IAP Political Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7085956.stm

I've been hearing complaints about Romanians for years in Italy, same goes for all Africans in Spain, and Turks in Germany.  I have friends in Italy and Spain complaining about their respective groups and say they are much worse than Mexicans, never truly understanding Americans complaints.  Heck they said if there was a way to trade immigrants they'd do it in a heart beat. 

When in Barcelona I heard numerous stories of Romanians taking over vacant apartments and leaving them destroyed before the police ever got around to catching them.   

lol, can i ask you, do you know the difference between "roma" and "Romanians" (they are different)

I said Romanians didn't I?  I think thats pretty clear in whom I am writting about, if I wanted to say Roma I would have said "gypsies" instead since most people know them under that name.  Although you are correct with the problems caused by the Roma, my intent was to show difficulty in immigration from people from one country to another.

What exactly makes them "worse" than Mexicans (FYI: I'm not implying that Mexicans themselves are bad to begin with)?

Perhaps all nations need to restrict immigration plain and simple.

OswaldTheOsprey

I can only speak of Barcelona since that's where I was for a while, being a international city there are many apts for long term rent so they usually break into these apartments and squat in them causing massive destruction in them.  Crime from pickpockets of which I was a victim off though I caught the guy and well lets say I got my cellphone back, is constantly occurring through out the city although the Roma do this in greater numbers.  Also there is the organized crime, prostitution, etc, etc,. 

I once saw a cast where there was up to 15 people squatting in one apartment, if anyone who's been to Europe knows apartments are really small compared to what we usually envision.  They found the closet full of trash, dirty diapers under the bed, and women throwing out used maxipads out the window, really nasty stuff and as usual they got away before the cops arrived.

These are things that I saw in the news and as for the Roma they have a small enclave of trailers in the middle of the city with nothing but junk in conditions you would only expect to see in a third world country.  Also the mothers go out and beg while they leave their kids in government runned nurseries.

Immigration will always happen like it or not, the point of this thread is to show that people here who complain about Mexicans realize that there are groups that would really give you a reason to complain about.

re:gex
IMO the roma are worse than any other migrant group in Europe, because they dont join the "mainstream". and i think people get confused between roma and Romanians(for example in italy the "main" problem was Roma)

thats all :)

I understand your point. True immigration will go on. That said, however, it does not relieve nations of responsibility to police their borders as best possible. Especially as regards illegal immigration.

OswaldTheOsprey

No problem.  Again like I said I was pick pocketed by a Roma guy and I did see reports while over there, but every time I talk to my friends living in Spain they always bring up Romanians.  I have several in Barcelona, Valencia, Madrid, and Malaga so they are all over the country yet that is their main complaint although they say Moroccans are moving up.

I agree with what you have stated and that is not a common occurrence between us. :)
I would recommend you get a book called "While Europe Slept", it explains how immigration is now finally starting to be a concern over there especially from Muslims.

I will try to get a copy. Thanks for the tip.

OswaldTheOsprey

'Especially from Muslims'... Please elaborate

The focus of the book is the drastic rise in immigration from people of Muslim countries like Pakistan, Morocco, etc. 

lol, you can ask him but vast majority of Romanians are gypsies(what you call "romal") mixed with Slavs and Romans (Italians). So i would lol much. While article on BBC speaks about Romanians whether these Gypsy,German,Slav or Jew Romanians thats another issue...

Now for immigration , i believe some economically stable countries can accept some amount of young and well educated immigrants... I'm not sure about education you get in Morocco but in my homeland, Pakistan ppl do quite well. Question is what you have to pay in order to bring some few young Pakis like me to do you a job cheaper than any yank would,, not much but if i bring my family in? Then it starts, the side effect of immigration. Country with proper migration system and proper borders not like the one US has with Mexico, above shouldn't be a problem.

Gex, I think it is a worldwide attitude. I have just come back from Costa Rica, and they had many problems with illegal immigrants from Nicaragua.

The problems arise because:

1)The world is a much smaller place. All countries have access to uptodate information and immigrants can research about first world countries and how to get there. Illegal people smuggling has become a profitable side business for many illegal gangs.

2)The ratio of people below the poverty line or in third world countries compared to first world countries is extremely high. Therefore the demand for first world living through immigration is extremely high and the supply through resources(available land, water, financial) etc in first world is extremely low. Hence the problem which will only get bigger in years to come.

You can't really blame the immigrants. If i was living in poverty stricken conditions or a war torn country with a wife and children, I would be doing everything I can to get out, and into a first world country to start a brand new life of safety. On the other hand you can't blame people in first world countries for trying to restrict them. As stated before, many first world countries don't have the resources to take on new immigrants. Especially ones that will take from the economy rather than put in. Its a hard situation all around. Not sure what the answer is to be honest.

