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
Ha!, come on! First you didn't notice the little (LOL) after my comment and second you didn't read my reply to cauboi.
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.
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.
That's nice. Doesn't sound very complimentary, but hey, its your opinion and you are entitled to it.
what is true of Sweden is not true in Britain, what is true in Germany is not true in France, etc.).
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.
My point is that Europe does not constitute a 'singularity' for any discussion of immigration. You appear to agree.
And how many EU countries allow Polish workers to enter freely? Barely a handful. Britain probably permits more than all the rest added together.
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.
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?
The most difficult task was to get out of their country.
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.
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.
Is there a point to this? Looks to me like you are just making apologies for Belgium's general animosity towards immigrants.
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?)
Good gosh. When I say "let Polish workers enter freely" that means letting them in to work legally. Everyone lets in tourists.
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").
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
So, at the same rate, in 500 years you would have filled barely half of the land available.
Exactely what I said.
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 that the main difference between Canada and Europe is that you have no border with third world countries.
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.
That's why you are less interrested in helping these countries develop their economy.
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.
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.
Europe has "no immigration issue" with Eastern Europe?
That's just not credible.
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.
Wow.
Btw, Turkey gets its aid packages from the USA instead of EU.
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.
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?
I don't understand why don't think it's good.
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.
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.
Canada takes in more 3rd world immigrants than any country in Europe.
Got any more arguments?
