# Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

*Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah*

By TERRY DAVIDSON, Toronto Sun EXCERPT:

 		Last Updated: February 7, 2011 9:06pm
A prominent voice in Canadas Muslim community said British Prime  Minister David Cameron was spot on when he insisted British  multiculturalism has failed.
  And just like Britain, Canadas will fail, said Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah.
  He said Monday that, like Britain, Canada has been too tolerant in  allowing Muslim immigrants to settle into closed communities, some of  which preach Islamic values and a hatred toward the West. 
  The Canadian multicultural model has failed, as the British model  has, said Fatah. When first generation (Muslims) are more loyal to  Canada than the second generation, then we have sufficient evidence to  say that multiculturalism has failed.
  Citing the Toronto 18 terrorist plot as an example of the extremism  that can result from ethnic isolation, Fatah said he hoped Canada can  pick up on the points Cameron made in a controversial speech on  Saturday.
  While speaking at a security conference in Germany, Cameron called  for an end to Britains passive tolerance of divided ethnic  communities. He also said beefing up was needed in the prevention of  extremism.  
  Fatah said Canadas Liberal and Conservative governments push a  tolerant, passive form of multiculturalism as a way of preserving votes.
END EXCERPT


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

Aye that was much the sort of point I was making about multiculturalisms schismatic effects several years ago - indeed I made some posts about it in this very forum if I recall correctly.

To be a part of the society within which you dwell, you cannot be apart from that self same society.  The strands of different cultures and ethnicities must twist together into a rope or else the whole thing unravels like a ball of string the kittens have been at.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> To be a part of the society within which you dwell, you cannot be apart from that self same society.



Orthodox Jews, the Amish, some Mormon sects, Commune-types, many nationalities and ethnicities over our history - all have lived apart, we've managed to accommodate them all without dissolving yet.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

I don't believe that you believe that that is the same phenomenon being addressed in the much wider picture of a society in which certain regions are receiving large influxes of population.

As ever I note that if you don't cover absolutely every angle in a post of less than a hundred words someone will pull a stick out of it to beat you over the head with.  For the record, I did think of precisely those minority groups that you mentioned EH.

Their seperate existence is not a danger to the body politic in the same way as the deliberately divisive elements commonly touted as 'multicultural'.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 8, 2011)

Multiculturalism


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Their seperate existence is not a danger to the body politic in the same way as the deliberately divisive elements commonly touted as 'multicultural'.



I see no difference other than perhaps numerical, so this isn't me nitpicking you.  I see no qualitative difference.  As I obliquely mentioned from our immigrant history, we have had very large populations living separately, so even the numerical differences don't always hold up.  None has proven a danger to our society by their existence.

What pretty much always happens is that unless they are prevented (see France) immigrant populations naturally assimilate over time, usually fully by the 3rd generation.  We've accommodated many such waves in our history, always to our benefit, even if many refused to admit that at the time.  All went through a generation or two of separate living, separate languages and separate lives.  All eventually joined the mainstream as their children and grandchildren learned the language and became part of the whole, for the opportunity if nothing else - ethnic ghettos tend to be very poor.  This is just life and human nature, and nothing to get all that concerned about.

We certainly don't get wound up about the Orthodox Jews or the Amish, so I'm not sure why we should with the Pakistanis, the Indians, Muslims generally, or whomever else.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I see no difference other than perhaps numerical, so this isn't me nitpicking you.  I see no qualitative difference.


Of course you don't, There are none so blind as those, that will not see. For an example, you obviously ignored this:


Big Don said:


> some of  which preach Islamic values and a hatred toward the West.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

Ahh :nods:.

What we have observed over here is that the first of the waves of immigration (talking about the 60's and 70's here) were more than happy to try to become a part of the society - it's what they came here for.  They were escaping the strictures and hardships of a caste and religion bound culture for one where their ability mattered more than their birth and, importantly, one where religion was a personal choice.  Their children were on the whole 'British', other than a few that bucked the trend.  Amongst their grandchildren, however, is proving to be where the seeds of a potential problem lie.

That is tied in with those amongst the most recent arrivals who do not come here because they want to be part of our society.

It is an odd reversal of the usual process of assimilation and it is, so it is thought in political circles, being fueled from outside by (as is nearly always the case) inimicable religious extremists.

It is not an imagined circumstance or some post-Imperial angst - it is a real problem and one that is being made worse by pandering to the divisive elements.  To those who do not think so, I invite you to sell up, emigrate to Britain and set up house in somewhere like the Normacot region of Stoke-on-Trent.  Other than the fact that the area clearly has period terraced housing you'd be hard pressed to realise you were in an English city and you would not feel very welcome I would guess.

The sealing wax on the page is that it is not just those of white English ethnicity who see this as a problem.  In my place of work, I sit amongst a wide panoply of people.  Just by turning in my chair I can see more than half a dozen ethnicities, european, near-eastern and far-eastern.  Now, aye, we are a cultural slice in our own right being well educated and esconced in the same profession but there are not many who do not see the unrest in our midst as a major worry.

What we do about it without giving sway to the increasing surge of far-right-wingers who pedal their own insidious form of race-hate I do not know.  It is so tempting to give in to the urge to "Send the buggers back, they're not the ones we want!" but that is not the way to a long term solution.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

There is a HUGE difference between those who move somewhere because they want to be a part of whatever that place is, and those who move somewhere and want to change it into where they left.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2011)

You're seeing a not uncommon phenomena.

A large portion of the off-the-boat generation will try to assimilate.

The second generation will try hard to 'regain their roots'

The third generation and beyond WILL assimilate to a very large extent.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> There is a HUGE difference between those who move somewhere because they want to be a part of whatever that place is, and those who move somewhere and want to change it into where they left.


 
That's why every major city in the U.S. has a _Chinatown_........and Milwaukee has a "Little Poland"..........there's Korea towns, and Japan towns, and Little Italies, and........well, you get the idea. 

"Multiculturalism" doesn't fail when _values_ are shared, and *middle class aspirations are within the reach of all groups.  *


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

elder999 said:


> "Multiculturalism" doesn't fail when _values_ are shared, and *middle class aspirations are within the reach of all groups.  *



Quoted for truth :tup:.  The Indian immigrants who became the staple of corner shop ownership over here are a classic example of that.  They came over, started with little, worked like blazes and got ahead.  They achieved success by working as part of the society they elected to join - which is why many of them now drive around in Mercedes and all credit to them for it.


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

The hatemongers will always exist, no matter the roots.

I actually find that most of those who make a good living by stirring the pot have little to do with the roots. They have the gift of gab and probably not many other mentionable skills.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> That is tied in with those amongst the most recent arrivals who do not come here because they want to be part of our society.
> 
> It is an odd reversal of the usual process of assimilation and it is, so it is thought in political circles, being fueled from outside by (as is nearly always the case) inimicable religious extremists.



OK, let's assume this is true.  What are the numbers?  How many, and what percent of the population feels that way?  How many can the nation tolerate before civil society is disrupted?

It's easy to point to one or two loud examples or striking news stories to fuel a vague sense of disaster.  You might be ignoring the vast majority who just wants to do exactly what you say you want them to do.  In other words, it might not really be a problem.  No more so than "white people" are a problem in the UK because of the BNP.



Sukerkin said:


> Other than the fact that the area clearly has period terraced housing you'd be hard pressed to realise you were in an English city and you would not feel very welcome I would guess.



Simply put, so what?  I might not feel at home and see the usual sights in Harlem or Crown Heights (an Orthodox neighborhood), but that doesn't make those places "un-American" or tearing the city apart.  I've spent time in Greek Orthodox neighborhoods (wonderful food) with a different language and culture.  I've spent time in many Hispanic neighborhoods.  At no time did I feel that my nation was dissolving around me.

Why does the presence of people with different backgrounds living differently, freedom in other words, threaten your vision of your country?



Sukerkin said:


> It is so tempting to give in to the urge to "Send the buggers back, they're not the ones we want!" but that is not the way to a long term solution.



The long term solution is to allow people to live as they please, and in time the problem solves itself.  Of course, then the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those immigrants will be worried about the new strange bunch in town.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2011)

Uhh. I think that yall are missing the main point. It's not about ethnic concentrations or "assimilation" pe se. It's about these concentrations also spouting hate and anti-American rhetoric at the same time. It's not about not fitting in, its about actively "hating" your new country. Or trying to install your own system of cultural laws in disregard to (or expecting acceptance by) your new nations laws. And if it's not "the entire" segment of society, there is obvious tacit acceptance of these groups.

Try to find something like THAT anywhere in an Amish society....


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Uhh. I think that yall are missing the main point. It's not about ethnic concentrations or "assimilation" pe se. It's about these concentrations also spouting hate and anti-American rhetoric at the same time. It's not about not fitting in, its about actively "hating" your new country. Or trying to install your own system of cultural laws in disregard to (or expecting acceptance by) your new nations laws. And if it's not "the entire" segment of society, there is obvious tacit acceptance of these groups.
> 
> Try to find something that THAT anywhere in an Amish society....



You find enough of that there, too, I bet. There is the clear demarkation line between the Amish and the 'English' 

However. 

There are those who make a pretty darn good living and stirring the pot.
Most of them have no harsh life, they come from well educated background, studied many places.

If they spew hate here or there, against the US or whatever...it makes no difference.
yes, there will always be the down on their luck who will listen. But it has nothing to do with race or culture and all with power and money. 

They are no different from the PETA freaks, or the Godfather of propaganda (you know who I mean, don't make me spell it out for the sake of the thread!)

So they are from the middle east. Or the little emperor from venezuela...don't forget, there are enough of their ilk here in the US spouting the very same garbage into the other direction. But since the cameras are not pointed in their direction...


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2011)

So Suk is wrong? There are no "issues" there? He's just a xenophobe?


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> So Suk is wrong? There are no "issues" there? He's just a xenophobe?



There are always issues.

But taking the word of a loudmouth blowhard for it....nvm, you guys get your news from Rush and Beck 

The point is that those who do the most talking, and the loudest do not necessarily represent the population as a whole.

Of course, if left unchecked they can do a lot of damage (history is full of precedent) but in general most people don't care past day to day living. Much to the shagrin of those who do the talking. And mind you, they do the talking...they try to find the others to do the doing. 

I am not saying there are not those who are disgruntled and vulnerable to such speak, but the majority is not. Not until pushed though. When minding your own business becomes a hassle then you have a problem.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Feb 8, 2011)

> Orthodox Jews, the Amish, some Mormon sects, Commune-types, many nationalities and ethnicities over our history - all have lived apart, we've managed to accommodate them all without dissolving yet.



The thing is that although these groups live apart and many within those groups don't want a part of mainstream society, they don't share a hatred of the place they are living in.

Many muslims make a place for themselves in western society yet there are areas where some have more than just differing views, their views are anti-western and anti-modern.
Where women cover their faces and males have trouble getting jobs and rely on the welfare system while developing further anger for the society they're feeding off of.

This demonstrates more than just isolated ethnicity, it demonstrates an utter lack of respect and even a disdain for the very place they've chosen to call home.

Again, it's wrong to say all or even most muslims are like this because that simply is not true but it does exist and seems to be becoming more prevalent.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Many muslims make a place for themselves in western society yet there are areas where some have more than just differing views, their views are anti-western and anti-modern.
> Where women cover their faces and males have trouble getting jobs and rely on the welfare system while developing further anger for the society they're feeding off of.