I am doing the immigration thing next year, but I am doing it back to front from most. Instead of going from a third world country to a first, i am going from a first world country to a third haha.

BTW glad to see you settling in in Barcelona. How have you found it?  Have you run into zee lee yet?

For africans, young and old, reaching Europe is the ultimate goal for social elevation. It's a dream for everyone.
Immigrant can be blamed for maintaining this dream: When they are in Europe they contact their family and friends in Africa to boast about their whealth, their fantastic new job, their new suit and their new Mercedes car while in reality they do live in sordid condition, live out of social assistance and take the bus like all the other color poeple. There are even professional photographers specialized in making picture of africans posing in front of a big car in a suit and tie. For them, it's normal to do so. It's their culture and a question of honnor of not telling the truth and display signs of success.
They will eventualy send 200 euros per month when they got their first crappy job to back it up.

What these poeple need to know is that they better keep their little saving to start a small business where they are and that it's no fun being dropped out in a country where you have no money and no qualification.

Sure, their country sucks and their governements are retarded. Sure goats roam the dusty streets. But Africa is by no means the hell of poverty we imagine after watching documentaries.
 

The problem really isn't immigration in itself - though that really should be stopped if we what the developing world to 'develop' - the problem is the planets overpopulation.

Time for nature to play its cards, and deal us a mass plague.

I don't want a mass plague because I don't want to die.
But if poor poeple could make only 2 kids per couple instead of 7, that would help already.

The real problem is the Globalization and where it all started: in America of the States United In Crime ,or whatever you call this babillon.
You have the example in front of you, that is where all other countries copy from.
Immigration is the New Age kind of slavery. The elites need workers to work the plantations, factories, sweat shops and so on. People born in US don't want to do the dirty jobs, or paying 7 $/hour, so don't complain about immigration next time you go to Walmarama Store.

For US maybe it is globalisation. For Europe it is cheap labour costs mixed with second world war guilt syndrome.

Poeple from poor countries tend to move themselves to rich countries in quest of work.
The particularity of Europe is that in the end of the 60's and 70's we asked them to come as we asked Spaniard and Italians to come  afew years earlier and we though they woud be not different from the latters.
But that immigration is not causing much problem, but it created a continuous stream of immigration which we were unable to stop. Now, the new immigration that we don't need is a source of concern.

When it comes to immigration, it seems that the strongest opponents are those that come from places that have the least number of immigrants.

We don't seem to have any substantial 'immigration' problems in Canada (certainly nothing that could be compared with the complaints one hears coming from the USA and Europe) and Canada takes in more immigrants per year (per capita) than any other nation in the world and we've been doing it for half a century.

Indeed, Toronto is 50% non-white and 50% foreign born.  And Toronto is the one place in Canada with the least amount of 'friction' with immigrant groups.  Immigrants are celebrated in Toronto.

Northern Quebec apparently gets almost no immigration.  But in Northern Quebec, they are fighting tooth and nail against immigrants in order to 'defend their culture'.

Isn't it always the way?  Fear of the unknown?  Those who know them do not fear them.

I agree with Dormhouse, its mostly the fear of the other. Here in The Netherlands there have been mayor issues with immigration. Many people from mostly North Africa came to work as well as people from former Dutch colonies. Some people view this as a problem, they are unknown with their customs and ways and are sometimes indirectly discriminated.

Currently several new politicians have bandwagoned the idea that immigration is the cause of a lot of problems and mean to fix it by preventing  any migration from outside the EU.

On the other hand, migration can be a problem if migrants are not integrated into society, meaning lacking sufficient language, education or working skills. Which is the primary reason here why migrants are a bit mistrusted.

People think it is a problem but it hardly is, luckily not everyone thinks like this.

-In 1 A.D. there were 200 million people world wide. Each probably made very little garbage and took up very little space.

-In 1750 A.D there were maybe 800,000,000 world wide.

-When Columbus set foot in America there were an (high) estimated 400,000 natives from the North Pole to the Rio Grande. All that space.

-In 1800 there were 1,200,000,000 world wide.

-In 1900 there were 2,900,000,000. Still when you bought a car or a lighter or a pen or a watch, well it was probably the last you needed to buy (and the only one you threw away).

-In 2000, 6,200,000,000. And each produces about 2kgs of garbage per day. Each household producing 50kgs each week. We also demand not only more square feet to live in but more public lands.



