I don't think anyone here is against immigration entirely, merely against socially (and for that matter ecologically) unsustainable mass immigration. And I can cite you examples of virtual parallel societies within Australia. A classic example is the substantial Lebanese/Islamic communities in some of the suburbs of Sydney, particularly that around the Lakemba mosque that is home to a number of notoriously radical imams. You will remember the Cronulla riots in Australia not that long ago that no doubt made it into your news. That was caused by the existence of parallel islamic and christian/secular societies in the Sydney region. National identity for both the US and Australia includes liberal democracy, seperation of religion and state, equality of the sexes and secular law. Not all islamic communities in our countries respect these values that are fundamental to our national identities, as evidenced by calls (by some of them) for Sharia Law etc.
Nicely put! And it is not so much a failure of governments to promote a unified national identity, it is more the fact that they have effectively persued a policy of psuedo recolonisation, through their over ambitious immigration intakes, that has allowed parallel societies to develop. If the immigration intakes were smaller then I have little doubt that a unified national identity would have developed sponstaneously and multiculturalism would have worked just find. They would have had a continuous cultural spectrum from Pakistani etc to Anglo-Saxon. If immigration ceased then this cultural spectrum would average out to a uniform hybrid culture over time. That is the true vision of multiculturalism. But that is not what the west has at present due to excessive immigration.
I agree that if it were smaller that integration would have worked and multiculturalism would not have become an issue but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'policy of psuedo recolonisation'. Could you explain that for me please?
out in the real west, america, the 2nd gen proudly proclaim that they are american ja that us seducing one and all with our magic all hail america and a big fat "fuck off" to the europeans
With the influx of arabic muslims, indians, sri lankens, africans and chinese into Australia in the last decade or so many Australians, and not just the anglo-saxon ones, feel threatened in much the same way that aborigines must have felt when the British started arriving in large numbers. No doubt current americans feel much the same way, about the massive influx of muslims and Mexicans etc, as the American Indians must have felt with the influx of British. Psuedo colonisation = the overwhelming of your culture and society by massive waves of colonists. The only difference is that the colonisation in this case is government sanctioned at the behest of the economic, business and humanist lobbies in both countries.
Do I really need to elaborate on ecological sustainability is? Surely everyone here is science educated enough to know what this is about. Socially sustainable = such that it does not cause rifts through the host nation that could be a threat to its political stability particularly if any ecological or economic shocks follow it. Ecological shocks might include insufficient fresh water and insufficient food production due to the effects of climate change etc.
Governments make rules that are complex enough, to remain unstudied in average, ensuring a greater part of children and adults remain in fear and intimidation. Though to put it simply, a tenant is responsible for their guests entirely, and if out of line, can cause the tenant to be evicted, in 24 hrs notice, along with their guest. In most instances, this clause can keep peace in any valley.
At least in Australia, we have a lot of lawyers who like to shape immigration policy in their own ideological image through the courts. Perhaps most lawyers in the US know their place more with respect to immigration policy?
Interesting. I never thought of it like that before, a kind of reverse colonization. Why do you think mass migration was promoted? Why didn't they look at the long term consequences and try and pre-empt the present issues they face? I mean in regards to the UK they were bringing in 50,000 a year in the 70's and now its 30,000 a year. Its a bloody small island! What did they think was going to happen?
Its interesting that the flood of immigrants has led to white british citizens leaving in droves: According to Government estimates, the established white population of England dropped by nearly 250,000 between 2002 and 2006. Official figures have previously indicated that about 50,000 Britons head for Australia each year and about 30,000 for New Zealand. Last year, a record 400,000 left the country to live abroad for at least 12 months. Yesterday's estimates, which show how each ethnic group grew or diminished between 2005 and 2006, provide further evidence of so-called white flight'. The white British population went down by 70,400 over the year through emigration. And the white Irish population fell by 4,600 because of emigration, bringing the total decline in the existing white population to 75,000. The figures have been calculated for every year back to 2002 - and this was the biggest decline yet. In the previous year, there had been a drop of just 42,300. In 2004, there was a fall of 74,100. Even though there were more births than deaths, the white British and Irish population still fell by almost 15,000 in 2006. Immigration increased the numbers in other groups, notably among those officially categorised as 'other white', including arrivals from Poland and Eastern Europe. This group grew by 70,600 in 2006. There were also increases in the Indian, Pakistani, African and Chinese ethnic populations. The estimates were greeted with alarm by the immigration think-tank Migration Watch. Its chairman Sir Andrew Green said: 'The unavoidable conclusion is that the whole nature of our society will change very rapidly unless the Government moves from spin to serious action, which the vast majority of the public want to see.' Previous surveys by officials have shown that most of those who emigrate go to Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain or the U.S. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ern-Europeans-come-Britain.html#ixzz1EiSZvQWw
sure since this ecological sustainability is based mostly on voodoo science, its best to remain ignorant so we have an admission then excellent i won
You definitely need to explain how having people move from one place to another (often in response to environmental stresses, at that) is inherently less sustainable than having the same number of people remain wherever they are. If you can pull that off without exposing the chauvinist xenophobia that clearly underlies your position, well, I'll be impressed.
please dont come here to hell with your insular expat enclaves and mentality we have enough xenophobia to go around here so bugger off somewhere else. But richness of life is not what everyone is seeking. Most expats seem content to huddle inside their British enclaves, particularly around the popular beach resort of Stoupa, which has bars and cafes serving full English breakfasts and Sunday roasts. This area has the largest population of expats in the southern Peloponnese, and one local business even delivers English-style food to them, such as pies, sausages and curries. In one hillside development of villas, there are so many English expats that it is known derisively among other Brits as Brookside, after the TV soap. John Malcolm says when he first came to Greece most Brits “tended to stick together and sit around in bars all day, drinking heavily and talking about Britain. However, some of the expats coming here now make more effort to fit in.” Fran Burtonshaw, 50, packed in her job with BBC Scotland in the late 1980s after meeting a Greek man while on holiday and later marrying him. She is now divorced with two teenage boys and has lived in Kalamata for 20 years. She has many expat friends and understands their insecurities. “Some have come to Greece to escape their lives in Britain, and they may just want the warm climate. But many only want to mix in expat enclaves because it’s a security blanket for them, and they really could be anywhere, like Spain. Those who do want to integrate may find it a very difficult thing, depending on their age and circumstances,” she says.
Gustav, clearly you are part of the economic/business growth lobby for whom any scientific fact that contradicts growth ideology is dismissed as 'voodoo science'. So I think we are all best served to simply ignore your ignorant bile.
Clearly you are part of the humanist lobby for which even petty human interests trumps the wider interests of western civilisation, the interests of future generations and indeed the collective interests of our species. As with climate change deniers, no amount of scientific evidence will disuade you from going against short term petty individualistic interests. So again I think we are best served to ignore your humanists ideological crap!