This precisely describes the FLDS splinter sects of the Mormon church.  We haven't banned them from the country yet, nor have they caused the country to go up in flames.

Until some numbers start showing up, we have no idea how big a problem this even is, or even if it is a problem.  There are plenty of standard whitebread Americans who could be described as having similar views or even a hatred of America, and again we haven't banned them from the country yet.  No one has shown that the Muslims are any different.

Also, freedom is freedom.  You can't promise freedom on the one hand and then restrict acceptable thought and lifestyles on the other.  At least not without showing yourself as a massive freedom hating hypocrite.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12381027

There is another article I read on the BBC just last week that addresses a couple of EH's questions ... but I'm darned if I can find it so I shall have to pull some stats out of my ... erm ... rear .  What this piece I am referring too noted was that Britain in particular has a very, very high percentage of it's indigs who rate uncontrolled immigration and cultural seperatism as the number one problem the country faces - it was something astronomical like 75% of people from *all* segments and sectors of the population.  We are more concerned about that than we are about the blatant con-trick the banks have pulled on us.

Now I know that EH means well and is speaking from his heart but there comes a time when, in terms of societal health, being overly accomodating just gets your culture killed.  That is why we 'fear' the immigrant tide - not the individual members of it but the flow itself - the problem is exacerbated because those who do have their roots here (but have the means and the wherewithal to do so) are leaving in droves i.e. the British are becoming an immigrant tide for someone else.

Now, just to be clear, I am not tied to a mast with a sign on it that proclaims I am 'For Freedom' above all else.  I am not.  I a monarchist for one thing (until such time as the Royal family goes bad again at any rate).  Freedom has to have limits for it to have meaning.  As British subjects we accept that the rule of law has given us the stable society we have.  Because people have a tendency to do what they want without responsibility, we accept that bounds and limits need to be applied to make sure we retain that highly valued stability (it can be taken as read that I understand the inherent dangers of creeping totalitarianism such a policy can give rise to).  

The feeling that is growing is that the 'rules' only apply to 'us' and that the more recent immigrants are merely sponging off our taxes whilst thumbing their noses at our country. Note that the 'us' here does not mean just the White Indigenous Population - there are shops owned and run by Pakistani's in Stoke that have signs in their windows prohibiting cutomers in 'traditional dress' and insisting that English is spoken.  The Political Correctness Nazi's see to it that proper voice is not given to feelings and fears, without the social suicide of being labelled a racist and that simply ups the pressure in the pot.  The BNP have been having a field day with these conditions, especially in Stoke where the immigrant percentage is acutely high.  It won't take many more 'Honour Killings' and other flagrant disregards for British mores and codes for the more violent (and truly racist) people to seize on that as an excuse.

Now I believe that we are dealing more with a perception than a reality in these matters but that is almost irrelevant - for sociological phenomenon are nearly always where perception becomes reality.

As to why this is a concern to me as an individual, well, I happen to be rather a fan-boy of the ideals that Englishness came to stand for during the past couple of centuries (leaving aside the wars, concentration camps, exploitation of the less powerful etc that now embarass us so ).  That safe, stable society that I grew up in is no longer there or at least it is in danger of not being.  The well-to-do la-de-da's in their ivory towers might not see the problem because they make darned sure none of those 'immigrant types' get any where near them (other than as domestics perhaps) but the ordinary working class people feel marginalised in their own towns and that is a dangerous state of affairs for all.

Slow the process down, give the different elements time to adjust and we'll pull through - at least we always have before.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> What this piece I am referring too noted was that Britain in particular has a very, very high percentage of it's indigs who rate uncontrolled immigration and cultural seperatism as the number one problem the country faces - it was something astronomical like 75% of people from *all* segments and sectors of the population.  We are more concerned about that than we are about the blatant con-trick the banks have pulled on us.



I have no doubt that lots of people are concerned about the problem, but that doesn't mean it's a real problem.  By comparison, a large percentage of Americans think that crime is rising - it has been falling for more than 20 years.  You would need to actually look at how many immigrants espouse separatist positions, and so forth, and even more important you would have to show that their children and grandchildren are absorbing those positions for it to be meaningful.



Sukerkin said:


> Now I know that EH means well and is speaking from his heart but there comes a time when, in terms of societal health, being overly accomodating just gets your culture killed.



Evidence?  By comparison, the United States has been and still remains one of the most accommodating nations to immigration in the world.  Is our culture disintegrating around us?  We have lots of problems, but they don't stem from a tide of immigrants.

This is why I think I'm the one speaking from the head, not the heart.  I'm repeatedly asking for numbers and evidence here, because it seems like this problem is mainly one of false perception and a lack of historical perspective.



Sukerkin said:


> The feeling that is growing is that the 'rules' only apply to 'us' and that the more recent immigrants are merely sponging off our taxes whilst thumbing their noses at our country.



But is that actually true?  Perhaps we should find out before we decide the fates of millions of people based on a "feeling."



Sukerkin said:


> Now I believe that we are dealing more with a perception than a reality in these matters but that is almost irrelevant - for sociological phenomenon are nearly always where perception becomes reality.



So even if most immigrants are hard working and are doing what you want, the subjective and incorrect perceptions of the majority justify taking action against them?  Also, no matter what the perception, the immigrants will be who they are - perception won't make them all UK hating freeloaders who honor kill their female relations.  It behooves any rational thinking person to align their perceptions with their reality, not the other way around, especially when the fate of so many is at stake.



Sukerkin said:


> As to why this is a concern to me as an individual, well, I happen to be rather a fan-boy of the ideals that Englishness came to stand for during the past couple of centuries (leaving aside the wars, concentration camps, exploitation of the less powerful etc that now embarass us so ).



How is that vision compromised by immigrants?  Are not the immigrants just as capable of displaying the same values and traits you admire?  Or is "Englishness" simply cultural imperialism, where all must look and act a certain way, values be damned?

ETA:  I think the other "charter members" of the UK might also take issue with your use of "Englishness" to define the attitudes of an entire country filled with Welsh, Scots, Irish and other non-English types.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

I don't do Bullet Point Wars, EH.   My apologies but it's a form of argumentation that does just that ... causes arguments.  It stops my interest in a conversation stone dead when people quote selective bits of what I write and don't take the supporting text into account.

You want me to say that there is nothing wrong with the state of affairs as they are - well I shall not because that is not the case.  

The reverse of that is that neither will I be able to convince you that, in these days of mass transport and high freedom of movement, the stability of cultures is threatened by population transfer.

I think you are wrong not to see that inertia causes frictional damage to a society when changes are too rapid.  You think I am wrong because I do not accept that cultures will adapt and improve no matter how hot you stoke the furnace and how many more elements are thrown into the pot.  Both views are valid and both can co-exist as neither of us needs to convince the other for time will tell.

Not a lot of use in flogging the poor horse any more than that.  The medium just does not allow for sophisticated debate as it is suited to Sound Bites rather than evidential essays.  Tho' I suppose linking to external documents is a way around that ... hmmm ... something to ponder.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> You want me to say that there is nothing wrong with the state of affairs as they are - well I shall not because that is not the case.



No, what I want you to do is to support your point with evidence.  Maybe there really is a problem here, I certainly haven't researched it.  I can't know that though until someone provides something concrete.

You are an economist, so consider how you would view a paper I've written that makes economic claims with no data or models.

Same here.  If immigration really is a problem, you should be able to prove it.  I can think of many counterexamples from our national history and other histories (i.e. Roman empire) so I would need to see evidence in this case to convince me otherwise.

Otherwise it does come off as feelings-based and not objective.  It doesn't help when your examples of the supposed problems include going into an immigrant neighborhood and not having it look like it did in the past, or extolling the virtues of "Englishness" without defining them.  After a point, it does start to look like xenophobia and not a rational analysis of the situation.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

Ah, I did indeed misread your tone - my apologies.  I thought you were just looking for an argument rather than actually being interested in looking into the subject :bows:.


----------



## K-man (Feb 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I see no difference other than perhaps numerical, so this isn't me nitpicking you. I see no qualitative difference. As I obliquely mentioned from our immigrant history, we have had very large populations living separately, so even the numerical differences don't always hold up. *None has proven a danger to our society by their existence.*
> 
> We certainly don't get wound up about the Orthodox Jews or the Amish, so I'm not sure why we should with the Pakistanis, the Indians, Muslims generally, or whomever else.


It is not the Pakistanis, Indians or ordinary Muslims that are the problem.

IMO, anyone from any country is welcome to come to make Australia their new home as long as certain conditions are met. 

Those conditions are not onerous. They must appreciate the lifestyle that is in place and they must respect the laws of the land. They must be willing to work and pay their way like everyone else. They are quite welcome to honour their culture and they are free to practise their religeon. What really pisses me off are the radical Islamists who now want their own separate state and Shariah law, within OUR country. No other wave of refugees has gone anywhere in the world with those expectations.  What has changed now? 

As to the danger element. Most countries with radical elements have exposed terror cells so to say there is no danger is real ostrich stuff. I believe the current wave of immigration from the middle east is the biggest threat to the western way of life that we have seen. Unfortunately with the current environment of political correctness, no-one is willing to say to these radicals, "if you don't like it, Piss Off!"


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

Needless to say, I agree, K-man - sadly I could not Rep you privately for those sentiments so it is the embarassment of public recognition for you .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2011)

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the tenor of the original post is correct.

The solution is what, exactly?

Having defined the problem, I would like to know what the proposed solution might be.

The author of the original piece had some ideas.  Let's see...



> Canada has been too tolerant in  allowing Muslim immigrants to settle  into closed communities, some of  which preach Islamic values and a  hatred toward the West.



If this is true, what is the solution?  And I will apply this to the USA, since I don't live in Canada.

We in the USA allow people who are here legally to live wherever they please.  Am I to understand that the solution is for the government to dictate where legal immigrants may live?

We have freedom of religion here.  Am I to understand that we are supposed to outlaw the preaching of _"Islamic values"_ in the USA?  Please someone explain to me under what Constitutional theory this can be done legally.

We have freedom of speech and freedom of conscience here as well.  Am I to understand that we must outlaw 'hatred of America'?  So it will be illegal to speak ill of the USA or to live in this country and hate it?

All I am asking is this - if the things that the author mentioned are true, what is the solution?  He said that there was a problem with allowing certain groups to live together.  So we change the laws to not allow certain groups to live together?  He said they preach "Islamic values."  So we do away with freedom of religion?  He said they practice hatred of the country they live in.  So we require what, loyalty oaths or outlaw hate speech or outlaw the feelings a person harbors in their own minds?

Someone explain to me what it is we're supposed to do here.  Assuming the argument is true, that is.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

K-man said:


> It is not the Pakistanis, Indians or ordinary Muslims that are the problem....What really pisses me off are the radical Islamists who now want their own separate state and Shariah law, within OUR country. No other wave of refugees has gone anywhere in the world with those expectations.  What has changed now?



You say that "ordinary Muslims" are not the problem, but then go on to conflate the entire wave of immigration with radical Islamists.  This is false.

How many radical Islamists are in your country?  What percentage of the immigrant populace do they make up?  It seems like that would be a good thing to know prior to deciding that all Middle Eastern immigrants (most Muslims in the world are not Middle Eastern, btw.) are a danger to your way of life.