By 2050 we will have 11 billion people on the planet. That's about 10% of all the humans that have ever lived since the first written word. They will all live longer, take up more energy, more space and buy more useless crap and throw it away a few days later.

Immigration? Get used to it.

Ahk

Ahkenaten, that's a good post, albeit a subtle argument.

I think the economic argument is a stronger one.

Our western economies NEED economic growth every year.  All of our systems are dependent upon growth.  Immigration supplies economic growth.  Without immigration, most western countries would be in a permanent recession for the last twenty-five years. 

Doubt that a bit, yes immigration helps to fill the gaps in certain areas of work but I sincerly doubt it would mean instant recession. The current policies of having people work longer, or semi-"forcing" unemployed people to work would have just been implemented sooner. Yes it would probably have damaged the economy (mostly in Europe with an ageing population), but recession would be a to big word.
But this is a big offtopic, Didn't expect the worldpopulation to grow that large in such little time.

What type of immigration are you talking about?

Do you mean, third world refugee immigration, economic migration, spouse immigration etc?

The majority of Europeans immigration recently is from the third world under refugee status. Many of them don't speak english, have little or no skills and struggle to assimiliate into the country. Many will cost the government more than they give back, in terms of welfare benefits, medical and living concessions and other associated government costs.

I am not having a go at these refugees as I would do the same thing as them if I was in their boat. I am just questioning your statement that all immigration produces huge financial windfalls for western governments.

What are you talking about: immigrants are celebrated in Toronto? No, they are not, they just live in ghettos between themselves, and certain groups have problems integrating into the society. Muslims are proud to be muslims and want you to like their religion, chinese don't bother or can not speak english properly, hindus and pakis still wear their pejamas and turbans and refuse to wear helmets when driving motorcycles or when entering construction sites, shiks wear their ceremonial swords in public places.... This is a freaking circus going on and what is more scary about is that Canada is actually encouraging this.

In U.S. is "either you are one of us, like us, or you are a freakin alien" and that is all what is supposed to be, this should be the logical way. You came to this country because you didn't like your stupid birthplace, aren't you ?

In today's corporate climate, everything is changed for the sake of making that million $ in one day only, not in one week, greed is slowly killing our way of life.

Please read your first and last sentence.  You seem confused about what you are saying.

I'm talking about immigrants as a whole.  That is to say, it doesn't really matter which category is your pet issue.  Immigration is necessary to counter-effect the falling populations due to below-replacement level birthrates in most western countries.

The color of an immigrant's skin doesn't effect the size of the economic contribution that any given immigrant makes.

The idiocy of European immigration policies is long established.

Countries have problems with immigrants in direct proportion to the political efforts they invest in creating/fostering and magnifying problems for political purposes.

Canada is has the distinction of taking in more immigrants (per capita) every year than any other nation in the world - no one even comes close.  And according to Census Canada statistics, over 60% of Canada's immigrants now come from 3rd world nations.

And study after study for many years show that immigrants in Canada have, on average, a higher level of education, a lower level of prison incarceration, a lower crime rate and a lower level of usage of social services (ie. welfare) than local born caucasion Canadians.

Canada's immigration policy is officially (and actually) color-blind.

Immigration is not a problem in Canada and never has been.  So why is that so many people need to pretend that immigration is always a problem?  USA and Canada were built by immigrants.

Well, not all canadians think the same way about Canada's immigration policy as you do.  :)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080417.wpoll17/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

Because to come to Canada you need at least enough money to buy a plane ticket from the 3d world country in question, that means having a visa and valid documents.
That's why your immigrants have more money and higher education than boat-poeple trying to cross the Mediterrranean or gypsies coming straight from Romania and Bulgaria (many of them can't even read).

Your numbers don't include illegals. Do they?
France is home of 400,000 without-papers, 36,000 for Canada.

Europe has a huge task dealing with immigration because it's just near Africa, the poorest continent of the world + poor european and semi-european countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Turkey, Ukraine etc.

Our only hope for stopping immigration is to develop these regions economicaly.

While I'm not an expert on Mediterranean illegal immigratation processes, I am quite familiar with the US situation.

And according to all reputable reports and studies of the illegal immigration problem in the USA (probably higher than anywhere in Europe) always points out that the vast majority of prospective immigrants in Mexico (not always Mexicans, just this is the entry point to the USA for a wide variety of Central and South Americans) must pay a fee of $5000 to $10000 in cash to professional smugglers who transport them across the border (illegally) into the USA.

I strongly suspect that this is also true with the Mediterranean examples that you give - smugglers are paid big bucks to move those illegals around.

