870 and 1914 that means German), normands, kabyles.

So, in theory, my neighbour is "more" french than I will ever be. And still, I guess he is the one people like bernik would "send back" to his country, while they wouldn't even ask me where I come from.


----------



## jokker

bernik said:
			
		

> If we go back one thousand years, a lot of us are immigrants, but I don't think this is a good argument in favor of immigration from outside Europe.
> 
> I am a traditionalist, not an admirer of Hitler, and I would just like Europe to stay European a little longer.


The Europe today is not the one one thousand years ago nor the one ten thousand years ago, which means things and history have been changing. Hence, today's Europe and today's America and today's human world.

Since you know that things are different from they were one thousand years ago, which means _your Europe, the one you like today_, comes from evolving and changing, which again says history is changing.

Then, how can you like Europe to stay European _a little longer?  _(Actually, you seem have tried to say that you wish Europe won't be changed by immigrants--here, the immigrants only refer to those who are not white, if I am not misunderstanding. In other words, Europe can be changed, of course, only by _those white that you approve._)  Maybe if you were someone in power, you could do something to accomplish your hope _for a very short period, e.g.,Hitler._--form all human history point of view.

But still, history is changing in its way and we human beings surely can make its way towards a better direction. If you look back the human history, you may find that every individual hopes to have equal human rights and respect, no matter which color he/she has. I guess that includes you. Just think of that what if you were the immigrant that you detest.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Was that opportunity not rescinded some time previously. I know I had two families of cousins in Tyrone born between the late 40s and early 60s who had the option to chose British or Irish citizenship. I thought the British had us close that off some time ago. I could be wrong.


 
Under the law of the Irish Republic, anyone born in the island of Ireland prior to 1 January 2005 is an Irish citizen, or entitled to be so. So a person born in the Six or Twenty-Six Counties can have an Irish passport if she/he wants one. 

Under the Belfast Agreement (1998), anyone born in Northern Ireland has the right to identify as British or Irish or both, and have an Irish, British or both passports.

To be an Irish citizen, a person born in Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 needs to have at least one parent who is an Irish citizen, or legally resident for 3 out of the previous 4 years.

If one of your parents is a Irish citizen born in Ireland, you are an Irish citizen no matter where you are born.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/migration_and_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html


----------



## la reine victoria

I have been so apalled by your tirade of invective, Bernik, that I have thus far declined to contribute to this discussion. Vituperarive railing isn't normally in my vocabulary.

However, whilst watching a television programme with a *Pakistani* friend yesterday, we were both deeply moved by a story from Leeds, Yorkshire, England. That city, together with nearby Bradford, has one of the highest populations of Moslem Pakistani immigrants in the UK. Sorry I can't give you actual statistics.

The 'moving story' concerned a 'failing' Methodist church (low attendance level) and the pressing need of the local Moslem community for a centre for worship and community activities. To solve the problem the two faiths united under the same roof, each worshipping in their own way. The 'coming together' of these two religious groups, and the mutual benefit they enjoyed in community activities, had to be seen to be believed. My friend had tears in his eyes. Pakistani women were teaching *white* English women the art of their wonderful cuisine. Did you know that curry is now considered to be the British Nation's favourite dish, beating the traditional 'fish and chips'? Even Queen Elizabeth reportedly has a favorite place for munching curry - the upscale Veeraswamy Restaurant in London's Regent Street. (She has good taste - I have eaten there myself.) 

But I digress. Other shared activities in this united church are manifold; perhaps the most touching was the toddlers' pre-school play group. There is no discord amongst small children of different racial backgrounds. To see them happily playing and learning together was a joy.

You claim 





> By the way, I am not french at all


 and yet 





> The real reason why I want the immigrants out of here is because I want my country back.


 
I don't know where your native country is but I assume you are an immigrant or born of immigrant parents. Since you want all immigrants out of France, send me a PM and I will happily pay for air tickets for you (and your family, if appropriate) to be repatriated. I am sure the courteous and adorable Bretons (of whom I have several friends of long years standing) would gather at the airport in droves to wish you 'bon voyage'.

Interesting to note that Jean-Marie le Pen was born in one of my favourite places, La-Trinité-sur-Mer, Brittany. What an exception to the Breton character he is. He is still looking for new members for his National Front Party. If you meet the criteria I'm sure you will be made most welcome.

Good luck to you.

LRV

Moderators: Feel free to delete me and condemn me to eternal hell fire if I have broken the Forum rules. 'Like for like' is my motto right now. Bernik has made some totally crazy and outrageous statements, including gross insults.


----------



## cuchuflete

For the benefit of anyone who still needs statistics to aid the debunking of racist rot--

Some person in this conversation referred to the US as previously free from the nefarious influence of immigration, and further stated that it once had a more homogeneous population. That is absurd. That is factually nothing but hogwash.

To counteract the effects of such pure, uniformed, incorrect, fact-free nonsense..

H.L. Mencken, The American Language, Fourth Edition, 1946, pp212-213:



> The great flow of ...immigration to the United States, ...Between 1776 and 1846..less than 1,600,000 immigrants from overseas had come into the country, though its population had increased from 3,000,000 to 20,000,000


 For those who are statistically challenged, or numerically outrageous...this means that 9-10
% of population growth in the period was due to immigration!

Mencken continues...





> ...by 1927, the total number (of immigrants) arriving since 1820 reached 37 million. In 1930 there were 13,366,407 white persons in the United States who had been born in foreign countries, 16, 999,221 whose parents were both foreign-born, and 8,361,965 of mixed parentage--a total of 38,727,593, *or more than 35% of the whole white population.*


Mencken's primary source was the U.S. Census Bureau.

If anyone, statistically inclined or otherwise, would care to consult the same source today, they would find that immigrants are a considerably lower portion of the current population of over 298 million persons.  

In short, the statements about immigration made by Bernik are unfounded, false, defective, deceptive, and not worthy of serious consideration.

Some people cannot be swayed by facts, so they invent their own _notions_ of what is real.


----------



## Benjy

i just wanted to say something. basically, i nor any of the moderators have thus far censured anything in this thread. as the starter thereof i do feel slightly responsible for the course it takes. i have found the discussion fascinating, and have taken away some good things. however, i won't condone people ripping chunks out of each others character.

we shall all disagree, without beeing disagreable.

don't make me pull out my tipex 

ben


----------



## DDT

Aupick said:
			
		

> I love France. I love its culture, its history, its people. Immigrants are an important part of that, always have been and always will be.



So do I.

I love cultural richness all over the world and I consider myself lucky because I was born in a period where people can travel everywhere and exchange experiences, cultural traditions...that's part of what makes my life worth living

DDT


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> we shall all disagree, without beeing disagreable.
> 
> don't make me pull out my tipex
> 
> ben



Ahh, but Ben, some people find facts disagreable!  So should we delete the facts in the interest of a harmonious discussion?
What should we do about xenophobia?  It causes allergic reactions among some thinking people.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Benjy said:
			
		

> i have found the discussion fascinating, and have taken away some good things.
> 
> ben



I've learned something good too. I get the impression, from reading this thread, that most people just try to get along with their neighbors regardless of class, race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.

Most of the messages are very positive and restore my faith in human decency.


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. currently has one of its lowest rates of unemployment ever, in spite of centuries or decades of immigration.


 
The US also has one of the highest rates of imprisonment. 
The US incarcerates its citizens at a rate six times higher than Canada, England, and France, seven times higher than Switzerland and Holland, and ten times Sweden and Finland. 

These rates are so high that they affect unemployment statistics.


----------



## Benjy

> Ahh, but Ben, some people find facts disagreable! So should we delete the facts in the interest of a harmonious discussion?
> What should we do about xenophobia? It causes allergic reactions among some thinking people.



mmm good questions, perhaps you might consider opening up another thread 




			
				ben said:
			
		

> don't you think having brought all these people to france to make up for the post war demographic deficit in the work force it's a bit rediculous to turn around and say right, pack your things up and clear out?





> No. And they were not needed in the first place.



i guess this bears out a bit what you were saying  to say that the massive discrepency between the avaliable work force and the possibility for economic growth that les trentes glorieuses represented didn't exist is just brilliant.


----------



## GenJen54

bernik said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter to me whether criminals are responsible for their acts or not. You can always find mitigating circumstances. Maybe we should consider it is a normal thing to commit crime when your income is less than 1000 € per month. But, as long as we can see that immigration increases the crime rate, it is a valid argument against immigration. And when you visit a European prison, you can see that most inmates are not European.


Hmmmm.  Strange.  The majority of American prisons are filled with - gasp! - Americans.  Don't quite get your point. 

Here's a quick scenario. I have a friend who lives in France. In 1993 she married a Frenchman whom she had dated for three years, after having moved to France in 1989. My friend and her husband have had two little boys and she has been working as a non French-citizen in the managmeent of large French cosmetics firm. 

Last year, her husband died in a tragic, unexpected accident. She remains in France, I suppose, according to you, "taking up" a "French" job. She pays taxes, is a productive citizen, raises her children, participates in the community. She holds two passports.

Should she have to pick up her life and move back to her country with her French children because her husband, a "true" European, is now deceased?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Brioche said:
			
		

> The US also has one of the highest rates of imprisonment.
> The US incarcerates its citizens at a rate six times higher than Canada, England, and France, seven times higher than Switzerland and Holland, and ten times Sweden and Finland.
> 
> These rates are so high that they affect unemployment statistics.



What you would need to show is correlation. The US has a lot things. I could blame the high rate of incarceration on the high percentage of US presidents who have been Episcopalian, on the long border with Canada, on the fact we spell "color" with a U. But without showing a relationship, they are just three true facts which are completely unrelated until it's shown that they are indeed related.


----------



## Outsider

*Bernik*, you say that others are statistically-challenged, but you wrote something which is historically very inaccurate:



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> European societies used to be homogeneous, real, cohesive societies


That's not true. In the past, European societies were much more heterogeneous than they are today. Just think of how many centuries the minority languages of France managed to survive, in spite of the elite's preference for the Parisian dialect.

When did the minority languages of France start do die out? In the 5th century? In the 13th century? In the 18th century?... No! It was in the present, in the 20th century, that the decisive blows were struck. European countries have not been getting more heterogeneous, they've been getting more homogeneous. The dark-skinned folk with turbans you see in the big cities give you a different idea, because they stand out more, but that's a superficial, misleading impression.