K-man said:


> As to the danger element. Most countries with radical elements have exposed terror cells so to say there is no danger is real ostrich stuff.



We were discussing the survival of a culture and country, not terrorism.  There is no danger of your or my country dissolving from Muslim immigration.  There is some danger from acts of terror, but that is a separate discussion.



K-man said:


> I believe the current wave of immigration from the middle east is the biggest threat to the western way of life that we have seen.



In what way?  From radical Islam?  Again, wouldn't it be useful to know how many of these immigrants are Islamists before you make this decision?



K-man said:


> Unfortunately with the current environment of political correctness, no-one is willing to say to these radicals, "if you don't like it, Piss Off!"



Oh please.  No one defends radical Islamists, that's just silly.  What does annoy some people is when you conflate radical Islamists with the entire "wave" as you have done.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If this is true, what is the solution?



Get rid of them.  You know, "them".  Or at least make them wear an identifying mark so we know who is a dangerous immigrant.  Perhaps some sort of symbol on the sleeve...


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2011)

Interesting boundary test conditions there, Bill.  

I do think that you have to be aware of certain 'givens' when extrapolating ideas of national identity and cultural cohesion in the thought experiment that is America.  I mean no insult when I say that it is a nation that is not really a nation at all in the accepted sense, being far too new and far too full of a raging mix of creeds and ethnicities.

Immigration and the conflicts it brings are the natural state of being in America, where it seems that everyone is from somewhere else in the world.  It is rather different in somewhere like England where you have people like me whose family have lived in the same town for a thousand years - and I'm not kidding or exaggerating.

The pace of change must perforce be slower in the Old World for,as this thread proves, we will not accept it any other way.


----------



## billc (Feb 8, 2011)

this might be a small, teeny, tiny sign that there is a small problem in Britain and its ability to assimilate the influx of muslims from around the world:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mohammed-becomes-most-popular-baby-boy-name-in-britain/

this is from (prepare for the audible gasp) Glen Becks website, a little list of the most popular boys and girls names in Britain. You can get the list elsewhere if you don't trust Beck.

*World Mohammed Becomes &#8216;Most Popular&#8217; Boy Name in Britain*


Posted on October 28, 2010 at 7:56pm by 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Meredith Jessup
Print »
Email »
The name Mohammed has officially become the most popular name for newborn boys in Britain. According to the UK&#8217;s Mail Online, Mohammed replaces Jack, which had topped the list for the last 14 years.




A to

A total of 7,549 newborns were given 12 variations of the Islamic prophet Mohammed&#8217;s name last year, such as Muhammad and Mohammad.
The name Mohammed first debuted on the top 100 in 1944 when it ranked 87th. By 1964 it had risen to 73rd. But since 1999, the Mail Online reports the name&#8217;s frequency has increased by more than 50%.
The upsurge in the name&#8217;s frequency likely mirrors a growing population of Muslims residing in the UK. Just last week, the Telegraph ran an expose on one London borough populated nearly entirely by Muslims, dubbed &#8220;Britain&#8217;s Islamic Republic.&#8221;

With Prince William getting married, will his name move up on the list?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting boundary test conditions there, Bill.
> 
> I do think that you have to be aware of certain 'givens' when extrapolating ideas of national identity and cultural cohesion in the thought experiment that is America.  I mean no insult when I say that it is a nation that is not really a nation at all in the accepted sense, being far too new and far too full of a raging mix of creeds and ethnicities.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.

But you will note that no one is answering the question.  If the problem is as described, then what is to be done about it?

Please tell me what liberties are to be sacrificed to obtain this remission of the evil of non-assimilation.  Which liberties?  For all or just for some?  Shall we limit freedom of religion, speech, or conscience for all or just for the dangerous ones?  How shall we identify who is dangerous and must have their freedom of movement, association, speech, religion, and though curtailed and who is safe and may enjoy freedom instead?

Someone kindly answer me.  If this is indeed the problem, please explain what the solution is.

That's all I'm asking.  Someone answer me.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 8, 2011)

Better immigration screening and standards.


----------



## K-man (Feb 8, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> You say that "ordinary Muslims" are not the problem, but then go on to conflate the entire wave of immigration with radical Islamists. This is false.
> 
> In no way did I 'conflate' the entire migrant community. Sad but it IS true that the population includes radical extremists.
> 
> ...


 


> *Australia a home for radical Islam: report*
> 
> 
> (Reuters) - *Australia has a bigger portion of Muslim youths at risk of turning to radical Islam than any other Western nation, with up to 3,000 in "ideological sleeper cells" in Sydney alone, a government-backed study said on Monday. *
> ...


 


> Kamal Mousselmani, head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia, prompted more outrage with his declaration of support for militant group Hizbollah.


 
Funny, I thought that the US wasn't all that keen on Hezbollah either!
*



			What is Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim political group with a militant wing the United States defines as a terrorist organization. The group, which is active in Lebanon, is a major provider of social services, operating schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites. Hezbollah's political standing was bolstered after a wave of violence in May 2008 prompted Lebanon's lawmakers to compromise with the group. In August 2008, the country's parliament approved a national unity cabinet, giving Hezbollah and its allies veto power with eleven of thirty cabinet seats. In the June 2009 parliamentary elections, Hezbollah lost to Lebanon's ruling (VOA), pro-Western "March 14" coalition, reflected in the reduction of its cabinet seats; it retained only two. Hezbollah also operates the al-Manar satellite television (PDF) channel and broadcast station, which the United States regards as a terrorist entity. Iran-funded Hezbollah backs al-Manar politically and financially so it can continue to broadcast Hezbollah's anti-Western agendas (MiddleEastQuarterly).
		
Click to expand...

* 
I'm really glad to have you tell me there is no problem.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But you will note that no one is answering the question.  If the problem is as described, then what is to be done about it?


I don't know that any outside influence can force or even encourage people to assimilate.
K-man mentioned that the conditions for legal immigration are not onerous, I applaud the use of that word, because onerous, contains ONE and US, if you are coming here legally, be One of US. We don't ask this to diminish where you came from, but, American culture, such as it is, evolved by taking the best aspects, and sadly, some of the not so good aspects of thousands of cultures.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Better immigration screening and standards.



Kindly explain how that will affect those born here, those already here, and how it will stop people once they make it in from behaving as you wish they would?

Still looking for an answer...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I don't know that any outside influence can force or even encourage people to assimilate.
> K-man mentioned that the conditions for legal immigration are not onerous, I applaud the use of that word, because onerous, contains ONE and US, if you are coming here legally, be One of US. We don't ask this to diminish where you came from, but, American culture, such as it is, evolved by taking the best aspects, and sadly, some of the not so good aspects of thousands of cultures.



So what you're saying is...uh, what? People should want to assimilate, but if they don't want to, we can't make them? Sounds like a problem with no solution, then. Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 8, 2011)

Our country's people has has its share of squabbles about being multicultural but I dont necessarily think it failed.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So what you're saying is...uh, what? People should want to assimilate, but if they don't want to, we can't make them? Sounds like a problem with no solution, then. Is that what you're saying?


Assimilation makes us all better, but, yeah, how do you force it?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Assimilation makes us all better, but, yeah, how do you force it?


 
*NO IT DOESN'T.*

In fact, in a few of the circles I run in, it's a goddam dirty word. Our government tried forcing "assimilation" on the people who were here first.The fact of the matter is, that where people in _this_ country are permitted to preserve and celebrate their differences, while pursuing their "American dream," there's a balance and true fitting in that doesn't always happen in other places.

Doesn't always happen *here*, but it happens more often.


----------



## K-man (Feb 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So what you're saying is...uh, what? People should want to assimilate, but if they don't want to, we can't make them? Sounds like a problem with no solution, then. Is that what you're saying?


Assimilation is not the problem. That generally occurs over several generations. The problem I see is where we are witnessing the rise of radical Islam in our own, non-Islamic nations. Where this is threatening our security or the security of our allies, I am concerned.


> A radical Australian cleric drew widespread condemnation Thursday over videos in which he encourages children to become martyrs for Islam and ridicules Jews as pigs.
> 
> 
> Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Center in western Sydney, made the remarks on a series of videotaped lectures for sale in Australia and overseas.
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3353909,00.html


We can identify the problem but managing it is far more difficult to achieve.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let us assume for the sake of argument that the tenor of the original post is correct.
> 
> The solution is what, exactly?
> 
> ...


 
I actually think that this is a softball question.

The answer is to control the flow of immigration into the country, including naturalization.  There is no need to limit the rights of any citizen in order to do so.

If immigration were reduced, it would necessarily mean that immigrants, in order to prosper and improve their lot in life, would need to integrate into the larger community.  Now, admittedly, this would not be true for every single person.  But most wouldn't be able to sit isolationist in a small geographical area.  

Now that is also not to say that they would lose all vestiges of their original culture, nor should they.  What I think we are seeing in this day and age, however, is that one need not integrate to enjoy the fruits of the American dream.  The influx is so large that they can create massive communities for themselves, shut out the larger population, and continue on their way. 

Not only that, but they demand consessions based on their cultural preferences, and they get them, both in the private and public sector.  And if they don't get them, the person denying them is lambasted as being racist, which prevents any reasonable discussion on the matter.

Just look at Los Angeles, for crying out loud.  *LOL*

And to me, this isn't just about terrorism or immigration.  It also includes citizens of this country.  I have black people telling me I'm trying to be "white".  I got white people who tell me I act "black".  I like to tell them I'm acting like an American.  

Suk is right, the U.S. is a new country, which now, if ever, has no sense of itself.  Can anyone here tell me what it means culturally to say that you are an American.  I know what I think it means, but for as many people that there are in this country, you will get a different answer.  And that is why we keep having these problems.  It is also why other countries, with the huge influx of foreigners in one generation, are now having to ask themselves, or fight for what they believe is, their culture.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

K-man said:


> Assimilation is not the problem. That generally occurs over several generations. The problem I see is where we are witnessing the rise of radical Islam in our own, non-Islamic nations. Where this is threatening our security or the security of our allies, I am concerned.



So what you're saying is that the author of the article is incorrect.  OK, but again, not the question I asked.  The author identified lack of assimilation (among other things) as a problem affecting our (Canada in his case, USA in mine) security.  If he is correct, what is the solution?



> We can identify the problem but managing it is far more difficult to achieve.



Not an answer.  I accept that it's difficult.  So what is the difficult answer?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I actually think that this is a softball question.



No, my question is simple.  If X is the problem, then what is the solution to X?

All I'm hearing so far is the solution is to not let so much X into the country.  That doesn't affect the X already here, or people who become X after they're here, which was the problem described by the original author.  Again, if the problem is X, what is the solution to problem X?



> The answer is to control the flow of immigration into the country, including naturalization.  There is no need to limit the rights of any citizen in order to do so.



I agree that it does not affect the rights of any citizen to control immigration into the USA.  I also stated very clearly that this does not affect anyone already here, or those born here, or those whose views change after they get here legally.

I asked what you intend to do about them?  I am getting no answer.



> If immigration were reduced, it would necessarily mean that immigrants, in order to prosper and improve their lot in life, would need to integrate into the larger community.  Now, admittedly, this would not be true for every single person.  But most wouldn't be able to sit isolationist in a small geographical area.



That's an unsupported assumption.  Really unsupported.  I don't even know where to begin with that one.  The Chinese Exclusion Act resulted in the flow of Chinese migrants to California to come to a complete halt; the result was Chinatown areas in many urban areas.  Seems to me that it worked the opposite way.