This argument serves to negate the validity of your assertion that the 'cost of airfare' alone is sufficient to ensure that the immigrants coming to Canada are defacto wealthier than other immigrants illegally coming to other countries.  It would appear that airfare to Canada doesn't cost any more than $1000 from anywhere on the planet.  That's got to be cheaper, safer and easier than paying $5000 or $10000 to some smuggler-criminals.

The difference is that Canada actually has legal immigration channels that are realistically available to prospective immigrants.  In many cases, these legal immigration channels just are not realistically available to enter the USA and/or many countries in Europe.  Sweden for example will only permit "refugees" to enter - there is no way to just 'immigrate' to Sweden without being a refugee.  I doubt if these refugees can become Swedish citizens any time soon, though I'm not certain on the precise Swedish immigration law here.

This is the general failure of US and European immigration policies - they don't have open and legal channels widely available (not just for entry, but for gaining citizenship).  Thus, those that seek entry are 'forced' to use illegal channels of entry.

Those who seek entry into Canada, have several legal channels readily available and an open door to full citizenship for those that meet basic minimum requirements of language and residence (and a series of 'skill-testing questions' requiring them to name all sorts of political trivia about Canadian politics and history).  :)

Btw, the US has an estimated 10 million 'undocumented' immigrants they've accumulated over the years. 

The number you give for Canada is substantially correct.  That figure is not included in any of the figures given for immigration in Canada.  They are illegal and defined as criminals by definition.

However, it is to be noted that Canada takes in 300,000 landed immigrants per year, plus 30,000 'refugees' every year.  That's the official legal immigration quota and Canada fills it every year (with a waiting list).  That represents numbers equal to 1% of Canada's population.  This is a continuous and longstanding policy in Canada.

And it is to be noted that in Canada all legally landed immigrants are able to apply for full citizenship after five years residence.  This makes the 'legal' route of immigration attractive.  Some 90% of 'illegal' or 'undocumented' immigrants in Canada are thus the criminal element and/or those that have been deported and have illegally returned or remain.  There is no public sympathy or public support for any kind of illegal immigrants - we deport them.

To note, just last summer, some 50 Portuguese construction industry workers and their families were deported from Toronto (a public case covered on the tv news) for entering the country illegally.  They were caught by a police investigation into immigrant smuggling.  They lost their court (and media sympathy) appeal and were deported.  These were semi-skilled 'caucasian' immigrants and Canada deported them for being illegals.  This is routine policy in Canada.  It is colorblind and consistent.

Economic migration is good for the receiving country.  All of the countries of Western Europe are suffering a serious demographic problem with an aging population and workforce.  Immigration of young working age adults is an economic advantage for the receiving country at all times, but particularly given present demographic trends and falling birthrates throughout the Western countries. 

Bottom line is that Europe's problem with immigration is a cultural one, not an economic one.

You can't stop immigration.  Some 600 million people live in the 'better' part of Europe and North America.  They have the wealth, safety, security and lifestyle that the other 6 billion people on this planet hope and dream about.  There is thus a huge demand for immigration into Western Europe and North America and it will never go away. 

The policy choice is only 'manage it with legal citizenship programs' or fight a long and expensive losing battle that only entrench a criminal black market, just like the 'war' against illegal drugs or prostitution always does.

I'm not totaly in opposition to what you say. However, the situation in Europe is different from what you think.

First we don't have shortage of cheap, young labor force. The whole Easter europe (former communist block) is full of cheap construction workers and they are barely immigrants. Their country is part of the EU and they are whiter and more catholic than us (LOL).
Demographic replacement rate is a concern, especialy since eastern europe face the same problem, sometimes even worse. But so far it has not been a visible economic problem. In western europe, there are still poeple who can't find a job. Outside construction, it's tough to find a good job.
Our problem is currently not our aging population, but taxes and over-regulations which are slowing our economy artificialy.
I'm not sure if the aging population in itself is such a big problem after all.
Moreover, immigrants from Africa don't want to be construction worker. They do this job when they don't have any other choice, but their ambition is somewhere else. They are not good worker on building sites, and north africans would steal all the tools. Africans, especialy north africans are the most numerous but on construction sites, where young cheap foreign labor is much needed, you would see only Poles, Portugese and sometimes Romanians or other europeans.
Africans feel much better at commercial jobs, sellers, dealer.

Second, immigrants from Africa are poor. Poorer than latinos, because none of them would be able to pay $5000. Smugglers take from $500 to $1000 here. And they have this money because all their family helped them and it represents several years of savings.
It's a tragedy for these poeple when they arrive in Europe with a few dollars/euros left. They all must find the first job, often underpaid, depend on relative or friends who are already there or go to homeless center.