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> I am myself a "français de papier". I have french papers although I did not ask for them and I have no use for france. When you think of France, you should make the distinction between what I call "Francie", the territories around Paris that used to be ethnically french, and the rest of the hexagon. (An hexagon is a six-sided polygon, and french geographers used to argue that the map of France could be fitted into an hexagon -- well, an hexagon with a few dents).
> Until not long ago, the whole southern part of France spoke languages that were probably closer to Spanish or Italian than to the dialects spoken in northern France. I think the disappearance of those languages is very recent, it dates back to the 20th century. The french administration had a policy of creating "French people" by destroying their identities. And now the administration is trying something even more daring. They are in the process of replacing the European population by third world immigrants ! It will be interesting to see if the experiment "succeeds", or if the whole thing collapses. Anyway, what will be left won't look like Europe.
> 
> In France, I think the immigration policy is more or less in continuation of the french tradition of having the state work against the people. But I know the same thing is happening in other countries. In the Netherlands, I hear that the four largest cities will have muslim majorities by 2010 (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht). European madness !


It looks to me like you now have two paths in front of you. Either you assist the French state in its policy of homogenization, supporting the expulsion or forced integration of North Africans, Middle Easterners and other recent immigrants -- thus justifying your own forced integration -- or you reject the idea of forced integrations once and for all, and start fighting for a France where everyone, Bretons, immigrants, and descendants of immigrants, has as much right to exist and to be themselves as upper-class Parisians do. This is the choice you have before you.


----------



## srsh

bernik said:
			
		

> But if you ask a Chinese living in China, or a Mexican living in Mexico, I bet their views on immigration to their countries will be closer to mine than to yours.


 

What? Are you serious? Im a Mexican living in Mexico and I DO NOT share your views on immigration, actually I feel really offended because of everything you are saying. I have family living in the US, they are good people working hard to get a better life, I refuse to think that they are destroying the US. Come on!

And yes, I know a lot of people who came to my country from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. and they all are nice hard-working people just trying to get a better life, they are so NOT looking for trouble.

The same happens in Europe... I wonder who is more a third-world person: someone from Pakistan trying to find in France a better future for his family, or someone who is caught in an 'I-blame-immigrants-for-all-social-problems' bubble?

You want immigrants out of *your* country? Did you buy the whole country? may I see the invoice please?


----------



## geve

Benjy said:
			
		

> [...] i have found the discussion fascinating, and have taken away some good things. [...]


Well I'm sure glad you did, that means all this was not lost for everyone... 
Now aren't you happy you opened the Pandora box, hmm ?


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:
			
		

> Well I'm sure glad you did, that means all this was not lost for everyone...
> Now aren't you happy you opened the Pandora box, hmm ?



Surely it is better to stir the pot and see what lies within it than to pass by wondering?
I'm a born stirrer. I also like to pick up stones and logs and see what crawls out, I always have, it's funny to see the creepy-crawlies stunned by the light of day, and scurry off seeking more darkness to shroud themselves in. Things seen in the light of day are never are scary as you might have thought.


----------



## GenJen54

*Mod Plea: *Let's all stir ourselves back to the topic at hand, shall we?


----------



## tmoore

Hello Cuchuflete !
In your message you answer the following to this statement#5 << Crime soars >> I await proof from you. I think you are absolutely wrong. Crime rates in a major city  in the US have declined in recent years, along with increases in the immigrant population in the same cities. You are wrong

I believe that you are wrong, here is proof

http://www.usbc.org/profiles/2004profiles/12sanctuary.htm


----------



## tmoore

Cuchuflete , Here is another link for more proof, it is a little scary to see how many latin gangs operate accross the nation

http://www.milnet.com/mex-nat.html


----------



## bernik

Aupick: _"Your country?"

_srsh: _"You want immigrants out of your country? Did you buy the whole country? may I see the invoice please?"

_Cuchu: _"I welcome every earthling who is nice to come and live in my country"_


Cuchu, I have a suggestion for you... Your country, err, sorry, the place where you live, has an unofficial national anthem called "My country,' tis of thee" : 

    My country,' tis of thee, 
    sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing; 
    land where my fathers died, 
    land of the pilgrims' pride, 
    from every mountainside let freedom ring! 

My suggestion is that you should write to the White House, and ask them to put new words on the song.

Anyone's country, ' tis of thee, 
Sweet land of immigrants, of thee I sing
Land where everyone's welcome, 
Free passports, anyone ?
And so on.


----------



## timpeac

bernik said:
			
		

> Anyone's country, ' tis of thee,
> Sweet land of immigrants, of thee I sing
> Land where everyone's welcome,
> Free passports, anyone ?
> And so on.


 
I would welcome that day. If there was a vote tomorrow to remove all border controls around the world, I would vote for it in an instant.


----------



## cuchuflete

tmoore said:
			
		

> Hello Cuchuflete !
> In your message you answer the following to this statement#5 << Crime soars >> I await proof from you. I think you are absolutely wrong. Crime rates in a major city in the US have declined in recent years, along with increases in the immigrant population in the same cities. You are wrong
> 
> I believe that you are wrong, here is proof
> 
> http://www.usbc.org/profiles/2004profiles/12sanctuary.htm




I can only suggest that you choke down your vituperation long enough to read what I wrote, digest it, and then read what's in your own link.  They treat different topics.   I stand by my statement that crime rates in major cities have declined.  Your article does not address that fact.  It attempts, with sloppy sensationalism and conclusions not founded in fact, to blame all the world's ills on illegal aliens.

Yes, I agree with the general thrust of the article, when it digresses into facts, that some illegal aliens commit crimes.
So do some native born residents.  Even that diatribe never once blames a single crime on a legal immigrant.

Read it again.  It never blames a single crime on a legal immigrant!

It never talks about, let alone concludes anything at all, about overall crime rates in major cities.

You may wish to disagree with me.  Your throwing unrelated material around does not consitute fact, nor useful supposition.

It is noise.  It is a red herring designed to obfuscate and frighten.  It doesn't work.

If you have pertinent facts...I'm willing to learn from you.


----------



## cuchuflete

tmoore said:
			
		

> Cuchuflete , Here is another link for more proof, it is a little scary to see how many latin gangs operate accross the nation
> 
> http://www.milnet.com/mex-nat.html



By the way, before I address the latest piece of political propaganda...allow me to quote from the previous link YOU provided:


> November 29, 200*4
> 
> * This year, Governor Baldacci of Maine signed a sanctuary order for that state,    which means they will be recording their own illegal alien crime wave in the    coming months.



Well guess what has happened here in Maine, where I live?
Nothing!   Where is your proof?   These scare tactic assertions are good for causing fear and prejudice.  They have proved to be anything except proof.  The 'illegal alien crime wave' has not happened.

Nice try...but calling something this stupid "proof" doesn't make iit proof of anything except the venemous bigotry of the writer, who is good at twisting numbers and pretending that they are facts when they are not anything but bad logic coupled with suppositions and fears.


----------



## bernik

Geve: _"Sorry, bernik, but could we just stick to the topic"_

I know! Any criticism of the immigration policy can only be off topic. But I just felt like giving my opinion anyway. 

Benjy: _"as the starter thereof i do feel slightly responsible for the course it takes"_

Don't ! I could have used almost any other thread. Although I tried to use one that was clearly in support of immigration.

I have read a few of the threads on your cultural forum, and I found that many of them deal with immigration (sometimes indirectly) and take for granted that everyone else can only want more of it. In the real world, most people resent immigration, but the average person will just refrain from saying too much, for fear of causing bad feelings.

If you don't want to hear from people like me, just add another rule to the forum: "No criticism of immigration !". At least, let's be honest.


----------



## cuchuflete

Now, onward to debunk Tmoore's latest bit of so-called proof of the terrible harm immigrants cause.

The Milnet (whacko? racist? Rambo in suburban golf pants?)
article begins by stating the basis for its entire case against 30 million people:

"The case in question  is the nationwide arrest and detainment of some 100 illegal aliens who are mexican"

Got that?  100 people, all of whom happen to be at least accused of being illegally present in the US.  There is no proof that they are, in fact, here illegally.  You will have to take that on faith...which Milnet readers must be very ready to do...after all, the article agrees with their position.

Let's slog through this er...reliable? ...source of wisdom:

"And there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that multi-state latino gangs recruit and maintain large numbers of illegal aliens, upwards past 65%."

The amount of 'evidence' is so overwhelming that the author neglects to present any of it!   The author must be an immigrant: he cannot write a simple declarative sentence in grammatically correct English.  And he can't prove a point by stating that there is evidence, because he doesn't reveal it.
"Upwards past 65%" of What?

Recruit and maintain?  What does that mean?   
This piece of trash hate journal can't even get the simplest facts straight.  It refers to...

"  The U.S. Senator from Georgia Sam Zamarripa (D-DeKalb)"   Helloooooooooo!  These idiots can't even tell the difference between a *State* Senator from Georgia's 36th district and a member of the Senate of the United States of 
America!

Sorry...I don't have the time or the inclination to rebut every bit of fact-free stupidity in that so-called "proof".  It's garbage.

If someone wants to read it, uncritically, moving their lips, and not thinking, I cannot prevent them from doing so.

If you want to address "proof" directly to me, please be sure it's worth reading and thinking about...not more drivel like this silly racism disguised as research.

Phluph and trash is what it is, not proof.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bernik said:
			
		

> If you don't want to hear from people like me, just add another rule to the forum: "No criticism of immigration !". At least, let's be honest.


Hi Bernik,

You have been participating without restraint.

There are no plans to create a rule for you. We won't give you yet another cause to feel victimized.

You are welcome to dislike immigration.

Yes, at least, let's be honest. You don't like immigration because of fright. You have presented accusations without substantiating fact.

You have defined my country as European!  I guess the tectonic plates move slowly for some people.

 You have suggested that immigrants go back where they came from.
I suppose the idea of political asylum is repugnant to you.
You would, therefore, have preferred that the enemies of Jorge Videla stay in Argentina to be 'disappeared', that no East German should have risked his life to escape to the west,
and that Brittany should be allowed to send it's ancestors back where they came from...