> Now that is also not to say that they would lose all vestiges of their original culture, nor should they.  What I think we are seeing in this day and age, however, is that one need not integrate to enjoy the fruits of the American dream.  The influx is so large that they can create massive communities for themselves, shut out the larger population, and continue on their way.



Because that is happening...uh where again?  I mean, I live in the metro Detroit area, and Dearborn is home to the largest Middle-Eastern-origin population outside of the Middle East.  Aside from a woman who was running for Congress last term stating that Dearborn was run by Sharia Law (which was quite a surprise to us, let me tell you), what evidence have you that Muslims or Middle-Easterners have 'shut out' anyone in Dearborn?  I mean, we're talking about a really really big Middle Eastern population here; I'm just not seeing any shutout, though...



> Not only that, but they demand consessions based on their cultural preferences, and they get them, both in the private and public sector.  And if they don't get them, the person denying them is lambasted as being racist, which prevents any reasonable discussion on the matter.



Wait a minute here.  You mean that when a community's residents vote for something ('demanding it' in your parlance) and they get it, that's wrong?  I must be unclear on this Democracy thing.



> Just look at Los Angeles, for crying out loud.  *LOL*
> 
> And to me, this isn't just about terrorism or immigration.  It also includes citizens of this country.  I have black people telling me I'm trying to be "white".  I got white people who tell me I act "black".  I like to tell them I'm acting like an American.
> 
> Suk is right, the U.S. is a new country, which now, if ever, has no sense of itself.  Can anyone here tell me what it means culturally to say that you are an American.  I know what I think it means, but for as many people that there are in this country, you will get a different answer.  And that is why we keep having these problems.  It is also why other countries, with the huge influx of foreigners in one generation, are now having to ask themselves, or fight for what they believe is, their culture.



A very interesting mini-rant, and you might find I even have some common ground with you in there somewhere, but all quite aside from the question I asked.

The author of the article stated that there was a problem with non-assimilation.  If that is true, what is the solution?  I see nothing in your statements above that address that.  Nice try at a side-step, though.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2011)

But to be honest...I'm not worried as long HE'S around







And for the record my house is rather multicultural and doing just fine thank you


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

I have posted these comments before, but I'll do so again now.

A word about _*'culture'*_...

In the USA, as has been pointed out, we don't have a thousand-year history of being any one thing.  Our ancestors came from all kinds of places fairly recently.  We brought with us many customs, traditions, heritages, languages, and everything.  We didn't come here _en masse_, we came in waves, and often driven by economic necessity or a desire for a better life or to escape repression of one sort or another, real or perceived.  Some came as slaves, some as indentured servants. Very few of us are actually descended of indigenous peoples of North America.

As our ancestors came here, some assimilated into the majority population quickly; some less so.  Some found quick acceptance and were welcomed into the majority population and some did not.  Some were excluded due to their religion, their skin color, or their traditions, which were seen as not a close enough fit to the majority to be allowed to join the mainstream.  Some chose to exclude themselves for various reasons, including a desire to remain culturally intact, to preserve their language, religion, skin color, or other reasons.  This was a continual ebb and flow, and was different in different parts of the country, and in different times as the nation grew.

America is often described as a *'melting pot'*, but it is not.  Melting pots make things that are homogeneous.  A melting pot of carbon and iron makes steel; and all the steel in that pot is the same.  Anything that is different is 'slag' and is removed.

We are not a melting pot.  We are a pastiche.  We are a tapestry, a gumbo, a stew.   Some things are blended, some retain their individuality to a greater or lesser extent.  Some lose their individuality entirely and become just part of the larger mass, indistinguishable from anything else, but other things keep an identity that is flavored by the rest, and lends its flavor to the rest, but still remains distinct and identifiable.

From time to time, usually during times of distress, cries arise for us to return to our cultural roots, our group heritage, our basis.  But we don't have one, as many have pointed out.  We never had one.  We are mostly white, mostly Christian, mostly this or that, but we are not any one thing and we never were.

What is often meant by these cries for a return to a base state is that the person making the demand wants a return to the state THEY are most familiar with.  If they are white, Christian, middle class, have a spouse and two kids and a mortgage, they might find a lot of people nodding their heads in agreement with them; but they do not represent everyone.  And while they will pay lip service to certain concepts of individuality, pride in origin, or even civil liberties, essentially they are willing to sacrifice those things in order to calm their fears that their culture is going to be destroyed.  Note that I said their culture, not our culture.  Because it is theirs, not the nation's.  The nation doesn't have a culture.

And ultimately, when it is pointed out that there are many insular segments of society whose culture differs greatly from their own, yet they do not complain about those groups, the person making the complaint will explain that they only mean those groups that refuse to assimilate with the rest of us who mean us harm.  How they can distinguish those who mean us harm from those who do not and extinguish the civil liberties of only those groups seems to escape them...  *The only such attempts that have been made in our history have uniformly been things we have come to be ashamed of later*, such as anti-Catholic, anti-German, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti-Jewish, and anti-whatever laws meant to 'force integration' or 'put down a threat' to our claimed mutual heritage.  Each time we do it, though, we ignore history and pretend that this time is different.  Yes, it was bad to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.  But no, putting Muslim-Americans in such a camp isn't a bad thing because they really represent a threat to all of us.

They will say they are in favor of democracy; but if a community somehow manages to gain a majority of citizens who are of a different belief or race or religion or ethnicity or cultural heritage and then manages to pass laws that reflect this, they are against it.  If they believe in democracy, they should not be.

Take for example the notion that at a certain point in time, the majority of people in the United States will have an Hispanic heritage and speak Spanish as well as (or instead of) English.  Even if true, the notion of democracy would support this; what is the difference if the National Anthem is sung in English or Spanish, so long as it is sung, and the rule of law based on our Constitution continues?

Certainly, laws can be put into place by the majority now to attempt to slow or stop changes such as these from taking place.  But limiting immigration or requiring English as the national language or restricting 'dangerous' religions or 'hate speech' can only stop perceived threats from outside; it cannot stop changes that come from those who were born here, those who change their views after they get here, or those who are simply thought of as representing a threat.

We are not a single culture.  We have a majority, but that doesn't make it the only culture, the only history, the only outlook, the only religion, the only way.  We do face threats, but the solution to such threats to our liberties doesn't seem to me to be to dismantle those liberties in the name of saving them.  What unites us not the degree to which we assimilate, but the degree to which we defend the precepts of liberty and the structure our nation is based upon.  Worship whomever you like; speak whatever language you want; eat whatever foods you prefer; sing whatever songs you find entertaining; dance your own dance, wear your own clothes.  Just live within the framework of laws and liberties that make us the USA.  That's what being part of our culture means, and that's pretty much all it means.

There have been cultures that defined themselves as a _'melting pot'_ and then tried to be a single homogeneous thing - one brand of steel, for example, instead of a crazy-quilt of different cultures.  Do we want to be like the most recent nation that tried that?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2011)

Not all threats are from outside and/or from other cultures... we would all like to think they are though... it is easier that way


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 9, 2011)

> There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. (T. Roosevelt)


 
Im with Teddy on this one.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2011)

Billchihak, your name thing, it depends entirely on what paper you read what names is the most popular.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/27/oliver-olivia-popular-baby-names

Most popular names of 2010 are still 'English' ones.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/naming/babycentre-top-names-2010/  1-50 no Mohammed there I'm afraid.

This is one of the things about trying to discuss things like this that certain media will try to scaremonger and influence peoples perceptions. Where I live there it's thought that there is no problem either with immigrantion or multiculturism...because there isn't where we live. The only black people people see here are soldiers, same with Asians. It is predominantly and visibly a very white English area. 

Perhaps with Britain though and people demanding that we live according to their laws etc as in Sharia, it might be because we went to their countries and demanded they live according to our ways and laws. There's a long tangled history to cope with for us and how much we owe former colonies.


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2011)

The article connected to the list talks about the discrepancy by stating if you take the 12 variations of the name, and put them together, that is what makes the name the number one boys name:

 ---The official list, which covers all births in 2009 in England and Wales, has *Mohammed at number 16 but this does not include the many different spellings, which are all ranked separately.
 When they are added in, Mohammed zooms all the way up to top spot for  the first time.
 In order of popularity, the variant *spellings used during the year  were: Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhamad, Mahammed and Mohmmed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...baby-boys-ahead-Jack-Harry.html#ixzz1DTu4k8tK

That may explain the differences in the lists.
​


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

> There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American.  The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and  nothing else. (T. Roosevelt)





Archangel M said:


> Im with Teddy on this one.



I like Teddy Roosevelt, but I always disagree with this stance.

Tell me what an _"American and nothing else"_ is, please.  I need a definition.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The article connected to the list talks about the discrepancy by stating if you take the 12 variations of the name, and put them together, that is what makes the name the number one boys name:
> 
> ---The official list, which covers all births in 2009 in England and Wales, has *Mohammed at number 16 but this does not include the many different spellings, which are all ranked separately.
> When they are added in, Mohammed zooms all the way up to top spot for the first time.
> ...


 
Look the Daily Mail is known as a scare mongering Right Wing newspaper opposed to immigration, multi culturism.... you name it and they are against it.

The only list I found on Googling that mentioned Mohammed and it's varients was from the Daily Mail, now I don't intend to bog this discussion down with a huge list of lists but you are giving the wrong impression, it's misleading as no doubt the Daily Mail intended it to be.

While there are problems associated with Islam here I don't think the estimated Islamic population of 2.4 million is going to be overtaking the British population of 62 million any time soon.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> While there are problems associated with Islam here I don't think the estimated Islamic population of 2.4 million is going to be overtaking the British population of 62 million any time soon.



 Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we had a periodic similar debate in the USA regarding people of Hispanic descent.

There are some facts, some theories, and a lot of hyperbole.

For example, the average birth rate among people of Hispanic descent in the USA is higher than among non-Hispanic families.  The average percentage of Hispanic-origin households that speak Spanish as a primary language at home is higher than that of people of other national origins.

The conclusion - Hispanic-origin citizens (and illegal aliens, since that's always in the mix) are out-reproducing "American" citizens and in X number of years, we'll all be speaking Spanish and have skin that is browner than it is now.

Of course, that's always presented as if it is a bad thing.  And it is always presented without any solution given.  Like, if (and let's presume legal) citizens happen to be Hispanic and have more kids than other families, do we limit their reproductive rights?  Do we who are not Hispanic have more kids in response?  Do we mandate English as a national language or forbid the speaking of other languages in the home?  What are the cures to this dread disease?  Well, we never get that.  It's just hinted at.  And the hints given are usually dark and ominous and have ghosts of jackboots and leather trenchcoats in them.

If the number 1 most popular baby boy's name in England was indeed Mohamed, a) how is that a problem, and b) what is to be done about it?  We never get to that part, do we?  It's always anger and bombast and fist-pounding and _'Something Must Be Done'_, but none of these brave souls are willing to state exactly WHAT it is that must be done (to preserve the glorious white, er, I mean English-speaking, er, I mean Christian, er, I mean people like us race).

What, precisely, I ask these people, must be done?  They tell us what the problem is, what is the solution?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we had a periodic similar debate in the USA regarding people of Hispanic descent.
> 
> There are some facts, some theories, and a lot of hyperbole.
> 
> ...