What is worse is that the little money they had wasted in a trip to Europe would have been much better invested in their own country. Africa is so cheap that with $1000 you can start a small business and live on it. Black Africans are extremely ingenious and skilled poeple, but in their culture and their system only. In Europe their skill is useless because jobs are totaly different.

That's why it's best for Africans to stay where they are and develop their own place rather than moving northward. And for us to help them building a new economy. If we do that, their children will eventualy have the means to get a higher education, learn modern, european jobs and become useful when our aging population need them.

I think Canada expand in density by absorbing more and more poeple in its space still largely empty.
Europe, already demographicaly full, expand geographicaly by enlarging and difusing the zone of economic developement. Our philosophy is not to invite poor poeple to come live with us, but to help them become richer where they are.

I know what you are trying to say, but I'm not confused.
Here, I will spell it more clearly so there will be no place for misunderstanding: I believe Canada should stay as a white christian society, and I believe that by changing it's colour,  the government is making a big mistake and it will be too late when people will realize that.
Anyway, Toronto doesn't represent Canada anymore, it just became a melting pot of all the colours of the world. Same as New-York or LA don't represent America. If you really want to know what America is about, take a trip to the middle states, where not many immigrants settled yet. To the few that settled there, I will say "welcome" as long as you don't make any trouble.

And why not a multi-racial christian society?

Why do you smack me with the "why not ?" question.
Prove it that multi-racial is beneficial to any society.

You are entitled to your view. 

I can't think of any polite reply, so I offer none.

So your argument isn't against immigration in general, just immigration of non-white or non-christians?  That sounds like the 'rightwing' American view on immigration.  Its entirely a 'cultural' thing.

When it comes to discussing immigration, I have always found almost impossible to discuss in a meaningful way on international discussion forums.  As one who has studied immigration in Canada and the USA, I find it extremely challenging to be squeezed between the American political issue and the European political issue. 

It seems to be pretty much the identical issue in both places, but the political spin (and the political structure) on it is very different in both places (and EU policies always permit example-hopping arguments making it almost impossible to generalize about Europe as a whole in any given policy issue such as 'immigration' - what is true of Sweden is not true in Britain, what is true in Germany is not true in France, etc.).

And how many EU countries allow Polish workers to enter freely?  Barely a handful.  Britain probably permits more than all the rest added together.

Japan, Italy and Germany are the big three for having the worst projected financial problem dealing with the aging boomers (the absolute lowest 'worker to non-worker' tax ratio twenty years from now).  These three nations all have some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the western world.

Somalis and Ethiopians are two of the largest and fastest growing immigrant communities in Canada.

Despite Canada's size, over 90% of its population is in a very, very small area (a strip of about 50 miles along the US border).  This fact has not changed in over 100 years. 

And some 80-90% of all new immigrants to Canada reside in  Canada's three largest cities.

Yes, I agree that is the European philosophy on immigration. 

I think it is a sham and bad policy to boot.

Ha!, come on! First you didn't notice the little (LOL) after my comment and second you didn't read my reply to cauboi.
In Europe we don't think in term of color, not as much as you do in the US. Native european would prefer blacks to almost white (if not totaly) arabs. Not because of colorbut because of culture. Black africans are better folks to us than "arab" africans.
Now we are not racist with arab looking poeple. How could we? Some south europeans looks more arab physiocaly than some marrocans or algerians. And Turks are as white as us.

Not sure what you mean here: The immigration problem is moreless the same everywhere in western europe thought southern countries face other challenges than northern ones. And, laws are different from one country to another. The EU has not leveled all that thing yet.


Ok, a little bit of history: before the fall of the Berlin Wall, polish workers were very few and were considered as poor poeple needing help and we did help them privately.
The most difficult task was to get out of their country.
Later poles came more and more especialy in Belgium (I' Belgian) were their working skill is much praised.
Don't remeber if they every needed a visa to come to Belgium, but they needed an "invation" to come and stay without problem. That was mostly for health insurance purpose. As for living and working, most were illegals but the police which knew everything, close their eyes on it.

Today, Poland is in the EU's Shengen zone. That means that they can come from Varshaw to Brussels without being asked to show a document or even having to stop their car when they cross the border.
(I guess that answer your question "how many EU countries allow Polish workers to enter freely?", huh?)