Sweet dreams.


----------



## timpeac

Bernik - As others have pointed out Brittany used to belong to Britain. Would you please vacate it and go back to where you came from? All those annoying French farmers that roam around Brittany are selfishly stopping us from buying a nice cheap second home. Or is the right to consider yourself a member of a certain place time-bound? You seem to draw some strange distinction between immigration within Europe and immigration from outside it. How convenient.

(ps - please leave the aga - they are so kitsch!).


----------



## cuchuflete

A little humor never hurt a weak debate...





			
				bernik said:
			
		

> My suggestion is that you should write to the White House, and ask them to put new words on the song. They are busy telling themselves and all else who might listen how smart they are, and how the war in Vietnam
> Iraq is going very well, thankyouverymuch, so I don't think they will have time for such suggestions.
> 
> 
> Anyone's country, ' tis of thee,
> Sweet land of immigrants, of thee I sing Read my earlier posts...most Americans are either immigrants, or descendents of immigrants, so this is correct.  Thank you for improving the song.
> Land where everyone's welcome, The Immigration and Naturalization Service might object.  They are from the government, and you and I agree that governments do some foolish things at times.
> Free passports, anyone ? Sorry, we have to pay for them.
> And so on.


----------



## DDT

bernik said:
			
		

> In the real world, most people resent immigration, but the average person will just refrain from saying too much, for fear of causing bad feelings.



This really made me laugh. Heartily.

How can you guess what the average person think? Should it be like you stated extreme right would rule all over the world. Sorry to inform you it's not the case  

Joking aside, let me guess that perhaps we normally hang around with very different people because none of my friends or acquaintances would support/share your position

DDT


----------



## bernik

timpeac said:
			
		

> Bernik - As others have pointed out Brittany used to belong to Britain. Would you please vacate it and go back to where you came from?


 In fact, my ancestors were peacefully living in Britain, when they were attacked by bands of hooligans who called themselves Angles and Saxons. I hear a few bad mannered Irishmen also caused some trouble. So, my ancestors moved safely to the continent, and renamed the place "Brittany". I am sorry they couldn't push your ancestors back into the sea, and I am sorry if they caused any inconvenience to the people who were already living on the continent. But now, I think it is too late to make complaints. So, I am not asking you to go back to Germany. By the way, your ancestors did not conquer Britain so that you could give it to Africans.


----------



## timpeac

bernik said:
			
		

> In fact, my ancestors were peacefully living in Britain, when they were attacked by bands of hooligans who called themselves Angles and Saxons. I hear a few bad mannered Irishmen also caused some trouble. So, my ancestors moved safely to the continent, and renamed the place "Brittany". I am sorry they couldn't push your ancestors back into the sea, and I am sorry if they caused any inconvenience to the people who were already living on the continent. But now, I think it is too late to make complaints. So, I am not asking you to go back to Germany. By the way, your ancestors did not conquer Britain so that you could give it to Africans.


 
All of which shows that immigration and emigration mixing and shaking has gone on for a very long time. I don't see why it should upset you now. If there is a job in a factory down the road from where you live I really don't see why you care whether the person doing it was born 5 miles or 5000 miles away. Nor do I see how you can meaningfully draw a line past which immigration is fine and the descendants are in some way "acceptable". It is a serious question - how far back, in your opinion, should someone's ancestry be firmly set in one present day country for them not to be expected to be repatriated? What if they have grandparents from several countries?


----------



## bernik

DDT said:
			
		

> Should it be like you stated extreme right would rule all over the world.


 Have a look at the immigration rules in Mexico and Morocco. I could probably live with the immigration policy they have. And I don't suppose those countries are ruled by extreme right governments.

_"none of my friends or acquaintances would support/share your position"_

I wish we could have a referendum on immigration to show you.

How come immigrants complain so much about job discrimination, if everyone loves them ?

_"I love cultural richness all over the world"_

Fine, you should go to Seine Saint Denis !
You will become incredibly rich.


----------



## bernik

timpeac said:
			
		

> immigration and emigration mixing and shaking has gone on for a very long time.


 Until now, people have always tried to protect the society they lived in. What is happening now has no precedent. What will you do once the whole population of the planet has been mixed together ? Do you think we'll have universal happiness ? I don't think so.


----------



## bernik

Outsider said:
			
		

> It looks to me like you now have two paths in front of you. Either you assist the French state in its policy of homogenization, supporting the expulsion or forced integration of North Africans, Middle Easterners and other recent immigrants -- thus justifying your own forced integration -- or you reject the idea of forced integrations once and for all, and start fighting for a France where everyone, Bretons, immigrants, and descendants of immigrants, has as much right to exist and to be themselves as upper-class Parisians do. This is the choice you have before you.


 Just think of the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty. Quebec's premier blamed the defeat on "money and the ethnic vote", and he was perfectly right. Immigrants voted against Quebec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_and_the_ethnic_vote
France won't allow any referendum on Brittany's sovereignty, but if there was one, immigrants would obviously vote against it. I think the result of immigration is that even white Bretons will be less and less aware of being Breton. They will more and more think of themselves as just whites.


----------



## timpeac

bernik said:
			
		

> Until now, people have always tried to protect the society they lived in. What is happening now has no precedent. What will you do once the whole population of the planet has been mixed together ? Do you think we'll have universal happiness ? I don't think so.


 
I think it would be great! Why wouldn't we be happy?


----------



## la reine victoria

> Do you think we'll have universal happiness ?​


 

To my knowledge we've never had it, nor are we ever likely to.​ 


_"It appeared to me obvious that the happiness of mankind should be the aim of all action, and I discovered to my surprise that there were those who thought otherwise."_
Bertrand Russell


LRV


----------



## cuchuflete

Still awaiting proof to support the sweeping generalizations...





			
				bernik said:
			
		

> In fact, my ancestors were peacefully living Maybe they were rude ruffians.  How do you know they fled because they were peaceable.  Could it be that they were fleeing for their lives after robbing their neighbors?
> Remember, oral history can be very innaccurate, and handed-down family legends often omit the details about the uncle who was a highwayman, the father who beat his wife and children...  One really doesn't know for sure.  in Britain, when they were attacked by bands of hooligans See, that's the beauty of immigration.  So many of the modern, stable, cultured British are, according to you, descendents of immigrant hooligans.  Just give immigrants a little time in their new place, and they surprise you by turning respectable.
> Some even vote Conservative. who called themselves Angles and Saxons. I hear a few bad mannered Irishmen also caused some trouble. So, my ancestors moved safely  Ah yes. Move safely.  Why not be brave and honest.  They emigrated.   They were immigrants.  Maybe usurpers as well.  I bet the locals complained that they were hurting property values, ruining the neighborhood, didn't have any manners, and certainly didn't respect the local ways.   to the continent, and renamed the place "Brittany". I am sorry they couldn't push your ancestors back into the sea, and I am sorry if they caused any inconvenience to the people who were already living on the continent. But now, I think it is too late to make complaints.  It's never too late to complain.  You have proved this repeatedly.  So, I am not asking you to go back to Germany. By the way, your ancestors did not conquer Britain so that you could give it to Africans.



Sore loser?


----------



## cuchuflete

bernik said:
			
		

> I think the result of immigration is that even white Bretons will be less and less aware of being Breton. They will more and more think of themselves as just whites.


And...through the marvels of evolution, that primitive life form may continue on its trajectory, and some day they may think of themselves as humans. 

Just think, no more petty, xenophobic tribalism.  Yes, that tribe has a real future.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bernik said:
			
		

> By the way, your ancestors did not conquer Britain so that you could give it to Africans.


Since we are talking about giving things away..Whose grandparents gave anyone the right to take Africa?
Payback's a bear!


----------



## Cath.S.

Bernik said:
			
		

> I would like you to explain something: why is the extreme left clamoring for more immigration in European countries, and at the same time, supporting Iraqi "insurgents" against western imperialism ? *Obviously you did not get my drift when I mentioned newcomers wielding swords. If Maghrebins and other immigrants were coming to France in Abram tanks, and overthrew our government, "we the extreme left" would doubtessly see them in a different light.  *(the BBC likes to speak of Iraqi terrorists as insurgents). *I never thought of the BBC as representing the extreme left. Well, if that's the extreme left, I don't want to ever meet the far right*   Why do you think third-world countries must be protected from any Western intervention, while the Western world must be drowned in third-world immigration ? *Because the West is dominant and because the weak have to be protected from the strong, not the other way round.*


Sorry if I was late answering you.


----------



## maxiogee

bernik,

In case you have forgotten, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed you back on page 3 of this thread...



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> bernik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If until recently, you had a policy of granting citizenship to anyone who came to Northern Ireland to have a baby, it is enough to show that Irish people are as crazy as anyone else in Europe. I don't understand why a referendum was necessary to change the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? What people were coming to Northern Ireland to have babies so that the parents could get citizenship?
> What do you know of any of this? You are talking a load of misunderstood, second-hand, rubbish. You don't even seem to know what _Ireland_ is!
> This is typical of reactionary extremists of many types. Spout a load of claptrap and hope you won't be challenged to give examples. Well I'm asking you now to either give details to back up that statement, or else just admit that you're just a racist bigot.
Click to expand...



And one further point.
You expound at length how you are a Breton and not French - are you so sure of your genealogy that you can claim not to have any taint of 'foreignness' in there? How many generations back would you have to go to be 'pure'?


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How many generations back would you have to go to be 'pure'?


 
Yes, that's one of the many other questions that several of us has asked that does not appear worthy of an answer. Or does it take time to dig a tunnel out of a dead-end?


----------



## Brioche

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> What you would need to show is correlation. The US has a lot things. I could blame the high rate of incarceration on the high percentage of US presidents who have been Episcopalian, on the long border with Canada, on the fact we spell "color" with a U. But without showing a relationship, they are just three true facts which are completely unrelated until it's shown that they are indeed related.


 
The correlation?
If you are in jail, you are not in the civilian labour force, and thus not part of the unemployment statistics.

Most the people in US jail are young, poorly-educated, non-white males.
If they were not in jail, most of them would be unemployed.

Thus the official figures for unemployment in the US are skewed by the fact of high incarceration.