 

The usual answer to what must be done is either 'Ban it/them' and 'it must be stopped' or 'the government must stop it'! Rarely is a solution proposed other than the far right one of either throwing them out of the country or espousing Nazi beliefs and killing people.


The idea behind saying that Mohammed is the most popular name in the UK is to instill a fear that Islam is growing so fast that we will all be overtaken and forced to be Muslims. the Mail is very good at this sort of thing, it also does it with crime figures, teenage pregnancies and anything to do with the Labour Party, these are indeed all BAD THINGS according to them and as you said they scream their headlines out 'something must be done'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1044789/White-Americans-minority-2042.html


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 9, 2011)

And it's mohamed combined with all variant soellings. Outranking Jack. Hoe about all of the variant spellings and derivations of Jack then. John, jon, yan, ian, etc?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 9, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> And it's mohamed combined with all variant soellings. Outranking Jack. Hoe about all of the variant spellings and derivations of Jack then. John, jon, yan, ian, etc?


 
Yeah, you beat me to it:John, Jack, Ian, Ivan,Sean, Shawn, etc........_"yahya:_, even-that's _Arabic_ for "John." :lol:


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I like Teddy Roosevelt, but I always disagree with this stance.
> 
> Tell me what an _"American and nothing else"_ is, please. I need a definition.


 

Easy. Teddy defined it:

Someone who does not...



> at heart feel more sympathy with Europeans (or other nation/culture) of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic


 
And someone who adheres to our laws and not some other cultural/religious system of law.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 9, 2011)

Now, sadly, eloquent as Bill is and as much as I agree with him, it is precisely that stance that is a problem in it's own right.

People have as much right to defend what they see as their way of life, in their own land, as others have to be free from oppression and dispossession.

Sadly, if you happen to be White (TM), then any attempt to voice disquiet at something that concerns you is automatically catapulted into the "Oh, you must be a Nazi then" ballpark.

That is not healthy.  The bottling up of what may well be quite genuine, even if unfounded concerns, fosters more ill-feeling and the creation of resentment amongst people who are otherwise 'ordinary'.

The British around this neck of the woods are a case in point.  Whilst the overall ratio of immigrant to indiginous population might not be too high, there are pockets where that ratio is inverted.  When that happens, the 'locals' are the ones that feel forced out of their ancestral lands and feel as if their rights are being trampled to make way for the incomers.

Just because they're Stokies and not Red Indians and it is the moral high-ground to say that that doesn't matter does not make it any the easier to swallow for those to whom it happens.  

The British are one of the most mongrel races on the planet - we are made up of many different stocks that came to these shores in waves over the centuries.  That's why I am part Angle, part Saxon, part Celt, part Viking (Norwegian and Norman varieties) part Lord knows what else.  We are used to having 'visitors from overseas' who decide to stay.

But when those visitors do not want to take on the culture of the country but want to retain and spread their own, then, historically, that is when the trouble starts.  Thankfully we're a bit further on socio-politically than we used to be, so we haven't jumped to the burning-and-putting-to-the-sword stage of proceedings and I don't think we will.

However, as I've ever argued whenever we've touched upon this subject, the pace of change has to be managed - it is reckless to leave things to their own devices when you are putting the stability of your society on the table.

Of course, a question that is begged by the comments made in this thread is why is it assumed to be a given that other people have a right to move into the country of someone else?  My opinion is that they don't - that's why most sensible countries have immigration policies after all.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2011)

I don't know if this occurs in the States but forenames here are used by people to judge what class you are from, not just what religion. You can usually tell how old someone is by just hearing their first name as well as working out how much money they have or are benefits! it's no mistake that The Daily Mail used a survey of names to make it's point.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know if this occurs in the States but forenames here are used by people to judge what class you are from, not just what religion. You can usually tell how old someone is by just hearing their first name as well as working out how much money they have or are benefits! it's no mistake that The Daily Mail used a survey of names to make it's point.


 
This may be just me but I have not run into this here in the US.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 9, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> This may be just me but I have not run into this here in the US.



There is to some degree.  What do you think of when you hear the name "Joe Bob"?  Or "Shaniqua"?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> There is to some degree. What do you think of when you hear the name "Joe Bob"? Or "Shaniqua"?


 
True, I did think of that but based on what tez is saying I do not think it is as easy hear to judge, but then I could be delusional on the topic or just plain wrong.

I'm thinking you can see the name Shaquille or Larry or Wanda, or Ming, or Joe, or Muhammad or Dawn, or Sheri, or Walter, or Shanna, or Michelle or Keith or Jeff or Richard, or Rudy, or Dweezil (OK maybe not Dweezil )and you might get an idea of who that might be, but judging their class, religion and how much money they make... I'm not so sure

 Edit:

Billy Bob...rich or poor? Catholic or protestant? upper or lower class?

I don't know and add a last name and it is not so easy

Billy Bob McCoy...well I have no idea.. but I will admit I'm thinking Hatfields and McCoys

Billy Bob Thornton..well that is a bit different

Just a thought


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 9, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Billy Bob...rich or poor? Catholic or protestant? upper or lower class?



Poor, protestant, lower class, from Appalachia or the South.  At least, that's the stereotype.  You're right of course that it's not as well defined here, but we do have a little.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, my question is simple. If X is the problem, then what is the solution to X?


 
Not sure what you think a "softball" question is, but all it means is that is easy and simple.



> All I'm hearing so far is the solution is to not let so much X into the country. That doesn't affect the X already here, or people who become X after they're here, which was the problem described by the original author. Again, if the problem is X, what is the solution to problem X?


 
Actually it does.  It's called enabling.  Psychological term, look it up.

A continual influx of large numbers of immigrants in a single generation enables those who are here to not have to assimilate because it allows them to grow huge enclaves where they can exist in pretty much isolation.




> I asked what you intend to do about them? I am getting no answer.


 
You got an answer.  You just don't like what you hear, so you rail against it with no real understanding of it.




> That's an unsupported assumption. Really unsupported. I don't even know where to begin with that one. The Chinese Exclusion Act resulted in the flow of Chinese migrants to California to come to a complete halt; the result was Chinatown areas in many urban areas. Seems to me that it worked the opposite way.


 
Are you completely choosing to ignore history, or is it unintentional?  Let me see if I can make some historical connections for you.  Try to keep up.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted in 1882.  When was San Francisco's Chinatown established.  In the 1840s.  The causation that you are looking for doesn't exist.  As you would say, "it's historical fact and cannot be disputed".  Not only that, but it does nothing to explain the exact same phenomenon, such as Little Italies, and Greek Towns that rose up when no such immigration halting existed. 

But, let's take a look at a place like San Francisco's Chinatown.  Despite being a huge tourist mecca for the city, it is one of the poorest sections of the city.  Most of the people are either elderly first generation immigrants, or newly arrived first generation immigrants.  Those who are integrating are moving out

What caused these places to arise was not a lack of immigration, but housing discrimination and law that only allowed, the Chinese for instance, to live in small particular areas of a city.  San Francisco's China town is less then one square mile.  Not only that, but when the Chinese moved to escape the discrimination in California, they were not exactly being welcomed with open arms.  More housing discrimination, another Chinatown.

But another reason, and certainly a legitimate one, is that newly arrived immigrants who haven't assimilated need a support structure.  This is especially true when moving to a completely foreign culture and one that speak a completely different type of language.  

So, it would actually be a more likely correlation that due to it's small size and forced comingling of people in these areas with assimilated Americans that the second generation and beyond improved their lot. 

As for where it is occuring, just look to Europe and Middle Eastern immigrants.   Many countries either have or are looking to possibly implement a Sharia law court.  They can literally shut out the court of the host country and implement their own cultural laws exclusive to them.



> Because that is happening...uh where again? I mean, I live in the metro Detroit area, and Dearborn is home to the largest Middle-Eastern-origin population outside of the Middle East. Aside from a woman who was running for Congress last term stating that Dearborn was run by Sharia Law (which was quite a surprise to us, let me tell you), what evidence have you that Muslims or Middle-Easterners have 'shut out' anyone in Dearborn? I mean, we're talking about a really really big Middle Eastern population here; I'm just not seeing any shutout, though...


 
I did say L.A., didn't I?  I thought I said that.  You wouldn't believe the amount of exclusivity immigrant Mexicans practice.  Yes, including attempting to make neighborhoods more Mexican and driving non-Mexicans away.

You have your anecdotal evidence, I have mine.



> Wait a minute here. You mean that when a community's residents vote for something ('demanding it' in your parlance) and they get it, that's wrong? I must be unclear on this Democracy thing.


 
Please, don't put words into my mouth.  When I say demanding, I mean demanding, not voting.  If I had meant voting, I would have said it.

When thousands of Mexican, not United States citizens, march on the Federal Building in L.A. demanding immigration reform, and influencing my government over the wishes of the greater population of the U.S., that is in no way democracy.  In a democracy, there are rules regarding voting.  My Congressional Representatives don't represent them, they represent me.   



> A very interesting mini-rant, and you might find I even have some common ground with you in there somewhere, but all quite aside from the question I asked.


 
No, it directly related to the question that you asked.  You just don't like the answer and ensued with your own historically inaccurate statements and personal anecdotes.   



> The author of the article stated that there was a problem with non-assimilation. If that is true, what is the solution? I see nothing in your statements above that address that. Nice try at a side-step, though.


 
That's because you don't want to see it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Easy. Teddy defined it:
> 
> Someone who does not...
> 
> ...



Not so easy, actually.

Teddy didn't 'define it'.  The term 'hyphenated American' was a popular buzzword around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries in the USA.  It had a lot of meanings, and Teddy just defined for himself a particular meaning.

It also meant (according the Anglo American Society), anyone who was Catholic, Irish, or God help us, Catholic and Irish.  Fact.  It also meant (to them) anyone who was "anti-expansion, anti-imperialist, anti-English, or pro-Boer.  How's them apples?

It also meant, according to the Deseret, the magazine of the Church of Latter Day Saints, anyone who was a member of the British-American Society and were currently (according to them) attempting to pin crimes on Irish-American citizens and the government for having recently appointed a British citizen to the post of Ambassador to Chile after having replaced a German citizen who had taken American citizenship.

The book "Slang and Its Analogues," published in 1893, defined 'Hyphenated American' as meaning: "A naturalized citizen, such as German-Americans, Irish-Americans, and the like."

The magazine "Public Opinion" by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, had something to say about the situation in the USA in 1899:



> We are told that prominent German Republicans in Chicago are advising  President McKinley that if the present policy of expansion is persisted  in the Republican party will lose the German vote in 1900. This country  is not disposed to listen to the advice of Germans, Irishmen,  Englishmen, Spaniards, Italians, or people of whatsoever race. If the  German-Americans choose to raise such an issue as this; to challenge the  American in his own home on a question of loyalty to America, or  loyalty to Germany and German ideals, we believe America is ready for  the issue, and we believe the German will for the first time in his life  find out how many Americans there are in this country. Any race within  the republic that acts as a unit is a danger to the republic. It becomes  an _imperium _in _imperio. _In our great strength and our  great love for freedom we have perhaps been too careless of this in the  past. Captain Coghlan, from his experience abroad, warned us of the danger of these "European colonies," as he stigmatized the hyphenated American citizens,  telling us that surely they would do us harm if we allowed them their  way. *We might take a lesson of Germany itself, which so savagely  suppresses ail languages but the German language; so fiercely proscribes  all customs but German customs; so insistently Germanizes everything  under its control. *We do not know of anything that would cause a greater  rally to President McKinley and his policy than such threats as these  that we have been discussing.