Now the irony is that Poles can't have legal working permit in Belgium, but can have one in the UK.
(That's maybe what you mean by "allow Polish workers to enter freely").
However, that little difference doesn't prevent polish resident in Belgium to work legaly (not under a limited working permit, but unlimitedly as a resident in Belgium).
But poles are not unhappy to work without paying taxes (thought they start to would like real belgian working conditions within an official contract) and most return to Poland to finish up their house or build a second one.

This is the case of a population considered as "allien", "immigrant", "poors" etc 20 years ago and now considered as fully european without distinction, just like us.
Sure, they are still from another country but intra-european migration is not an issue anymore.
There is no point to make it an issue.


From these three, only Japan has no sizeable immigrated population. Italy and Germany both have huge percentage of immigrants. There are 2 millions turks in Germany. (Only the those from Turkey already total 2 millions).
So I don't think you can compare or that these two european countries need even more foreigners in...

So, at the same rate, in 500 years you would have filled barely half of the land available.
Exactely what I said.

I think that the main difference between Canada and Europe is that you have no border with third world countries.
That's why you are less interrested in helping these countries develop their economy.

The EU has turned poor european states into less poor ones, and now there is no immigration issue from these areas. This thanks to massive aid. The process is continuing.

The next goal is to get Turkey as developed economicaly so that they won't be considered as economic emigrant anymore. We don't send massive amounts there, because Turkey must build itself. It shouldn't be an assisted state.
For Africa there are multiple cooperation projects and tourism is developing rapidely.
They are increasingly bigger trading partner for us.

These countries won't be a treath anymore when they will be developed econmicaly.

I don't understand why don't think it's good.

I just understand that Canada can't have the same policy or even such view, by lack of poor neighbourg. So you have to assist the third world that comes to you.

Immigration destroys nations, that's the bottom line. Those in power and I mean those few that control the world affairs are interested in going that line. Because people with lost identity are easier to lead than those with a strong sense of belonging to a certain ethnicity, culture, land.

For the purposes of your argument, we'll just pretend that the 'nations' of USA, Canada and Australia (to name three obvious examples) were not created entirely by immigration.

I'm terribly sorry, I haven't been trained in your usage of 'smilie-code'.

Given my recollection of you from 'PoFo' from some years past, I'm not likely to give you any benefit of the doubt. 

That's nice.  Doesn't sound very complimentary, but hey, its your opinion and you are entitled to it.

My point is that Europe does not constitute a 'singularity' for any discussion of immigration.  You appear to agree.

Polish workers have been there all along.  They just didn't come into being with the fall of the wall. Toronto has lots of Polish immigrants from the 1980's - pre-wall, but this is peripheral.

Does "we did help them privately" include letting them immigrate, get jobs and become citizens of whatever non-UK country you are in?

Actually no - the most difficult part of immigration has always been trying to get "into" another country legally.  Getting out is comparatively easy - even under the Soviets.

Is there a point to this?  Looks to me like you are just making apologies for Belgium's general animosity towards immigrants.

Good gosh.  When I say "let Polish workers enter freely" that means letting them in to work legally.  Everyone lets in tourists.

That's precisely what I meant.  We're talking about immigration here, not tourist visas.  Legal immigration means letting immigrants work freely inside your country - legally.

That seems like you are saying - in some limited cases, Belgium can adapt to some immigrants of a particular race and religious affiliation, and only a couple of decades were needed for some Polish immigrants to adjust to Belgian culture, but they aren't really fully legal Belgian citizens, but we all kind of pretend they are anyway.

The whole point is that Germany and Italy, even with the relatively small immigrant populations that they do have (legal and illegal), are on trend for a declining population and a declining working population right now.  Over the next twenty years, they are going to have big fiscal problems because of this.

And those Turkish immigrants in Germany are a bad example. To the present day, the Turks in Germany do find it extremely difficult to attain full rights of German citizenship, even after several generations of living in Germany.  They are 'ghettoized' as immigrant laborers, holding 'second-class' legal status in Germany.  This is a travesty, not something to celebrate.

Btw, any percentage of immigrants less than 10% of the total population makes it seem tiny in comparison with USA or Canadian examples.

It is estimated that illegal immigrants in the USA make up anywhere from five to ten percent of the US population of 300 million.  These are just the 'illegals' - this doesn't include legal immigrants of similar proportions.  After five years, most legal immigrants become full legal citizens in USA and Canada.

Not at all.  Most of Canada is actually unihabitable by modern standards.  All population growth occurs only in the places of highest population density.

Global warming will probably change this over time, but if that's the case, the world is going to need every inch of Canada's vast wheat fields and forests to supply the planet.