Some US views on the matter:
http://www.facts1.com/ThreeStrikes/Stats/#Unemployment
*Unemployment rate would increase 1 and 2 percentage points if inmates turned loose.*

*Another reason politicians want to lock up people: If the 1.6 million inmates in U.S. prisons and jails were let loose on the job market, the unemployment rate would jump between 1 and 2 percentage points, economists say. LA-Times, 10/9/96.*


----------



## Outsider

bernik said:
			
		

> Just think of the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty. Quebec's premier blamed the defeat on "money and the ethnic vote", and he was perfectly right. Immigrants voted against Quebec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_and_the_ethnic_vote
> France won't allow any referendum on Brittany's sovereignty, but if there was one, immigrants would obviously vote against it. I think the result of immigration is that even white Bretons will be less and less aware of being Breton. They will more and more think of themselves as just whites.


Did you read that page in full?



> During the 2003 election, however, surveys showed that the non-working students "children of Bill 101" were slightly more voting along the lines of the francophone majority, confirming that the determinant factor in Quebec elections and referenda is not the ethnic origin of the voter, but the language he/she uses, hence the suggestion that "ethnic vote" is not appropriate to describe the phenomenon. The vote is clearly split along linguistic lines, non-francophones voting almost invariably for the party or option opposed to separatism, which they often consider a French-Canadian ethnic, if not chauvinistic, issue.


But it's interesting to see how much autonomy Québec has nonetheless achieved within the Canadian state, including linguistic autonomy. Breton nationalists can only dream of a similar defeat for themselves.  Now ask yourself if Québec got that far by promoting a homoneneous Canada, or by supporting the rights of minorities.



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> I have read a few of the threads on your cultural forum, and I found that many of them deal with immigration (sometimes indirectly) and take for granted that everyone else can only want more of it. In the real world, most people resent immigration, but the average person will just refrain from saying too much, for fear of causing bad feelings.


For the record, I would never and have never claimed that everyone can only want more of immigration.
I know very well that mass immigration creates serious problems, for the host country and for the immigrants themselves. I just don't see xenophobia solving those problems.


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche's logic and facts are sound.

That said, without further statistics--which our friend Bernik likes to refer to rather obliquely, but never produces (!)-- this casts absolutely no light on the discussion of immigration.

If you are in jail in the U.S. you are, as Brioche has pointed out, likely to be--

-poor
-young
-non-white
-male

I don't see the word 'immigrant' in that list.

I'm not saying that the US population of incarcerated young, non-white, poor males does not include any immigrants. I am saying that we have seen nothing as yet to indicate that immigrants are disproportionately represented in the prison population. Therefore, Bernik's accusations are still floating around, unsubstantiated. 

As a generality, and paying all due respect to the fanatic and xenophobic articles from some extreme right-wing nuthatches 
cited by another forero, some crimes are committed by illegal aliens...that is, people who have illegally entered the US. When such people are apprehended for a crime, they are normally expelled from the country. Capital crimes are an exception. Thus, their numbers among the incarcerated are not apt to be very high.

In summary, while I agree with Brioche's post, it does not address immigration or the effects of immigration.  



			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> The correlation?
> If you are in jail, you are not in the civilian labour force, and thus not part of the unemployment statistics.
> 
> Most the people in US jail are young, poorly-educated, non-white males.
> If they were not in jail, most of them would be unemployed.
> 
> Thus the official figures for unemployment in the US are skewed by the fact of high incarceration.
> 
> Some US views on the matter:
> http://www.facts1.com/ThreeStrikes/Stats/#Unemployment
> *Unemployment rate would increase 1 and 2 percentage points if inmates turned loose.*
> 
> *Another reason politicians want to lock up people: If the 1.6 million inmates in U.S. prisons and jails were let loose on the job market, the unemployment rate would jump between 1 and 2 percentage points, economists say. LA-Times, 10/9/96.*


----------



## jokker

bernik said:
			
		

> Until now, people have always tried to protect the society they lived in. *What is happening now has no precedent*.


That's why no one can predict history, but only to draw lessons from it. I wouldn't like to see a second Hitler or any war. And I believe how people think and act will lead the history.



> What will you do once *the whole population of the planet has been mixed together* ? Do you think we'll have universal happiness ? I don't think so.


The Earth is very big to a single individual, but very small to all people living in it. *We* all live in this Earth and only have this earth. What you have said seem to hope to isolate _your Europe _from other parts of this Earth in some way...And I think in some way the whole population of the planet is mixed...


----------



## jokker

bernik said:
			
		

> What will you do *once the whole population of the planet has been mixed together* ?


I forgot to say that that's exactly the way how history has been evolving--different races and populations mixed again and again, and are still mixing. No matter Eastern or Western, or past and future. Haven't you read history?


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> What will you do once the whole population of the planet has been mixed together ?



I'll have my preserved-in-a-bottle brain driven down to the post office and claim my very, very, old age pension! 

What will you do? Build a big wall around Brittany and hide behind it, casting aspersions on those outside?


----------



## tmoore

Hello Cuchuflete , it is me again
First of all , I was not aware that I was vituperating anybody, but if you took it in such a manner , I apologize
It is evident that your opinion and mine are very far apart, But you have the right to differ and so do I.
I am not a racist or a xenophobe,I have lived in nine different countries and visited that many more, from Asia to N. Africa ,Europe and USA, the reason I say this, because I have lived among other races, have friends from other races, my daughter attended chinese schools,where she was the only non Asian, and it was not easy at times,  Philipino school and British school, Also american school, and we know what is to be a minority.

When I came to this country, many years ago as a dependant (My husband is american) I had to fill out a big amount of paper work containing all kinds of questions, my vaccinations had to be up to date, and so it was in every country I lived or visited. Even my dog had to have his papers and shots in order, and then be in quarantine, ( as much as 3 months in Hong Kong) 

Let me say that while a do not have a problem with legal immigration, I do have a problem with ILEGAL immigration, I will give you my thoughts on this, When ilegal immigrants come into this country they do so without a criminal backgroun check, therefore we do not know what kind of people comes in, they do not have a health background check, . With the good also enters the bad .Accordind to Dr. Cosmen PhD and lawyer describes this" The infectious diseases now spreading accross
the United States, diseases that our country wiped out years ago such as Malaria, Polio, Tuberculosis and Hepatitis and rare diseases of third world poverty, such as leprosy, Chagas Disease,and Dengue Fever are coming in. The Center for Disease Control reports 38.291 California cases of Tuberculosis, that included Multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, which is 60% fatal and for which treatment cost 200.000 to 1.200.000 per patient.

You do not seem to have much of a problem in Maine, but here in my state en 1.990 the hispanic population was 78.000 or 1.2 % , by 2.000
it swelled up to 397.000 or 4.7%., and that is nothing compared to Arizona where Governor Napolitano had to call in the National Guard, Governor Richardson of New Mexico is having similar problems, so is Texas and California.

Here in NC we have Hispanic gangs in Raleigh, Charlotte, Greensboro and Durham with branches all over the state. While I agree with you that we have domestic gangs, my question is , Do we need added ones ?

A majority of people in the US are opposed to ilegal immigration, if you do not believe it look at the polls.

I am sorry,I guess I am not a bleeding heart democrat, But I also blame Republicans for not trying to control it,. Both parties are affraid 
of not being political correct or they are simply counting on their votes


----------



## bernik

My first reply to Jokker was deleted by Zebedee. This time, I am taking extra care, so that the moderators will see how it relates to Jokker's point of view. (I hope !).

Jokker, you think that the will of history is that everything must end in a big melting pot, and there is no use resisting history.
But history also tells us that everybody is going to die. And yet, I don't expect you to take a big jump into the sea so that history will be pleased. It is the same with every civilization. You know it will eventually disappear, but there is no reason to rush things.


----------



## cuchuflete

Rehola Tmoore,

I have no problem with you, or your personal experience, or your attitudes.  My sole issue with you is that this conversation has been about immigration, and not that particular subset--illegal immigration--that you speak of here.   The ariticles you cited as "proof" of the perils of immigration, had two problems:

1- They were not about immigration.  They were about illegal entrants into the US.  These are distinct subjects.
2- The articles themselves were badly researched, badly written, polemical, and inflammatory, and displayed some fundamental prejudices.

I have no doubt that there are serious problems associated with, or, to be blunt, caused by *some* illegal immigrants, not only in the U.S., but in all countries.   You and I agree on that point.

I object to pseudo-scholarship and pseudo-journalism  whose intent is to stir up fear and hatred.  I would welcome factual discussion of the problems of illegal immigration, especially if these were presented in honest context:  Of all immigrants in the US, how many (what %) are estimated to be here illegally?  Of those thought to be illegal immigrants, what % are involved in crime, carry serious diseases, etc.   

I believe that such a factual presentation would support your valid concerns, without feeding the racists and hate-mongers who would be more than happy to take things out of context, and use them to preach hatred.