We might take a note from history and discover that despite nothing having been done in the early 1900's to make illegal being 'German-American' or forcing English to be spoken in the home, etc, as the writer demanded, we seem to have remained un-taken-over by Germany.

And of course, I must note that even your own description of what President Roosevelt meant when he said: 





> at heart feel more sympathy with Europeans (or other nation/culture) of  that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic



...is not how the quote is used today, is it?  It is not quoted and then explained to mean just that - people whose loyalties lay elsewhere.  No, it is used as a general pejorative for anyone who has an cultural identification at all.  If a person's ancestry is Irish or German or Mexican or Polish or Iraqi and they are proud of it and refer to themselves as an Irish-American (or etc), then they are hammered down and told that NO, they must reject such things and be a PURE AMERICAN and NOTHING ELSE.  Even if all their loyalty lies with the USA, they are just demonstrating pride in their familial origin, that hoary old quote from Roosevelt is trotted out as if that's what he meant when he said it.  Of course, that is not what he meant when he said it, as you have made clear yourself.

I agree with Roosevelt; people who take US citizenship should be loyal to the USA and to no other country!  But calling themselves _'Mexican-Americans'_ is not the same as saying they are loyal to Mexico and not the USA.  Some would pretend it does.

Taking pride in their cultural heritage, preserving their language and traditions, keeping their own cuisine, customs, and values, none of these things preclude them from being loyal US citizens and NOTHING ELSE.  But some would pretend that it does.  Teddy never said that.  People twist his words to make it seem that he said that.

And of course, it is selectively applied - then and now.  Then, it was applied to Irish-Americans (by Anglo-Americans, hahahaha how ironic) and to German-Americans (by Canadians!).  Now it is applied to Mexican-Americans and Muslims who are American citizens or legal residents - by others who have no problem being of Irish heritage or German heritage or Polish heritage or no heritage in particular.

I'm of Welsh extraction myself.  I feel no loyalty to Wales, but I have a Welsh flag at home.  I think it's neat.  I think Wales is a cool country.  I like it.  I don't speak Welsh, but my ancestors did.  I guess they were _'hyphenated Americans'_, eh?  Bad, bad, people.  I should be ashamed of them.  And if they had managed to keep some of their traditions or language intact and pass it down to me, why, we'd all be disloyal, treacherous dangers to the USA who ought to be savagely suppressed for the good of the nation.  RIGHT?

And of course, I have to complete by asking once again - assuming you are right and I am wrong and being a hyphenated American is a bad thing - what is your proposed solution?

I'm still waiting to hear the solution.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No, it directly related to the question that you asked.  You just don't like the answer and ensued with your own historically inaccurate statements and personal anecdotes.



I don't like the answer because you have not yet answered.  

I asked what you think we should do about it, presuming the author was right.  You did not answer that, you embarked on a mini-rant about the dangers of multi-culturalism.  Yes, yes, multi-culturalism bad.  I get it.  Now, what do you propose to do about it?

If you answer, I can tell you what I think about your answer.  Thus far, you have refused to answer a very basic question.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> However, as I've ever argued whenever we've touched upon this subject, the pace of change has to be managed - it is reckless to leave things to their own devices when you are putting the stability of your society on the table.



One must ask how this management is to be done?  Immigration law changes?  OK, but again, it does not touch upon those who 'refuse to assimilate' and are already here (or there in the UK) and are citizens or legal residents already.



> Of course, a question that is begged by the comments made in this thread is why is it assumed to be a given that other people have a right to move into the country of someone else?  My opinion is that they don't - that's why most sensible countries have immigration policies after all.



No one has a right to live anywhere, until it is given by the authority of a nation.  Most nations have immigration policies of some sort, and they are generally managed, as you point out.

I'm not sure how that will correct the ills you describe; the pockets of your nation where immigrants of one sort or another outnumber the 'local' residents.

Of course, one can manage populations already in place if need be.  In the USA, we have the example of the Trail of Tears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_migration

The term 'ethnic cleansing' is also sometimes bandied about - even if stripped from the implied use of deadly force to merely 'require' undesirables to leave for greener pastures instead of actually killing them.

It's also used against those of us who happen to be Christian and / or white, of European origin, and currently living in certain nations in majority Islamic societies; which of course means if they do it, we should do it.  Right?

Please tell us which of these alternatives you find most desirable in the current situation.

Again, you aptly describe the problem, but seem to offer no solution other than 'limit immigration'.  I'm still waiting for an answer to the current problem you define.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 9, 2011)

I dont think that Teddy was being critical or the use of the "term" (X-American) as much as he was critical of the mentality and practice of X>American.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I dont think that Teddy was being critical or the use of the "term" (X-American) as much as he was the mentality and practice of X>American.



Quite right.  I think you misunderstood me.

Teddy meant what he defined - and you quoted.  To him, a 'hyphenated American' was one whose loyalties were to another country.  Thus, an "Irish-American," though born or naturalized a US citizen, who was loyal to Ireland, was a problem for him.

That is very different from the use the term is put to today, which is to mean an "Irish-American" is one who merely takes pride in his or her ancestry.  Teddy didn't say that and didn't mean that - by your own quote.  Yet that is what is put forth as if it was his opinion of those who call themselves X-American with 'X' meaning whatever nation one's ancestors came to the USA from.

I also noted that the term 'hyphenated American' has been used by many before and since Teddy Roosevelt, and many different descriptions have been used for it; Teddy did not coin the phrase nor attach the initial meaning to it.  As I noted, the original definition of the slang term 'hyphenated American' merely meant one who was a naturalized US citizen.  Thus, any immigrant who became a citizen was a hyphenated American and could not be anything else; only his or her children would be free of that description.

So again; Teddy had no problem with people who were from X, Y, or Z country and were proud of that fact.  He had a problem - by your own quote - with people whose loyalty was to a nation other than the USA.  I would agree with that; people who take US citizenship should have no loyalty to another country.

Again I ask, though...presuming that such is the case and that recent immigrants to the USA harbor loyalties to their country of origin; what is to be done about it?  Still waiting on that answer...


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 9, 2011)

I would posit that that is not the case in SOME of our "hyphinated sub-cultures" especially when a religion is what is on the left of the hyphen....but even in the "cultural pride" use of the hyphen, I don't think that THAT is especially healthy either. I am an American of Italian heritage. Im proud of that, but I don't speek Italian, I have never been to Italy...I am an American.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I am an American of Italian heritage. Im proud of that, but I don't speek Italian, I have never been to Italy...I am an American.


 
And you're no more "American" than those "Americans of Italian heritage" that speak Italian and have been to Italy.............
.......hell, I can stumble a little in Italian, and LOVE Italy, but I don't have a drop of Italian blood, AFAIK.....

If Bill spoke Welsh, or I spoke Bantu, or you spoke Italian, would that make us "less American?"


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I would posit that that is not the case in SOME of our "hyphinated sub-cultures" especially when a religion is what is on the left of the hyphen....but even in the "cultural pride" use of the hyphen, I don't think that THAT is especially healthy either. I am an American of Italian heritage. Im proud of that, but I don't speek Italian, I have never been to Italy...I am an American.



Then let us define it.  If one is of Italian ancestry, one may be proud of it.  If one speaks Italian, or has been to Italy, then one is an 'Italian-American' and that is a danger to our society.  Is that correct?

I am re-reading Roosevelt's entire statement right now.  I will post on this shortly.  It turns out that he was very much against, for example, German-Americans, whom he called 'hyphenated Americans'.  But he was of German ancestry himself, and he did not have a problem with that.  He also pointed out the many excellent Americans he knew who were themselves of German descent.

He did *NOT* say whether or not they spoke German in the home, practiced German traditions, sang German songs (except one, Deutchsland Uber Alles, which I'd agree with as well) and otherwise identified themselves as being of German ancestry and proud of it.

His problem was with those who put the welfare of their nations of origin over the USA.  And quite right.

What you describe seems to be somewhat less than that; it's OK to be from Italy, but one may not call oneself Italian-American?  I suppose eating pizza is out, then?  Singing Frank Sinatra songs?  Watching "The Godfather" on TV?  Celebrating Columbus Day?

At what point would you say that being of Italian heritage becomes a danger to our country, other than Roosevelt railed against, which was having an actual loyalty to the Italian nation over that of the USA?

When the 'hyphenated American' argument is brought up in the current day, it seems to me to be leveled against both Mexicans and Middle-Easterners in the USA; and not just about their loyalties, real or suspected; but against them retaining any trace of their national heritage, from language to song to food to dress to mannerisms to their 'refusal to assimilate'.

Roosevelt had nothing to say about those things; his ire was aimed at those who had literal loyalty to a country other than the USA after becoming US citizens.  I agree with him.  I wish people weren't twisting his words so badly...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Teddy Roosevelt on "Hyphenated Americans:"



> Theodore Roosevelt said: "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans,  I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best  Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born  abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at  all. This is just as true of the man who puts 'native' before the  hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French  before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the  soul. *Our allegiance must be purely to the United States.* We must  unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is  heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was  born, he is just as good an American as  any one else. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to  ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at  all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling  nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans,  English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or  Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, *each at  heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with  the other citizens of the American Republic*. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. *The man who calls himself an American citizen  and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a  foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our  body politic*. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the  land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be  for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."


&#8212;T. Roosevelt, _Fear God and take your own part, pp. _361-363.

I agree with Roosevelt's statements.

He was clear what he meant by a 'hyphenated American', though.  He did not mean, nor did he mention, men and women who preserve the traditions of their culture, speak the language, eat the food, wear the dress, or embrace the religion of their place of origin. He was quite clear - he meant those who have loyalty to the nation they come from over that of the United States.  And rightly so.

But we see the quotation _"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism,"_ and then it is applied out-of-context, to those who _'refuse to assimilate'_, which is to mean that they speak Spanish or Farsi in the home, or they cling to the traditions and culture of their homeland, or they live together with each other in groups, spurning excessive contact with the outside world, or vote in as groups on matters that concern them as a group.  They are called _'hyphenated Americans'_ for daring to consider themselves _'Mexican-American'_ or _'Iraqi-American'_ as if that mere statement meant that they had an allegiance to that nation of their origin.

And again - even presuming for a moment that anyone who dared to call themselves Irish-American or Catholic-American or Greek-American was in fact beholden to their original nation and loyal to it - even Teddy Roosevelt didn't have an answer as to what ought to be done about it, other than to state that they *'ought to go home.'*

That's it?  There is nothing else that can be done?  We're back to the same question I asked earlier in this thread - if the author of the article quoted in the OP is right, what is to be done about it?  I still await any kind of an answer...even Teddy didn't have one...

