RE: My First Politically Incorrect Thought
Today, @vieira published an interesting article with pros and cons of immigration.
The conclusion was that some immigration is beneficial for everybody, while mass immigration often represents a problem.
I added in a comment that the level of problem caused by mass immigration depends on the cultural difference between the immigrants and the natives.
I'm also liberal and tolerant, but prejudices shouldn't be confused with statistical facts. You would be a bad person (in my opinion) if you said that someone must be bad/uneducated/impolite/etc. if he is Turkish/Arab/Muslim/German. But I'm 100% sure that statistical analysis would show that ethnic Germans are on average more educated than an average immigrant in Germany, and there is no need for you to be ashamed of thinking something that's obviously a fact.
"Anatolia? Nope, Germany." :D
Cheers!
thx for the comment. I always considered myself a pro-immigration person. I find it just too exciting as that I could be against it. Most of the girlfriends I ever had were from other countries and I actually tested myself through all continents and the respective cuisines. That's some sort of accomplishment. Vietnam beats them all! ;-)
I guess, we have to draw a distinction between creative immigration and destructive immigration. The first kind are people with plans, dreams and a lot of will to make it and integrate and become part of the society while the latter is the one where people try to exploit the new place by convenience without ever becoming a part of it (or seeing themselves as part of it).
In Germany - the pre-Merkel border opening Germany - it worked surprisingly well with almost all nationalities and ethnicities. The big exception are people with a Muslim background. Around 1/3 of all Turks and 2/3 of Arabs/Maghrebinians don't integrate and they also actively try to stay apart. The exception when it comes to Muslims are exile Persians, Tartars and people from France Afrique. They usually are not different from the big rest statistically or in their broad social behavior.
Bottom line: What I would add to the big entrance is an equally big exit and consistently throw out everyone who can't behave. Every country needs that. With that, things would soon be sorted out everywhere.
I agree with you, but the problem is in defining "can't behave". You can behave in an extremely annoying way for everybody around you without committing any crime.
True. But that is something I wouldn't sanction. Something like that can be good socially, because it shows the limitations and weaknesses of the own system (plus the limits of your patience). At the end, when it's really that annoying, you can make it illegal and throw out the perpetrators. I still think that's enough. An example that annoys me a lot would be permanent honking in the traffic - as if that's of any use. But then again, I probably wouldn't make it illegal, but just less loud.
The thing is - you can't make honking less loud without making loud honking illegal.
And with the billion annoying examples such as permanent honking in the traffic, yelling around the markets, backward social attitudes, low personal hygiene, and similar staff often (but not always) found in certain groups, you realize that you can't really make regulations on all that, and even if you did, the police officers would simply lack the time to control and sanction all of those widely spread minor "offenses".
Which leads us (or at least me) to a conclusion that immigration should be very selective in the first place, as it's almost impossible to throw out the annoying but not quite criminal people later.
That's a good objection. I think, a major element is social control. If in a society it is deemed ok to yell and be smelly, people will yell and smell. But if you "make" this socially unacceptable, the result will be more hygiene and reservation. In the most cases more advertisement for soap should be enough.
The biggest problem for this kind of problem solving is when there are already pockets of parallel societies that you can't reach anymore, because they run a closed system. In this case, you need steamroller tactics like strict immigration or a mandatory military service where you teach the out-group how to wash and behave.
These out-groups are either completely harmless and just do their own thing (like the Japanese community in Frankfurt - you don't hear anything about them, but they are plenty). Or they are staying apart not by running an attractive parallel society, but by forcing its members to stay part of the group. In that case, you have all rights to go against the criminal behavior. As soon as the criminal and destructive parts are gone, you end up with A) a harmless out-group or B) the group assimilates on its own (like exile Persians usually do) or C) it's enough to use or enable social cohesion techniques.
Bottom line: If the people in charge are doing their job by going against destructive elements when they see them, I don't think there is a situation in which you need extensive force like strict immigration policies. The big problem is, neither the people in charge do their job (=politicians) nor the ones who should be observing them and tell the public about it (=journalists).
As I wrote in the answer to @yaanivapeji, you don't need to be a politician, but you need money. Then you can for example run a newspaper and tell everyone about negative developments.
Great points. I think that the reasons behind the bottom line problems you described are:
OK, this makes me feel depressed and helpless. :D
You summarized my opinion pretty well and I do know that feeling. But you can ease it - there is always the blue pill:
I'm trying to swallow it since a year or so, but it's too big to get all of it down at once..^^