With respect,
Un saludo,
cuchu


			
				tmoore said:
			
		

> Hello Cuchuflete , it is me again
> First of all , I was not aware that I was vituperating anybody, but if you took it in such a manner , I apologize
> It is evident that your opinion and mine are very far apart, But you have the right to differ and so do I.
> I am not a racist or a xenophobe,I have lived in nine different countries and visited that many more, from Asia to N. Africa ,Europe and USA, the reason I say this, because I have lived among other races, have friends from other races, my daughter attended chinese schools,where she was the only non Asian, and it was not easy at times, Philipino school and British school, Also american school, and we know what is to be a minority.
> 
> When I came to this country, many years ago as a dependant (My husband is american) I had to fill out a big amount of paper work containing all kinds of questions, my vaccinations had to be up to date, and so it was in every country I lived or visited. Even my dog had to have his papers and shots in order, and then be in quarantine, ( as much as 3 months in Hong Kong)
> 
> Let me say that while a do not have a problem with legal immigration, I do have a problem with ILEGAL immigration, I will give you my thoughts on this, When ilegal immigrants come into this country they do so without a criminal backgroun check, therefore we do not know what kind of people comes in, they do not have a health background check, . With the good also enters the bad .Accordind to Dr. Cosmen PhD and lawyer describes this" The infectious diseases now spreading accross
> the United States, diseases that our country wiped out years ago such as Malaria, Polio, Tuberculosis and Hepatitis and rare diseases of third world poverty, such as leprosy, Chagas Disease,and Dengue Fever are coming in. The Center for Disease Control reports 38.291 California cases of Tuberculosis, that included Multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, which is 60% fatal and for which treatment cost 200.000 to 1.200.000 per patient.
> 
> You do not seem to have much of a problem in Maine, but here in my state en 1.990 the hispanic population was 78.000 or 1.2 % , by 2.000
> it swelled up to 397.000 or 4.7%., and that is nothing compared to Arizona where Governor Napolitano had to call in the National Guard, Governor Richardson of New Mexico is having similar problems, so is Texas and California.
> 
> Here in NC we have Hispanic gangs in Raleigh, Charlotte, Greensboro and Durham with branches all over the state. While I agree with you that we have domestic gangs, my question is , Do we need added ones ?
> 
> A majority of people in the US are opposed to ilegal immigration, if you do not believe it look at the polls.
> 
> I am sorry,I guess I am not a bleeding heart democrat, But I also blame Republicans for not trying to control it,. Both parties are affraid
> of not being political correct or they are simply counting on their votes


----------



## bernik

maxiogee: _" How many generations back would you have to go to be 'pure'? "_

timpeac: _" Yes, that's one of the many other questions that several of us has asked that does not appear worthy of an answer "_

If you expect me to reply to everything you say, you will have to start paying me for the work.

I never said anything about purity. I just said I wanted to send the immigrants back home and stop bringing new ones.

It wouldn't bother me to expel people to Algeria, even when they were born in France. They do not get on very well with us. They have mainly lived among fellow Arabs. Part of their family is still in Northern Africa, and they are busy helping them come over here. I would help them get together, but in their own country.


----------



## Outsider

tmoore said:
			
		

> Let me say that while a do not have a problem with legal immigration, I do have a problem with ILEGAL immigration, I will give you my thoughts on this, When ilegal immigrants come into this country they do so without a criminal backgroun check, therefore we do not know what kind of people comes in, they do not have a health background check, . With the good also enters the bad . Accordind to Dr. Cosmen PhD and lawyer describes this" The infectious diseases now spreading accross
> the United States, diseases that our country wiped out years ago such as Malaria, Polio, Tuberculosis and Hepatitis and rare diseases of third world poverty, such as leprosy, Chagas Disease,and Dengue Fever are coming in. The Center for Disease Control reports 38.291 California cases of Tuberculosis, that included Multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, which is 60% fatal and for which treatment cost 200.000 to 1.200.000 per patient.


Illegal immigration is not the only way to spread diseases. Bird flu seems to be doing quite well without it.


----------



## cuchuflete

he who won't reply said:
			
		

> It wouldn't bother me to expel people to Algeria, even when they were born in France.


It wouldn't bother me to give French people of Algerian descent, wherever they may have been born, the same rights that He Who Won't Reply wants to excercise: the ability to send others to their ancestral homelands.
What goes around, comes around.  Or does He Who Won't Reply have a greater right then French citizens?  I ask because He Who Won't Reply claims that he doesn't even like or want his French citizenship.


----------



## timpeac

bernik said:
			
		

> maxiogee: _" How many generations back would you have to go to be 'pure'? "_
> 
> timpeac: _" Yes, that's one of the many other questions that several of us has asked that does not appear worthy of an answer "_
> 
> If you expect me to reply to everything you say, you will have to start paying me for the work.
> 
> I never said anything about purity. I just said I wanted to send the immigrants back home and stop bringing new ones.
> 
> It wouldn't bother me to expel people to Algeria, even when they were born in France. They do not get on very well with us. They have mainly lived among fellow Arabs. Part of their family is still in Northern Africa, and they are busy helping them come over here. I would help them get together, but in their own country.


 
And you haven't answered it there. How far would you have to go back before you would not consider it appropriate to repatriate a person whose ancestors were not born in that land?

If by the above you mean it should be done on a case by case basis (with presumably you as God's representative in Brittany) then that is truely racist (decisions based on someone's race alone) - and irrational (or I suppose not to you - you really believe that some people are more "worthy" immigrants than others ).


----------



## tmoore

> Illegal immigration is not the only way to spread diseases. Bird flu seems to be doing quite well without it.
> 
> True, but do we need to invite any more? I am not quite ready to contract leprosy or tuberculosis , are you?


----------



## Outsider

tmoore said:
			
		

> Illegal immigration is not the only way to spread diseases. Bird flu seems to be doing quite well without it.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but do we need to invite any more?
Click to expand...

That question assumes there's an easy and morally acceptable way to prevent illegal aliens from bringing diseases into a country. I don't believe there is.


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> If you expect me to reply to everything you say, you will have to start paying me for the work.



So don't answer 'everything' I say, just back up the comments you made about people coming to Northern Ireland to have babies so that they can become Irish citizens.
Stand over that comment or else admit that you were talking out of your elbow!


----------



## bernik

timpeac said:
			
		

> How far would you have to go back before you would not consider it appropriate to repatriate a person whose ancestors were not born in that land?


 For example, I would like a rule whereby everybody with at least 2 grand-parents born in the country before 1960 was allowed to stay. I am not my country's minister for immigration, so I won't answer questions about particular cases.

_" ... you really believe that some people are more "worthy" immigrants than others "_

You are going to be shocked: I don't even use the word "immigrant" for Europeans. It should be obvious that an Englishman who comes to live in my town is not as much of an immigrant as a man who comes from Zimbabwe. I am much closer to my fellow Europeans than to Africans.


----------



## tmoore

<<that question assumes there's an easy and morally acceptable way to prevent illegal aliens from bringing diseases into a country. I don't believe there is.>>

While I think that it would not completely deter ilegal immigration , there are ways to curtail it. If politicians wouldn't be so, so, so, politicians, the border could be secured. I believe it is our right to protect our borders, otherwise why have a border? Just leave it open for whoever wants to come in


----------



## bernik

Outsider said:
			
		

> Did you read that page in full?


 Almost, and I decided to send the link anyway, because they still say that immigrants have prevented Quebec from getting its independance. When they suggest that french speaking immigrants from Haiti tend to vote slightly more along the lines of the francophone majority, it doesn't mean that most of them support Quebec's independance, although this is what they expect readers to believe. This is a wikipedia article, so you have to expect some deviousness.

_" But it's interesting to see how much autonomy Québec has nonetheless achieved within the Canadian state, including linguistic autonomy. Breton nationalists can only dream of a similar defeat for themselves. "_

You are right !
_
" Now ask yourself if Québec got that far by promoting a homogeneous Canada, or by supporting the rights of minorities. "_

I am all in favor of minority rights for the eskimos and the Micmacs, but it does not make me a supporter of immigration. When Quebec starts looking life the French suburbs, Quebeckers of European descent will no longer feel at home, and they will try to move to the United States, where the weather is much better.


----------



## cuchuflete

bernik said:
			
		

> When Quebec starts looking life the French suburbs, Quebeckers of European descent will no longer feel at home, and they will try to move to the United States, where the weather is much better.



Some people will go to great lengths to win an argument.  They will even trample on their own "logic", no matter how illogical it is to begin with.

Quebecois who want a Francophone homeland....will move to the US, based on the weather, despite the total absence of French language in the US except in Northern Maine?

Come now Bernik!   This is even worse than your arguments against immigration.  

But, I do thank you for the comedy value these posts bring.


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> I am all in favor of minority rights for the eskimos and the Micmacs, but it does not make me a supporter of immigration. When Quebec starts looking life the French suburbs, Quebeckers of European descent will no longer feel at home, and they will try to move to the United States, where the weather is much better.



And if *you* were an American when that happened you would not let them in! You don't like immigrants, remember?

PS
Please respond to my request for clarification.


----------



## Outsider

tmoore said:
			
		

> I believe it is our right to protect our borders, otherwise why have a border? Just leave it open for whoever wants to come in


I'm not advocating the neglect of borders, of course. I just think that the idea of controlling each and every single person who crosses a border, especially in a country with a border as wide as the United States, is utopian. There will always be a lucky few who will slip by.



			
				tmoore said:
			
		

> While I think that it would not completely deter ilegal immigration , there are ways to curtail it. If politicians wouldn't be so, so, so, politicians, the border could be secured.


Have you ever asked yourself why it is that politicians, both to the left and to the right, never seem to do enough to stop illegal immigration, even though they know that their popularity would skyrocket if they did?


----------



## bernik

_"Have you ever asked yourself why it is that.."_

Do you have an answer ?


----------



## bernik

maxiogee said:
			
		

> So don't answer 'everything' I say, just back up the comments you made about people coming to Northern Ireland to have babies so that they can become Irish citizens.
> Stand over that comment or else admit that you were talking out of your elbow!


I don't know much about Ireland and I never claimed to be an immigration specialist. But I think the fact you had a referendum is enough to show that there was a big problem with your immigration policy. If I said something that wasn't true, just make the correction instead of making a quarrel out of it.

I just checked Google (pregnant babies ireland immigration) and found this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3615351.stm
Friday, 9 April, 2004

Ireland is to hold a referendum on 11 June restricting citizenship rights for children born in the country to parents from abroad.

Justice Minister Michael McDowell says a referendum is necessary as Ireland is the only country in the EU to grant this right automatically.

He says the arrangement has led to many pregnant women flying there to get EU citizenship for their babies.

In many cases, they then leave again after a matter of days.


----------



## Outsider

bernik said:
			
		

> Almost, and I decided to send the link anyway, because they still say that immigrants have prevented Quebec from getting its independance. When they suggest that french speaking immigrants from Haiti tend to vote slightly more along the lines of the francophone majority, it doesn't mean that most of them support Quebec's independance, although this is what they expect readers to believe. This is a wikipedia article, so you have to expect some deviousness.


I don't actually, and I think you've misread that article. It never says the referendum was lost because of the votes of minorities. Nor is it clear from the quote that Mr. Parizeau was referring to immigrants when he made his remark. In fact, further down the page I find the following:



> This passage also refers to the voting patterns, where the "61% in favour" refers to the francophone vote. While Parizeau was mostly chastised for excluding anglophones and allophones from his definition of _nous_ (us), he was critical of the split in the francophone vote in this passage. In a way he was saying that "everyone" (i.e. the French) was responsible for the defeat.