I think the main difference between Canada and Europe on issues of immigration is that Canada has good public policy towards immigration and thus has success with immigration.  European nations all have restrictive or nationalist-driven anti-immigration policies and thus, Europe has much more problems with immigrants even though they have much less immigration.  :)

Are you seriously suggesting that Europe does more 'foreign investment' in non-western nations than the USA?  I doubt the numbers are even close.  The scale of private capitalism always dwarfs government aid or charitable actions in this respect.  Capital builds nations, not charity donations.

Europe has "no immigration issue" with Eastern Europe? 

That's just not credible.

Wow. 

Btw, Turkey gets its aid packages from the USA instead of EU.

This is all generally true.  But it has nothing to do with immigration.  This is pure self-serving economic interest.

Btw, there's well over a billion Pakistanis and Indians and Bangladeshis - what are you going to do for them?   

You can do all the 3rd world nation-building programs you like.  That's nice.

But it won't change the problems Europe has with issues of immigration.  Indeed, it just sounds like precisely the kind of thing that gives Europe so many immigration problems.  That is, the mindset that says immigrants just aren't wanted and ought to stay home.

Canada takes in more 3rd world immigrants than any country in Europe. 

Got any more arguments?

In those cases, the entire native populations were almost completely eradicated by the British Empire. Nice comparison, I have to admit.

So, you just proved my point with your example. Thanks.

You can add the Angles & Saxon immigrants to old Romano-Celtic Briton, or the Frankish and Ostrogoth immigrants to old Gaul, or the Visgoth immigrants in Spain eventually supplanting the Muslim immigrants of Spain which supplanted the earlier Carthaginian-Roman immigrants to Spain as examples if you like.  I could probably list a few dozen more.

I still stand by my statement. And to give you a stronger argument: I say that, as being an immigrant myself, so I believe I know something about the issue.

This is how I read the last exchange.

cauboi: Immigrants hurt nations.
Dormouse: Some nice places were built by immigrants.
[Dormouse to Fredledingue]
cauboi: Built with the bones of the natives.
Dormouse: History shows it happens that way a lot.
cauboi: I still think immigration hurts nations, I am an immigrant.

I'm a little confused. What's your point Dormouse? And cauboi does your being an immigrant mean you are being controlled by an international conspiracy, or are you helping to undermine your new nation? If not how does it support your point?

Nothing really in that particular exchange.  I wasn't taking cauboi's argument very seriously.

OK, I will give you a crash course of what's into an immigrant mind.

"Veni, vidi, vinci"

Which means in Latin language: I came, I saw, I conquered
Are you familiar with this Roman emperor ?

In other words: I came here, to Canada, to rape the land and the resources available, reap off the benefits of previous generations of development.

And I am not ashamed of doing that, you know why?
Because the Canadian government already reaped off the benefits of me being grown and educated in my native country, they didn't have to provide me health care and education while I was young, which we all know how expensive could be for any government. So, here I am, just ready to pay taxes. Good deal for them, huh?

Immigrants are easier to lead also, which come to my second point I made. When you are an immigrant you  try to integrate into a new society and you tend to loose your culture, ethnicity, land. Those are big pillars of human nature. If you don't have one or all these pillars, you don't belong to anything, you are lost in space. In my case, I lost my land and a small part of my culture, but there are immigrants out there that the new culture is a completely alien thing.

That's why the U.S. and Canadian governments (U.S. a lesser degree) let in so many immigrants that don't fit into. Do you think that if you are a WASP (white-anglo-saxon-protestant) your government cares more about you than me? Your government gave up, long time ago, to corporations interests, which are the real leaders of this country. You cannot compete with cheap labour, and even me I cannot compete with that after so many years of living here.

One more point and I will shut up on the subject.

When I say immigration destroys nations, I mean it, more than one nation. Because the official immigration policy is to cherry-pick the best people from all over the world, In my case I destroy my native country, by robing them of one of their long term investments. And I destroy someone's live here by making them loose their life style they got used to. As I said, only corporations win.

And the last, but not the least. Lets say, hypothetically, that U.S. or Greenland will attack Canada tomorrow. Men and women are drafted into the army, there is a war of survival of the Canadian nation in the face of the hoards of American barbarians :angel: Do you believe I am going to fight for this land ?

Dormouse,

There is no "animosity" against immigrant in Belgium. Belgium and most west european countries have always been recipient for a steady influx of poeple from all origines since the 60's and before.