The history of fear of foreigners is interesting to me.  It comes around every so often.  It strikes like a disease, and it stirs up hatred and anger, mainly because we're all afraid, and we need someone to be afraid of, some threat we can put a face on, instead of realizing that there is no one unified 'enemy' out there we can stick a pin to and label and then dispose of.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not all threats are from outside and/or from other cultures... we would all like to think they are though... it is easier that way


 
I got a bad rep for the above... now that is funny

To whoever you are if are going to give me a bad rep about something at least have the guts to say you did it and sign it not just write 

&#8220;Way to inject your racism into the discussion&#8221; 

and then run away to hide in the annonimity of the web...and then give yourself a big pat on the back because you sure told me  You know back when I was studying terrorism in college it never dawned on me it was racism 

And please explain to me just HOW any of the links I provided are racism

And Article from Wikipedia on Domestic terrorism in the United States
A Link to the Global Terrorism database
Another to Rand Objective Analysis
And another from Wikipedia which is a List of designated terrorist organizations

whoever you are you are damn funny

You might actually try clicking the links and reading them next time before you play the racist card


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> I got a bad rep for the above... now that is funny
> 
> To whoever you are if are going to give me a bad rep about something at least have the guts to say you did it and sign it not just write Way to inject your racism into the discussion and run away to hide in the annonimity of the web...and then give yourself a big pat on the back because you sure told me  You know back when I was studying terrorism in college it never dawned on me it was racism
> 
> ...



Whatta wuss, eh?

btw I dont think there's anything racist about saying some threats come from within and not from outside.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 9, 2011)

Just a quick note with my Mentors hat on to remind people that whilst giving negative Rep unisgned is poor form, so is discussing negative Rep in-thread.

We all know that not being able to respond is frustrating but by having that rule in place we prevent all kinds of nastiness spilling out in public view.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Just a quick note with my Mentors hat on to remind people that whilst giving negative Rep unisgned is poor form, so is discussing negative Rep in-thread.
> 
> We all know that not being able to respond is frustrating but by having that rule in place we prevent all kinds of nastiness spilling out in public view.



well how about, letting the personwho received the poor form respond, and then no more discussion on it? wouldnt that work? It'll let the person respond, and prevents the hissy fit.  Cause i have also responded in post too when that happened to me.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 9, 2011)

Wow.  





Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't like the answer because you have not yet answered.
> 
> I asked what you think we should do about it, presuming the author was right.  You did not answer that, you embarked on a mini-rant about the dangers of multi-culturalism.  Yes, yes, multi-culturalism bad.  I get it.  Now, what do you propose to do about it?
> 
> If you answer, I can tell you what I think about your answer.  Thus far, you have refused to answer a very basic question.



Wow.  You really don't like facts when they conflict with your ideology, do you?  You always just run away, exclaiming "you didn't answer my question."

I show you a solution, you give patently incorrect historical information to support a rebuttal.  I then go to show historical fact showing that what I said would work,, that the information you stat was false, and you just whine about how I'm not answering the question 

Your not looking for an answer, because you are tied to the idea that there isn't one.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Just a quick note with my Mentors hat on to remind people that whilst giving negative Rep unisgned is poor form, so is discussing negative Rep in-thread.
> 
> We all know that not being able to respond is frustrating but by having that rule in place we prevent all kinds of nastiness spilling out in public view.


 
I understand you&#8217;re POV and if the rep was hey you&#8217;re a jerk I may have let it slide and if it was signed I would have handled it very differently but calling me a racist is a whole other issue if you&#8217;re going to hit and run frankly you should be called on it.

Poor form indeed, don't get me started.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Wow.
> 
> Wow.  You really don't like facts when they conflict with your ideology, do you?  You always just run away, exclaiming "you didn't answer my question."
> 
> ...



The only answer you have provided is this one...


> The answer is to control the flow of immigration into the country,  including naturalization.  There is no need to limit the rights of any  citizen in order to do so.



I said fine, now explain what to do about the people already here, or the people born here, or the people who change their minds about this country after they get through your gauntlet.  You did not answer.  Instead you went on at length about how in the future, if we limit immigration now, things will be different.

Great, good.  I disagree with you, but again, let's play.  Assuming that things will be different in the future if we limit immigration now, what precisely do you intend to do about the non-assimilating America-haters who are here now?  That was what the author in the original post was discussing, wasn't he?  People who are here (in Canada or for me, in the USA) now, today?

Still no answer.

It's not a question of me not wanting to see your answer.  It's a question of you not answering the question.  You just give a side-step and go on a tear about how things will be different once immigration is shut down.  First, I don't agree, but second, it didn't answer the question.  Don't know how I can make it more clear than that.


----------



## K-man (Feb 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So what you're saying is that the author of the article is incorrect. OK, but again, not the question I asked. The author identified lack of assimilation (among other things) as a problem affecting our (Canada in his case, USA in mine) security. If he is correct, what is the solution?


Not really. What I mean is, if you and I decided for any reason we needed a change of scenary and moved to some place in Mongolia tomorrow. We wouldn't know the language or the customs and we would certainly spend a lot of our time together as we got to know our new surroundings. Eventually we would pick up a bit of the language, make a few friends and fit into the community. Even if we never got to feel really comfortable, our children growing up there would fit in very quickly, assuming they had our encouragement. Now we accept our new surroundings, fit into the community as best we can and help out where we can. We may not have assimilated totally but the community would accept our efforts. Our kids on the other hand would just be 'funny looking' Mongols.

Back to reality and we have people arriving on our doorstep with deep religious conviction, in many instances determined not to be part of Australian society, keeping their children isolated in Islamic schools and now pushing for their own Sharia law, not accepting the constitution of the country there are living in. This group is only a small percentage of the migrant population but it is a big enough group to be of concern.

I'm assuming this or these are your questions.





> We in the USA allow people who are here legally to live wherever they please. Am I to understand that the solution is for the government to dictate where legal immigrants may live?
> 
> We have freedom of religion here. Am I to understand that we are supposed to outlaw the preaching of _"Islamic values"_ in the USA? Please someone explain to me under what Constitutional theory this can be done legally.
> 
> ...


 
As to the answers ... I'm clever, but not that clever! :asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Wow.  You really don't like facts when they conflict with your ideology, do you?



By the way, what *is* my ideology, if you don't mind?  I'd love to know what you think my ideology is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 9, 2011)

K-man said:


> Back to reality and we have people arriving on our doorstep with deep religious conviction, in many instances determined not to be part of Australian society, keeping their children isolated in Islamic schools and now pushing for their own Sharia law, not accepting the constitution of the country there are living in. This group is only a small percentage of the migrant population but it is a big enough group to be of concern.



Concern.  Yes, I get that.  And the solution is?



> I'm assuming this or these are your questions.
> 
> As to the answers ... I'm clever, but not that clever! :asian:



If there is a problem and there is no solution, then either there is no problem, or the problem has no solution.  In either case, I guess you have to deal with it and move on, eh?

Unless you want to tell me what it is you wish to do about these people who won't assimilate, want their own form of law, and 'concern' you.  Either tell me what you want done about them, or...I guess nothing will be done.

I just want to know what the solution is - all these people who espy the problem seem not to be willing or able to say what it is that should be done...

Except for one, who says 'shut down immigration'.  Yes, that fixes the people here now, doesn't it?  Oh, no, I guess it doesn't.  So all those people who 'concern' you and are here now just, um, keep concerning you.  No end in sight.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, that fixes the people here now, doesn't it?  Oh, no, I guess it doesn't.  So all those people who 'concern' you and are here now just, um, keep concerning you.  No end in sight.



Ironically, I have a solution.

Allow recent immigrants to live as they please.  Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives.  Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone).  Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but a tiny minority to be angry at their new home.

If anyone thinks that won't work, I would advise the doubters to compare the social integration of Muslims in the US and Muslims in France.  In the US, Muslims are allowed access to economic opportunity and social freedom, and despite our world role as the "Great Satan", the Muslims actually living here have pro-American attitudes and have fit into the social fabric of the nation.  In France, Muslim immigrants are kept apart in segregated suburbs, considered "not French", not allowed access to anything much beyond menial work, and even their children are denied the chance at citizenship.  What is the result?  Mass disaffection and anger, and periodic riots and car burnings.  Riots which, by the way, have nothing to do with radical Islam.

So which method is better?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 9, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Poor form indeed, don't get me started.



It's the same douchecanoe leaving more or less the same neg reps in the same manner to a variety of people on the board.  I get one in the same style with regularity, probably after they've repped enough others to be able to hit the same person again.  Just got one from this thread in fact, with accusations of racism to boot!  

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 9, 2011)

Here's one that may be applicable to the thread "Multiculturalism will fail".

We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. - Carl Jung


----------



## K-man (Feb 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Ironically, I have a solution.
> 
> Allow recent immigrants to live as they please. Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives. Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone). Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but *a tiny minority* to be angry at their new home.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately a look at todays press release: 


> Secretary Janet Napolitano Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, "Understanding the Homeland Threat Landscape  Considerations for the 112th Congress"


http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1297263844607.shtm



> Today, however, in addition to the direct threats we continue to face from al-Qaeda, we also face growing threats from other foreign-based terrorist groups that are inspired by al-Qaeda ideology but have few operational connections to the core al-Qaeda group. And, perhaps most crucially, we face a threat environment where violent extremism is not defined or contained by international borders. *Today, we must address threats that are homegrown as well as those that originate abroad*.


 



> Since 2009, more than two dozen Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related charges. More broadly, a report last month from the New York State Intelligence Center, the fusion center for the State of New York, examining 32 major terrorism cases in the United States related to al-Qaeda-like ideology since 9/11, shows that 50 of the 88 individuals involved in those plots were U.S. citizens at the time of their arrests, and among those citizens, a clear majority of were natural-born.2


 
The problem is everywhere. It is not allieviated by the steps you outlined above because it is not "Muslems" that are the problem. It is your *tiny minority* which form a radical core of militants who will not respond to any form of concilation because what they want, they want on their terms. If you read the report above it is only 50 people out of 350 million who have been identified. Even if you said this is only 1% of troublemakers it is still only about 5,000 potential terrorists. Tiny minority or not, there is potential for enormous disruption to our way of life. :asian:


----------



## SensibleManiac (Feb 9, 2011)

> This precisely describes the FLDS splinter sects of the Mormon church. We haven't banned them from the country yet, nor have they caused the country to go up in flames.
> 
> Until some numbers start showing up, we have no idea how big a problem this even is, or even if it is a problem. There are plenty of standard whitebread Americans who could be described as having similar views or even a hatred of America, and again we haven't banned them from the country yet. No one has shown that the Muslims are any different.
> 
> Also, freedom is freedom. You can't promise freedom on the one hand and then restrict acceptable thought and lifestyles on the other. At least not without showing yourself as a massive freedom hating hypocrite.



As for the splinter sects of the Mormons, have they bombed buildings or flown planes into them?
The only "whitebread" Americans as you put it that I can think of are the Unabomber and Tim Mcveigh who are jailed and executed, I think that can constitute "banning" them from the country.

Remember we said hatred, now I agree that it doesn'T neccesarily mean they will act on that hatred but what does it say about a country that does nothing to prevent this from developing in their country.
I'm not exactly sure how this is to be done but I think something positive needs to be done.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 9, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The only answer you have provided is this one...
> 
> 
> I said fine, now explain what to do about the people already here, or the people born here, or the people who change their minds about this country after they get through your gauntlet. You did not answer. Instead you went on at length about how in the future, if we limit immigration now, things will be different.
> ...


 
As I said, though I will say it more bluntly.  They will eventually (within a generation) die out and those that assimilate will not.  If most people assimilate after the first generation, and we no longer import, or limit the importation of, immigrants, then there is less of a liklihood that they will congregate in ethnic conclaves which are entirely self-supporting, and are more likely to be way-stations for integration.  