In any event, Bernik, this is how referendums work. If you want to get a proposal through, you need to convince the majority that it's the right thing to do. If you fail to convince them, you lose the vote.



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> "Have you ever asked yourself why it is that.."
> 
> Do you have an answer ?


Just an opinion. But I'm interested in what everyone else thinks.


----------



## maxiogee

You said that they were coming to Northern Ireland (a different country than the one which had the referendum) so that the parents could claim Irish citizenship.
Also, what a Justice Minister says in the course of a government-sponsored referendum is open to question, and Mr McDowell never backed up those statements when challenged to do so (that word '_many'_ is beloved of dissembling politicians). He was right to say that we were the only country doing what we did - and that was the sole reason we were forced to change our laws - the EU anti-immigrant lobby demanded it of us.

So, apart from quoting a partisan politician in the middle of a get-the-vote-out campaign, can you back up the statements?

I won't hold my breath waiting. As you say... you "don't know much about Ireland" and you  "never claimed to be an immigration specialist" - but that doesn't seem to stop you talking about Ireland and immigration, and immigration all over the world.
You are, as we say in Ireland, "all talk" - and I still feel the talk is coming from your elbow!


----------



## tmoore

<<Have you ever asked yourself why it is that politicians, both to the left and to the right, never seem to do enough to stop illegal immigration, even though they know that their popularity would skyrocket if they did?>>




Yes it is called VOTES !


----------



## tmoore

<<I'm not advocating the neglect of borders, of course. I just think that the idea of controlling each and every single person who crosses a border, especially in a country with a border as wide as the United States, is utopian. There will always be a lucky few who will slip by.>>

Yeah! a few slipping by would be a lot better than 4.000


----------



## Outsider

tmoore said:
			
		

> <<Have you ever asked yourself why it is that politicians, both to the left and to the right, never seem to do enough to stop illegal immigration, even though they know that their popularity would skyrocket if they did?>>
> 
> Yes it is called VOTES !


But, as I noted, _stopping_* illegal immigration would earn them _more_ votes!... 
(I haven't checked this in any polls, but it's what Bernik believes, in any case.)

* Or reducing to a very small fraction...


----------



## tmoore

But, as I noted, _stopping_* illegal immigration would earn them _more_ votes!... 
(I haven't checked this in any polls, but it's what Bernik believes, in any case.)

* Or reducing to a very small fraction...



There is also the factor of political correctness world in which we all live today. No politician wants to be called a racist. If one party proposes a Real bill to end ilegal immigration, the other party is going to jump all over them and paint with the RACIST brush


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> It wouldn't bother me to expel people to Algeria, even when they were born in France. They do not get on very well with us. They have mainly lived among fellow Arabs. Part of their family is still in Northern Africa, and they are busy helping them come over here. I would help them get together, but in their own country.



All Algerians could be deported, even French citizens, and that would be okay with you? How about non-Algerians? Since holding a French passport is not enough are you saying the people who you think should go back are the non-French excluding people like you who are not French but white?

In other words, Corsicans who live in Paris get to stay but Martinicans who live in Paris should go home?


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:
			
		

> But it's interesting to see how much autonomy Québec has nonetheless achieved within the Canadian state, including linguistic autonomy. Breton nationalists can only dream of a similar defeat for themselves. Now ask yourself if Québec got that far by promoting a homoneneous Canada, or by supporting the rights of minorities.


 
The Quebeckers (of the Le Parti Québécois  variety) have never been interested in minority rights - only rights for Francophones. They are violently opposed to rights for any other linguistic group. If they had their way, every other minority group would have the choice of expulsion or _camp de rééducation au travail._ 

They love homogeneity, francophone homogeneity.


----------



## jokker

bernik said:
			
		

> My first reply to Jokker was deleted by Zebedee.


Mods delete inappropriate posts. So, I guess it's not good to read and am glad I didn't see it. Thanks, Zebedee.


> This time, I am taking extra care, so that the moderators will see how it relates to Jokker's point of view. (I hope !).


Obviously, your extra care wasn't good enough. I don't think you truly understood what I had said, of course you can blame on my poor English.



> Jokker, you think that the will of history is that everything *must* end in a big melting pot, and there is no use resisting history.


No, I can't express precisely in English. But, no, I *don't *think that the will of history is that everything must end in a big melting pot, instead, that's what you said. I don't know and can't tell you what the future of history will be, if I knew or could tell, I would be the greatest philosopher.

And, if you read with a little bit extra care, you can find that I never said "there is no use resisting history", but "I believe how(the way) people think and act will lead history". 

I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding.


> But history also tells us that everybody is going to die. And yet, I don't expect you to take a big jump into the sea so that history will be pleased.


It seems that what I said aggravated you or hurt your feelings. I sincerely hope it's not because I am not a white person.


> It is the same with every civilization. You know it will eventually disappear, *but there is no reason to rush things*.


Then, what and why are you so rushing?


----------



## bernik

_"It seems that what I said aggravated you or hurt your feelings. I sincerely hope it's not because I am not a white person."_

No, most people aggravate me on this cultural forum.

Maybe I was a little rude in the way I expressed my opinion. Sorry about that. I should have said: History tells us that everyone will die and every civilization will disappear... however, I refuse to jump into the sea to anticipate the course of history. (Same meaning, no offense to you ).

As you say, it seems we had a misunderstanding, but some people do argue that it's all right to disappear, because everything has to disappear one day.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Benjy said:
			
		

> i'm curious to know people think about this concept. i recently had to watch a documentary/do a presentation on memoires d'immigrés by yamina benguigui. it's basically a collection of interviews of immigrant parents and children from north africa and at one point while she's interviewing a bunhc of highschoolers she asks them where they are from and they call themselves fançais de papier (but of algerian/tunisian/magrébin) origin.



I wonder if those kids consider themselves _*immigrants *_at all. My parents where not born here in the US but I was. They are or were immigrants, I'd have to ask them what they think, but I'm not an _*immigrant*_. I wonder if they think they are _*immigrants*_.


----------



## bernik

They consider themselves as Arab and not French.
"français de papier" only means you have french papers.
And this is what the French mean when they use the word immigrant/immigré: not french.

Here is what the dictionary says of the word immigrant:
"A person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there".
By the dictionary definition, Arabs born in France are not immigrants.


----------



## jokker

bernik said:
			
		

> No, most people aggravate me on this cultural forum.


 Have you thought the reason why? No offence, but I think even you try to give it a real good thought, you may not find the reason why for the time being. Unless...to be simple, unless you are changed--mind, thoughts, values.



> Maybe I was a little rude in the way I expressed my opinion. Sorry about that.


It seems not the most important thing in the all thread...(See my reply to the next quote)

May I ask if I were the immigrant in France that you detest, would you say the same remarks to me?



> I should have said: History tells us that everyone will die and every civilization will disappear...I refuse to jump into the sea to anticipate the course of history.


See here. Look again what you said. Is this the only thing you have seen and learned from history? It seems so. You have conveyed the same message for several times. No wonder you are the way you are. Does history only teach you to choose to jump into the sea or not to jump into the sea??



> As you say, it seems we had a misunderstanding, but some people do argue that it's all right to disappear, because everything has to disappear one day.


Actually, I don't think we had a misunderstanding. The thing is you didn't really see what I wrote, no matter what the reasons were. And I also think you didn't really read and think what others wrote. You may say you did, I don't know. You have to ask yourself. As far as I can see, I cannot approve your views--not your stance on immegrants, but the opinions you had expressed, through which I find.......Sorry, I don't know how to say it in English.

You said that you hope to send all the immigrants back to their original country. Do you know why America has been so strong? Because its(or her??) citizens come from all over the world.(Of course, at the begining, most of the immegrants came from _Europe._) The impact can create more brilliant culture and civilization. China had a dynasty which culture and civilizaton were brilliant, owing to all the people who came from all over the world/different courtries/different races. All those people and Chinese people created that brilliant culture and civilization together. That makes me think of America.

A nation/culture without impact or floating is the one will eventually die. And you seems to prefer such a nation/culture.

I really mean no offence. Also, this is too big a topic/subject for me. But I couldn't help thinking that maybe you should not eat, use, wear, hear, learn...etc., anything except it *originally* belongs to France, when I saw you said you wanted all immigrants back to their original countries. (Actually, when I saw what you had said, the feeling was more like what one of our forum wise members described that you seemed like to build a wall to protect and preserve your Europe.)


----------



## bernik

jokker said:
			
		

> China had a dynasty which culture and civilizaton were brilliant, owing to all the people who came from all over the world/different courtries/different races.


 Run to the next library and buy a Chinese history book. It's urgent !

Since we are talking about China...
What do people of Taïwanese origin think of the upheaval caused by the arrival of the Chinese nationalists in 1949 ?
What about mainland China ? I know nothing about China, but my guess is that the government in Beijing is now causing irreparable cultural damage by moving people around from one place to another. Am I wrong ? This is what happened in France at a smaller scale. The government has been consciously moving people around and preventing them from using their diverse languages in public life. Just an example: I would like to pass the examination to become an English teacher, but then, the government would give me a teaching post in the Arab suburbs around Paris, and I would have to wait for several years before they gave me a post in Brittany.
What do you think of Tibet ? In 20 years, I bet the Tibetans will account for less than 10% of the population. As someone said on this forum : it isn't population replacement, it is cumulative. It only makes the Tibetans culturally richer ! But I don't agree at all. I think the Tibetan culture and way of life are being destroyed. In Northern Africa and Mesopotamia, there used to be incredible cultural diversity and great civilizations. But the Arab invasions have destroyed most of it. In the suburbs around Paris, you are afraid to go out in the evening. How does that make you culturally richer ?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Brioche said:
			
		

> The Quebeckers (of the Le Parti Québécois  variety) have never been interested in minority rights - only rights for Francophones. They are violently opposed to rights for any other linguistic group. If they had their way, every other minority group would have the choice of expulsion or _camp de rééducation au travail._
> 
> They love homogeneity, francophone homogeneity.



This is overstating the case.