Many belgians helped poles at the end of the 80's to live and find a job (illegal) because it was the time of Solidarnosc's struggle and we felt sympathy for them.
The biggest wave of Polish worker came after the fall of the Berlin wall. Of course many came before but it was not as easy.
What I mean is that there is a difference between what poeple think and what our governement decide.
The Belgian governement always rejected the policy of working permit a la UK.
Maybe that was not good, but it didn't change much. Many poles managed to settle in Belgium with a legal job, have kids at school etc. I don't know how they did because I don't know all the rules (and they change all the time) but many did it.
This question of working permit is not an immigration one. A Belgian who gets a legal job in France without working permit is also in illegal situation. I know some Belgian who lived in France for 20 years and has got this administrative problem and had to pay a huge fine. Belgians are hardly an immigrant population in France.
Even better, here in Belgian, we suspect our governement to postpone legality of work for poles indefenitely to keep the advantage of the black labour market (Our politicians have houses to repair too). Legal workers would be more expensive than illegal ones.



But Belgium has never needed to adapt to Poles to and Poles never needed to adjust to Belgium.
It didn't take a decade or two: It was done instantly as they were moreless like us already.
Their culture is slightly different of course, like every other european nationalities but nevertheless sharing a great part of european christian culture. It's not like he would be a chinese or something.
No, what has changed is that poeple coming from the other side of Europe doesn't look like they came from very very far away or from unkown region.
As I said above, a french or a german who lives in Belgium for ten years is not a fully belgian citizen neither. Who cares?


I don't think that our pension problem can be solved by importing young workers because that would imply our population to grow forever which is impossible (Maybe in Canada it is but not here).
One day these foreign workers would be old  and need pension too and we would need even more foreign workers at the next generation making the problem even worse.
No, I think that our pension system should adapt with a aging, stabilizing or even declining population. there could be incentive to work older for example.
I don't think that poeple who retire at 65, in practice at 60 inside pre-retirement sheme or at 50 capitulation unemployement, should spent 20 to 30 years doing nothing. That's insane. That's as long as their productive working time!

I don't think it's reason to let in millions of poeple from Asia Minor or Africa.
After all they don't come to finance our pension funds. If they work legaly, only a small portion will go to pension funds and we would need realy a lot of them to fill the gap.
And most of them won't find a legal job. They are useful mostly for small home aid or additional small jobs which are unafordable when legal taxes are to be paid.
That's why they end up ghettoized. They don't have the money to open their own business or the education to get official jobs. Those who do are out of the gettho.
Of course there is some discrimination against poeple of "arab" origins but this discrimination would vanish if there was enough jobs available and if those without a degree were not mostly from north-african descent.

here it's 10 years for extra-european (EU) poeple. They wanted to make it 5 years but it met stiff opposition. I don't know how much it is finaly.
The problem here, with the "without-paper" (so called because they pretend to have no documents which would proove they are illegals), is to wether or not give full citizenship to poeple who have never been supposed to be here.
I think it must be regulated somehow, some poeple must be expelled. If not it's anarchy.


Yes, but you still didn't understand the difference between Europe and North America.
We stand just near the source of a massive reservoir of immigration candidates. There are poeple crossing the Sahara desert on foot to go to Europe. Marroco and Algeria have themselves immigration problems with those who are in transit to Europe.
With your legislation, there would be millions of poor africans in our cities and god knows what they will do here and where they would find a place to live (ever tried to rent an apartment in Paris?).

No I don't. My point is that our philosophy (which is still different from applied politicies) is that local economic developement is a more viable solution than moving third-world populations to Europe.
Now if Corporate America invest more money in west-central Africa, north Africa and Turkey than our governements, we can only applaud that.


Well, moving from eastern europe to western europe is not even considered as a migration. How can we have an immigration issue with ourself?


The EU gives away money only under strict condition and never for the entire sum of the project. The recieving country must fund at least 30 % of the project.
The reason why the US want to send economic aid to Turkey and, btw, want Turkey in the EU, is different than European well being. It's indirectly beneficial to the EU policy of economical expansion, but they do it for Iraq, not for us.


Poeple with higher income either don't emigrate or are not a problem when they do.

Rich or poor, educated or not, they have to stay where they are indeed because they have to build their own country instead of escaping.
I don't see why they all "have to" come here. There is no job for them, no accomodation and they will stay poor anyway.
That a few of them come, no problem, but populations shouldn't move from one place to another.

Nothing. They are too far to make movement.


I still maintain that Somali and Ethipians who come by plane to Canada have higher income than those who arrive with empty pockets in Europe.

This is colorful.

And it just goes to show that Canadian statistics on immigration hold a nasty truth.  Immigrants to Canada are better educated, less dependent on social services, less likely to be unemployed and less likely to be incarcerated in prison than Canadian born WASPs.

Apparently lots of lazyass Canadian born WASPs hate having to face this truth.