The Quebecois are not against minorities - in fact, they have a much more balanced immigration program than the other provinces and do a lot to help people assimilate.  The government is, however, very much against minority LANGUAGES - they think you should keep everything of your culture except your language.  Of all the Canadian cities I have seen (which is all of them except those in the territories), Montreal is by far the most tolerant toward its immigrants. 

Rural Quebec, like the rural areas of any country, is somewhat more insular.

I think comparing Quebec's and France's immigration policies is like comparing apples and oranges ... but this is another thread.


----------



## basberri

this is the first time I have encountered racism in this forum---very sorry to have come across this thread


----------



## jokker

Hi, bernik,

If WordReference Forums still exists 30 years later, I will be glad to resume discussing with you. I am not kidding; I mean it.  30 years is often too short to judge some things, but it shall be enough for me to understand more; and 100 or 200 years will be impossible for one human being to wait.

But there is something I can say at this moment:
The only thing constant is change. The difference is how. Violently or peacefully, blisteringly or gradually,...etc. Through revolution or innovation. By war or negotiation. And so on.



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> Run to the next library and buy a Chinese history book. It's urgent !
> 
> Since we are talking about China...
> What do people of Taïwanese origin think of the upheaval caused by the arrival of the Chinese nationalists in 1949 ?
> What about mainland China ? I know nothing about China, but my guess is that the government in Beijing is now causing irreparable cultural damage by moving people around from one place to another. Am I wrong ? This is what happened in France at a smaller scale. The government has been consciously moving people around and preventing them from using their diverse languages in public life. Just an example: I would like to pass the examination to become an English teacher, but then, the government would give me a teaching post in the Arab suburbs around Paris, and I would have to wait for several years before they gave me a post in Brittany.
> What do you think of Tibet ? In 20 years, I bet the Tibetans will account for less than 10% of the population. As someone said on this forum : it isn't population replacement, it is cumulative. It only makes the Tibetans culturally richer ! But I don't agree at all. I think the Tibetan culture and way of life are being destroyed. In Northern Africa and Mesopotamia, there used to be incredible cultural diversity and great civilizations. But the Arab invasions have destroyed most of it. In the suburbs around Paris, you are afraid to go out in the evening. How does that make you culturally richer ?


----------



## bernik

basberri said:
			
		

> this is the first time I have encountered racism in this forum


 Not me. What do you call an ideology that says European countries must repopulated by third world immigrants, even though most Europeans reject the idea, while third-world countries must be allowed to live their own life ?


----------



## GenJen54

bernik said:
			
		

> Not me. What do you call an ideology that says European countries must repopulated by third world immigrants, even though most Europeans reject the idea, while third-world countries must be allowed to live their own life ?


 How about open-minded and non-discriminatory.


----------



## bernik

Why the double standard ?


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

bernik said:
			
		

> Not me. What do you call an ideology that says European countries must repopulated by third world immigrants, even though most Europeans reject the idea, while third-world countries must be allowed to live their own life ?


 bernik, It's called altruism(something you seem to be lacking). What purpose would shifting a population of emaciated villagers from say Ghana to another village of emaciated farmers in Papua New Guinea possibly serve? There are great opportunities to better one's life by working hard in the west.

What are you so paranoid about? How will the maghrebi immigrants in France destroy the "true" French? If you're concerned about intermarriage then make sure you yourself do not engage in it. You cannot regulate other people's lives. If two people are unhappy in a marriage it will end in divorce. If the rest of the French despise the immigrants as much as you say they do this should be of no concern to you at all..

Are the police and law enforcement agencies not doing their jobs? Are immigrants somehow exempt from certain policies and laws? Are they allowed to rampage and pillage your precious country with impunity? Of course not! Thus, the immigrants who do commit crimes will be contained safely in the penitentiary away from the public. If the actions of these loud, uncivilized immigrants are not violating any laws how is it that you can't tolerate them? How can you consider fellow human beings to be scum?

If the immigrants are not climbing up the economic ladder in successive generations they will remain dirt poor and thus yield very little power. So even if they do "overpopulate" the country, your beloved "race" will still wield the most power,make decisions,and run the government. At this point if the behavior of these obtrusive immigrants is so intolerable, detrimental, and incompatible with French society, they will surely be handled with accordingly.

bernik, I just have to say that you need to liberate your closed mind(it's bad for your health to be so hateful and brooding). In the end everyone dies and all these inconsequential day to day human dilemmas,superiority/inferiority complexes,etc. are meaningless. 

Life is to be enjoyed. Do you really believe that somehow a first world citizen is better than a third worlder or even an amoeba? Even I at my young age know this to be untrue. What does all this industrialization, technological advancing, evolution,etc. do for you? In the end everything has been meaningless and you die and rot into nothingness..alone and forgotten. The same fate awaits the humblest cockroach. 

Why would you purposely want to deport a human being back to a hell hole which said person desperately escaped(in overpopulated boats..correct?) from in hopes of a better future and an enriched life in your country? Why do you feel that you need to devastate the happiness of others at the expense of your discomfort(which is so much less compared to how the majority of the people in the world must live with, that it's almost appalling you think this way)?


----------



## diegodbs

I wouldn't have liked that, more than 2000 years ago, my Iberian ancestors had been left aside of Romanization, and I am proud of all the languages, peoples and cultural influence that made me just like I am.


----------



## Ana Raquel

bernik said:
			
		

> Not me. What do you call an ideology that says European countries must repopulated by *third world immigrants*, even though most Europeans reject the idea, while third-world countries must be allowed to live their own life ?


 
hi bernik, 

if those immigrants were rich people from countries of the first world, would you also make objections?


----------



## maxiogee

He would if they were brown rich people - it is blatantly obvious that bernik has no problem with the concept of other Europeans immigrating into France (which he claims not to be a citizen of, so why he should be concerned about that eludes me).


----------



## SofiaB

the comments are at best racist so logic has no place for racists.


----------



## geve

I didn’t want to contribute to this thread any more, but now I’m really curious to know :



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> For example, I would like a rule whereby everybody with at least 2 grand-parents born in the country before 1960 was allowed to stay. I am not my country's minister for immigration, so I won't answer questions about particular cases.
> 
> " ... you really believe that some people are more "worthy" immigrants than others "
> 
> You are going to be shocked: I don't even use the word "immigrant" for Europeans. It should be obvious that an Englishman who comes to live in my town is not as much of an immigrant as a man who comes from Zimbabwe. I am much closer to my fellow Europeans than to Africans.


Then I guess the Vietnamese family I described in my post #18 qualifies for being “repatriated” ?

Or is it different with them, and *why *? 

Indeed you’ve been focusing on people from African and Arab origin, you didn’t say a word about people with Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Latin American… origins. 
And please don't say it's a “particular case” : according to this document Les Immigrés en France - Edition 2005, issued by the INSEE _(France’s national institute for statistics and and economical studies - but maybe you’d expect some deviousness from them too ?)_, in 1999 12.7% of immigrants (meaning: first generation immigrants only) were from Asia ; and this share is increasing.

Your turn to be shocked: I'm not sure you have a problem with immigration.
_(or even with “non-European immigration”, for which you could claim cultural similarities to justify the disctinction)_
Your problem might rather be with Arabs and Africans.
And to think that a race has more value/should be treated differently than another one, is not a political opinion about immigration. 
It’s just racism.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> For example, I would like a rule whereby everybody with at least 2 grand-parents born in the country before 1960 was allowed to stay. I am not my country's minister for immigration, so I won't answer questions about particular cases.


But why set 1960 as a date? What's so magical about that year? 

You have already said you would not answer but I have to ask: What is the "country"? Before 1960, Algeria was a French department. So I think most  Algerians would qualify to stay under your rule if their grandparents were born in Algeria which was, before 1960, part of France (and not by their own choice). 

A great deal of the countries where these immigrants are coming from were under French rule before 1960, oddly enough. 

But I find it interesting that under this rule Nicolas Sarkozy--president of the *Union pour un Mouvement Populaire* and Minister of the Interior-- would get sent back to Hungary! 

Now it doesn't sound so bad. Mmmm. Every cloud has a silver lining.

You won't answer that because it's a particular case but I doubt that a government would pass a law that would deport some of it's most prominent cabinet members. 

But you have a bigger problem: many of the most prominent people in France would get deported under your plan. And that's because France is, like it or not, an immigrant country. It always has been, you just have to look at your own Breton history to see that.


----------



## badgrammar

Oh my Residente, how very well put....


----------



## jokker

Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> Why do you feel that you need to devastate the happiness of others *at the expense of your discomfort*(which is so much less compared to how the majority of the people in the world must live with, that it's almost appalling you think this way)?


I love this sentence. One is lucky and happy to be born and live in an environment where is free and has no war or famine.


----------



## bernik

[ *Me*: What do you call an ideology that says European countries must be repopulated by third world immigrants, even though most Europeans reject the idea, while third-world countries must be allowed to live their own life

*Jhorer Brishti* : It's called altruism ]

The European suicide is not helping the world as a whole.
Besides, I think altruism has to be spontaneous or it is not altruism.
To make a comparison, I would not describe rape as altruism on the part of the victim.

_" What purpose would shifting a population of emaciated villagers from say Ghana to another village of emaciated farmers in Papua New Guinea possibly serve? "_

Is there starvation in Ghana ? Anyway, "emaciated villagers" from Ghana are less likely to move to Europe than their fellow countrymen who already have a job in town, and a few relatives in Europe. Besides, it would be more cost-effective and less disrupting to our lives to send them tinned food instead of doing a population transfer. That way, we can help more of them. If they need Europeans to take care of them, let's send them a few administrators. Of course, most people on this forum will frown at the very idea. On the other hand, sending a few million Africans to Europe is so cool ! If I was the governor of Ghana, I think the first measures I would take would be aimed at stopping the population's growth (which is probably the main problem in Africa).

In Papua New Guinea, Australians are so respectful that they are terribly afraid of disturbing the local way of life (do Papuans still eat people ?) I wish people on this forum would show as much respect for their fellow countrymen.

_"Are the police and law enforcement agencies not doing their jobs? "_

Not in France, they are not !
_
"If the rest of the French despise the immigrants as much as you say they do "_

They don't despise anyone, but most of them have no need for immigration.
_
" Do you really believe that somehow a first world citizen is better than a third worlder "_

Not at all ! I have a preference for my countrymen, and I would like the Chinese to have a preference for the Chinese, and the Africans to have a preference for the Africans (which they probably have).

_"Why would you purposely want to deport a human being back to a hell hole "_

North Africa is not a hell hole. The French have fond memories of the place. Many Arabs living in France like to spend a few days in their home country every year. But many french cities now look like hell holes to me.


----------



## Cath.S.

> I would like a rule whereby everybody with at least 2 grand-parents born in the country before 1960 was allowed to stay.


Wow, I'd be allowed to stay, well that's grand of you.

But if the only people who are left in France think along the same lines as you do, then  I'd rather emigrate! This is the last time I post on this thread, I find it totally pointless.


----------



## Outsider

bernik said:
			
		

> [ *Me*: What do you call an ideology that says European countries must be repopulated by third world immigrants, even though most Europeans reject the idea, while third-world countries must be allowed to live their own life [...]]


The word 'repopulated' suggests a complete, forceful replacement of the local population by immigrants. I don't think you need to worry about that.


----------



## badgrammar

Bernik, tu fais peur.  



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> [ *Me*: What do you call an ideology that says European countries must be repopulated by third world immigrants, even though most Europeans reject the idea, while third-world countries must be allowed to live their own life
> 
> *Jhorer Brishti* : It's called altruism ]
> 
> The European suicide is not helping the world as a whole.
> Besides, I think altruism has to be spontaneous or it is not altruism.
> To make a comparison, I would not describe rape as altruism on the part of the victim.
> 
> _" What purpose would shifting a population of emaciated villagers from say Ghana to another village of emaciated farmers in Papua New Guinea possibly serve? "_
> 
> Is there starvation in Ghana ? Anyway, "emaciated villagers" from Ghana are less likely to move to Europe than their fellow countrymen who already have a job in town, and a few relatives in Europe. Besides, it would be more cost-effective and less disrupting to our lives to send them tinned food instead of doing a population transfer. That way, we can help more of them. If they need Europeans to take care of them, let's send them a few administrators. Of course, most people on this forum will frown at the very idea. On the other hand, sending a few million Africans to Europe is so cool ! If I was the governor of Ghana, I think the first measures I would take would be aimed at stopping the population's growth (which is probably the main problem in Africa).
> 
> In Papua New Guinea, Australians are so respectful that they are terribly afraid of disturbing the local way of life (do Papuans still eat people ?) I wish people on this forum would show as much respect for their fellow countrymen.
> 
> _"Are the police and law enforcement agencies not doing their jobs? "_
> 
> Not in France, they are not !
> _
> "If the rest of the French despise the immigrants as much as you say they do "_
> 
> They don't despise anyone, but most of them have no need for immigration.
> _
> " Do you really believe that somehow a first world citizen is better than a third worlder "_
> 
> Not at all ! I have a preference for my countrymen, and I would like the Chinese to have a preference for the Chinese, and the Africans to have a preference for the Africans (which they probably have).
> 
> _"Why would you purposely want to deport a human being back to a hell hole "_
> 
> North Africa is not a hell hole. The French have fond memories of the place. Many Arabs living in France like to spend a few days in their home country every year. But many french cities now look like hell holes to me.


----------



## bernik

Outsider said:
			
		

> The word 'repopulated' suggests a complete, forceful replacement of the local population by immigrants. I don't think you need to worry about that.


 The important thing is not the words I choose. My theory is that immigration is encouraged, organized or allowed to happen by the governments, and left-wing organizations (particularly the media), even though most of us don't want any immigration.
What ? Most people don't want immigration ? That's too bad, because they will have it anyway !
The favorite method is intimidation and denouncing people as racists. One of the methods on this forum is emotional blackmail: Oh, I am such a sensitive person, and you are so callous ! Stop criticizing immigration, or I am going to cry !

When indigeneous Europeans have to move to another part of town where they will feel more secure, while their former neighborhood is left to immigrants, I think the words 'forceful' and 'repopulation' are about right.

Massive immigration while Europeans stop making babies. And European governments being so complacent about it. If it is not population replacement, what is it ?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> The important thing is not the words I choose. My theory is that immigration is encouraged, organized or allowed to happen by the governments, and left-wing organizations (particularly the media), even though most of us don't want any immigration.



Maybe some people think that you *need *it. I think many European countries need immigration. I'm certain the US does. And not just from "white" countries.


----------



## bernik

Immigration is the last thing the US and Europe need.


----------



## bernik

Anyway, most people don't want any immigration.
What about democracy ?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> Immigration is the last thing the US and Europe need.



In France, you have a low birth rate which means at one point, if you don't have immigration, there will be too few working people to pay for you pensions. The same is true for other European countries like Spain and Italy. You can say you don't like it or that you don't like non-white people. I don't care. I think you have a right to love and hate whoever you want. But you do need immigration in countries with low birth-rates. It's just a matter of common sense.


----------



## Aupick

bernik said:
			
		

> The favorite method is intimidation and denouncing people as racists.


Are you actually trying to say that you are _not_ racist? Please, a straightforward answer is all I ask.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> Anyway, most people don't want any immigration.
> What about democracy ?


What about it? If most people don't want immigrants in France, why isn't Jean-Marie Le Pen the President of France today?


----------



## Outsider

I can agree that immigration is not very popular, in general, though I haven't looked at the numbers. However, I think much of that feeling is due to ignorance. The public is just not well informed about economics and demography. (And, for this, politicians and the media are also to blame.) So, it's easy to believe that more immigrants = less jobs for the locals. It seems intuitive enough, but it's a fallacy.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> I can agree that immigration is not very popular, in general, though I haven't looked at the numbers. However, I think much of that feeling is due to ignorance. The public is just not well informed about economics and demography. (And, for this, politicians and the media are also to blame.) So, it's easy to believe that more immigrants = less jobs for the locals. It seems intuitive enough, but it's a fallacy.


I think that when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it doesn't matter what people in Europe or the US like. As long as people make decisions which cause the curious trend that more people are being buried than being born, and these same people want to retire one day and not be hung out to dry, something has to give.

I don't like taxes and I don't even like the rain. *Who cares?* Taxation has it's benefits and the rain is needed in order to grow food. And what's more, both are inevitable.

I think a lot of messages in this thread are just thinly-veiled hate speech. European is a code word for *white *and immigration is a code word for people who are *not white*. I think that's clear. But guess what white people? You are going to need non-white people to help your economies. Some of you don't have a problem with that as long as those non-white just go about their business and get along with everybody else. I understand that. For the people don't: Get used to it.


----------



## cuchuflete

I cannot speak for any European country, but in the US a very fast-growing, and already large, proportion of radio stations, television stations, and newspapers and magazines are very right-wing.  In keeping with common practice for those who embrace racism, they love to repeat and repeat and repeat their cries that the problem is "the liberal media"!

In fact, most of the media here is not liberal.  Fast-talking, fact-ignoring pundits of the right have come to dominate much of the broadcast media.  But.....they need to feel persecuted.

They are persecuted by....

-liberal media
-the government (maybe they haven't noticed that both houses of the legislature are controlled by the right, as is the White House!)
-poor immigrants
-Liberals!!!  Leftists!!!  The nearly half of the population that voted against Bush!!

So, there you have it.  The majority is being terrorized and persecuted by the minority.

This is the fluff that passes for reason and logic among racists.

Why do they have such a hard time doing what their own ideology says: take accountability!

If they want more babies, the techniques have been around for millions of years, can be very pleasurable, and can be enjoyed in the comfort of their own barricaded bedrooms, with the lights out.

Don't like government policies?  Vote for a fellow neanderthal.

Want immigrants to behave like "the natives"?  Easy...treat them just as you treat the natives, including giving them jobs for which they are well qualified.  Economic and material stakes in a society tend to homogenize...and often to move people to the right...a more conservative posture...once they have something to conserve.  

I have a growing suspicion that many right-wingers are just lazy complainers.  They won't bother to learn or present facts, and would rather feel persecuted and blame others, than work to fix what they think is broken.


----------



## bernik

Outsider said:
			
		

> I can agree that immigration is not very popular, in general, though I haven't looked at the numbers.


 You haven't looked at the numbers because polls about immigration are simply not allowed in the media.

_"However, I think much of that feeling is due to ignorance."_

You are right about people being left in ignorance. I would like every Breton to take a trip to Seine Saint Denis to see what awaits them in the near future.

_"So, it's easy to believe that more immigrants = less jobs for the locals. It seems intuitive enough, but it's a fallacy."_

It depends... In France, at the moment, it is obvious that immigration makes the situation of unqualified Europeans much worse. Anyway, unemployment is not the reason I oppose immigration. It is more a question of self-preservation.

---
Someone said: _"My husband's grandparents were Polish immigrants"_

So it makes it alright for massive African immigration ? My own grandparents were immigrants from about 30 kilometers away from the place I live. Is it enough to justify Arab immigration ?
_
"there will be too few working people to pay for you pensions"_

Now we'll have to pay for the immigrants in addition to paying the pensions. It means smaller pensions. And we'll miss our children who were not born because of the government's crazy policies.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

bernik said:
			
		

> And we'll miss our children who were not born because of the government's crazy policies.



Why blame the government for your own reproductive choices? Take responsibility for your own choices and your own fate! Have more children! Do you want me to explain to you how that's done? Everything that goes wrong is not the government's fault. France lost WWII, in part, for the same reason. But who got blamed? The government. I hate to say this, but for somebody who's not French your «que le gouvernement s'en occupe» approach to things looks eerily French to me. No offense to the French people (of which you are not one) but I think that at one people people need to stop blaiming the government for their own choices.

You have less children because having more children would mean having less disposible income. Bon, vous n'avez qu'á serrer les ceintures et faire des gosses. Je me marre!

In any case, the government has tried to do something about your low-birth rate but it hasn't worked. I say it's _*your *_fault.


----------



## GenJen54

*MOD NOTE:  *We have on one hand the voice of the "right" that is, in essence, immigration is wrong and immigrations should just "go back home."

We have on the other hand several voices that believe such rantings to be disguised (thinly) as racism.  

Facts(?) have been spewed from both sides. No conclusions have been drawn. The welcome mat on this thread has been trod upon for too long.

Thread now closed.


----------