Is that clear enough for you now?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 9, 2011)

Curious, unless shown by deed, is not punishing "hate" simply the punishment of a thought crime?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 9, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Ironically, I have a solution.
> 
> Allow recent immigrants to live as they please. Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives. Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone). Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but a tiny minority to be angry at their new home.
> 
> ...


 
I think this is very true.

As I noted before, one of the reasons people sequester themselves into these enclaves is that the society has given them no other choice.  Chinatowns in the U.S. are perfect examples.

I still think, however, that when people no longer have the need to associate with the "natives" of the host country, you will still have a build-up of larger and larger enclaves which will bring animosity on both sides.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 10, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Here's one that may be applicable to the thread "Multiculturalism will fail".
> 
> We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses. - Carl Jung


People murder others, that is routinely and correctly condemned, who does that oppress, murderers? The purpose of condemning something is not liberation.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Feb 10, 2011)

> Curious, unless shown by deed, is not punishing "hate" simply the punishment of a thought crime?



Not exactly, planning a murder is against the law, you might not have taken action yet but that doesn't mean you are operating within the law by planning something illegal.
Making threats is similar in that you haven't carried out the threat but are stating your intention.
What can make hate illegal is when it involves the promotion of hate to where it potentially cultivates actions that are illegal.

So hate speech is that which promotes hate.

This is based on Canadian law, I'm not sure how it works in the States.

As for freedom of thought, like all rights, yours should end where anothers begin.

So you can think whatever you want until you start making those thoughts public AND they promote a danger or crime against another person or persons.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Ironically, I have a solution.
> 
> Allow recent immigrants to live as they please.  Do your best to combat any ignorant and hostile opinions of the natives.  Make sure that every economic and social opportunity is available to the immigrants (really, to everyone).  Do that, and you've removed any motivation for anything but a tiny minority to be angry at their new home.
> 
> ...



I like a more commercial approach, but I think we're in basic agreement.  Not only welcome them; immerse them.  Sell them pepsi and blue jeans and MTV.

"American Culture," such as it is, is seductive because it satisfies the desires and fans the desire for more.

When people are plugged into the endless commercial treadmill of work, spend, consume, they haven't got time to foment.  I know I haven't.  Want to win their hearts and minds?  Give them cable TV and the Internet and a credit card.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 10, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> As I said, though I will say it more bluntly.  They will eventually (within a generation) die out and those that assimilate will not.  If most people assimilate after the first generation, and we no longer import, or limit the importation of, immigrants, then there is less of a liklihood that they will congregate in ethnic conclaves which are entirely self-supporting, and are more likely to be way-stations for integration.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you now?



Sure, and I agree with that 'let the old guard die out' approach, except that I don't think your way will do that.  However, more to the point, you agree that you have no solution for those here now.  Got it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 10, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> As I said, though I will say it more bluntly.  They will eventually (within a generation) die out and those that assimilate will not.  If most people assimilate after the first generation, and we no longer import, or limit the importation of, immigrants, then there is less of a liklihood that they will congregate in ethnic conclaves which are entirely self-supporting, and are more likely to be way-stations for integration.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you now?



By the way, I'd still like to know what my ideology is, according to you.  You said I had one, I'd like to know what it is.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> People murder others, that is routinely and correctly condemned, who does that oppress, murderers? The purpose of condemning something is not liberation.


 
Oh yeah...well if that's the way your gonna be all I have to say is this







I see your W and Obama and raise you a DUKE... compared to the Duke....thier both POSERS 

I feel better now...I've been wanting to do that since you added that poster


----------



## Big Don (Feb 10, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Oh yeah...well if that's the way your gonna be all I have to say is this
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I can't hit the broad side of a barn with a six-shooter, I can twirl it though, it looks pretty.


John Wayne


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It's the same douchecanoe leaving more or less the same neg reps in the same manner to a variety of people on the board.  I get one in the same style with regularity, probably after they've repped enough others to be able to hit the same person again.  Just got one from this thread in fact, with accusations of racism to boot!
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, I guess.



lol@ douchecanoe  I've used the term douchenozzle, never heard of douchecanoe! hehe


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 10, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> lol@ douchecanoe  I've used the term douchenozzle, never heard of douchecanoe! hehe



R. Lee Ermey and Geico Insurance Company have also taught me my new favorite, "jackwagon."


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 10, 2011)

lol 

i gotta steal that word douchecanoe =] If you don't mind, of course.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> John Wayne


 
So thats how it is huh...ok you asked for it


----------



## billc (Feb 10, 2011)

Now the french join our merry little discussion:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety_20110210231042

PARIS (AFP) &#8211; [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]French [COLOR=#366388 !important]President [/color][COLOR=#366388 !important]Nicolas [/color][COLOR=#366388 !important]Sarkozy[/color][/color][/color] declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.
"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]television [COLOR=#366388 !important]interview[/color][/color][/color] when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.
"Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want... a society where communities coexist side by side.
"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France," the right-wing president said.

"What are you doing in England?"


----------



## elder999 (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> John Wayne


 
The great Gil Scott Heron, the original rapper....:lfao:

[yt]56ipWM3DWe4[/yt]


----------



## K-man (Feb 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Now the french join our merry little discussion:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety_20110210231042
> 
> "If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France,"* the right-wing president* said.


I thought I was a liberal but, if I agree with Sarkozy <washes out mouth>, does that make me Right Wing too? Maybe America's NBF is on to something!

I wish someone would say that here, but in these sensitive times it would be politically incorrect. :shrug:

The one good thing about climate change is that if the ice on Antarctica melts we will have a new habitable continent for those of us that don't like the new order.  In that event, I would like to propose that I become the first President.  Any takers for VP?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sure, and I agree with that 'let the old guard die out' approach, except that I don't think your way will do that. However, more to the point, you agree that you have no solution for those here now. Got it.


 
Once again, you're not listening.  

Those that are here will die out.  You are making the assumption that in order to solve the problem, one must do so immediately, ie., enact a law that makes them comply with  a particular cultural attribute *now*.  If they die out, there are still here for the purposes of the discussion.  However, it is unnecessary in order to solve the problem.  

But, if you really wanted to solve the problem immediately without violating the Constitution, its easy.  The Supreme Court has stated that Congress and local government can enact laws in order to influence people's behavior.  For instance, Federal Transportation funds being tied to the reduction of the legal limit for driving under the influence of alcohol.  So enact such laws.  They will be forced to comply or suffer the consequences.

Problem solved, solution served.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 11, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Once again, you're not listening.
> 
> Those that are here will die out.  You are making the assumption that in order to solve the problem, one must do so immediately, ie., enact a law that makes them comply with  a particular cultural attribute *now*.  If they die out, there are still here for the purposes of the discussion.  However, it is unnecessary in order to solve the problem.



Unnecessary because they will immediately stop, er, not assimilating, and stop doing all the dastardly things the author of the original piece accused them of, or because you don't care if they choose not to assimilate, since according to you, they'll be the last generation that so refuses?



> But, if you really wanted to solve the problem immediately without violating the Constitution, its easy.  The Supreme Court has stated that Congress and local government can enact laws in order to influence people's behavior.  For instance, Federal Transportation funds being tied to the reduction of the legal limit for driving under the influence of alcohol.  So enact such laws.  They will be forced to comply or suffer the consequences.
> 
> Problem solved, solution served.



Pass _*what*_ laws?  You didn't state what laws you'd have passed.  Restrict religion?  Restrict public speech?  What 'local laws' do you think would 'force them to comply'?

You say _"enact such laws"_ without saying what they are.

And you still haven't said what you think my ideology is.  You said I was fitting my argument to my ideology.  I'd like to know what you think my ideology is.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 11, 2011)

I thought that this from the BBC might be relevant to the debate:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12415597


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 11, 2011)

I also think that if you swap the word "ideology" for the word "philosophy" (or even the phrase "point of view" then less umbridge might accrue.

What do I think Bill's point of view in this area is? Well, I only to go on what he has said here and in other threads that are to do with that thorny topic of Rights and/or Freedoms.  My impression is that he places 'Freedom' right at the top of his list of things that are most important.  That means that certain conclusions are inevitable for him, otherwise he has to re-evaluate his world-view to allow for other peoples freedoms not being as important as his own.  It's a pretty moral stance I have to say viz to think that personal freedom is of paramount importance and that if "I" want to be free then all others must be so also.

Personally, it is my view that there *is *such a thing as too much freedom - as I said a couple of pages back, without limits 'freedom' is meaningless. I also feel that there is no such thing as a right to go and live in someone elses country. Just as well I feel that way or I might be holding a grudge against the Canadians as they wouldn't have me because I admitted I couldn't speak French.

What to do with the self-isolating immigrants annexing areas of British cities? Hmm, that's a hard question Bill.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 11, 2011)

There is no easy answer.

Also, it's a bit unfair to expect us to have an answer seeing as how we didn't cause the situation in the first place - I certainly wasn't asked if I minded having zones of my city turn into protectorates of Muslim Pakistan, complete with minaretes and loud-speakers (that no Christian church would get away with). For the record, yes, I do mind - sadly, if that makes me 'racist' there's not a lot I can do to deny it, for, after all, the people causing these changes are not 'mine'. That gives the impression that it's a racially based objection; it's actually (numerically amplified) culturally and religion based in my case but it's not simple to divide the two (and some might successfully argue that it's a distinction that makes no difference).

The house is already on fire, so to speak. All we've done in this thread is raise the alarm - thinking about how to constructively resolve the conflagration without anyone getting killed is a necessary step I agree. Probably a bit above our "pay grade" I would surmise.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Unnecessary because they will immediately stop, er, not assimilating, and stop doing all the dastardly things the author of the original piece accused them of, or because you don't care if they choose not to assimilate, since according to you, they'll be the last generation that so refuses?


 
Neither.  They will be the last generation that will be able to achieve the necessary critical mass to be able to live in isolation at a level that causes the issues Fatah is referring to: "You can have a large population of Muslims living in one area, and they have not yet seemed to be able to break out entirely from that one area and become part of the Canadian fabric.

This, BTW, is my primary answer to the question.  The other part is somewhat tangential.  



> Pass _*what*_ laws? You didn't state what laws you'd have passed. Restrict religion? Restrict public speech? What 'local laws' do you think would 'force them to comply'?
> 
> You say _"enact such laws"_ without saying what they are.


 
It depends.  We use tax law to entice businesses and people to move to new areas.  We provide loans and grants to do the same.  There's all kinds of things the U.S. government can do to entice people to break out from their communities.  As EH said, allow them the opportunities *and *encouragement for expanding their horizons and they are likely to do so.



> And you still haven't said what you think my ideology is. You said I was fitting my argument to my ideology. I'd like to know what you think my ideology is.


 
Ah, it doesn't matter, though I will admit that the word "ideology" was not the concept that I was going for.  That's what trying to be brief while typing hurriedly on a phone will do to you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 11, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It depends.  We use tax law to entice businesses and people to move to new areas.  We provide loans and grants to do the same.  There's all kinds of things the U.S. government can do to entice people to break out from their communities.  As EH said, allow them the opportunities *and *encouragement for expanding their horizons and they are likely to do so.



Interesting concept.  Just the same, I would predict difficulty if the stated goal was to break up ethnic communities on the grounds that they're breeding grounds for behavior we don't want - ie, terrorism.  I suspect the ACLU would be all over that like white on rice.

Any such law would have to be so carefully crafted to avoid targeting one group that I doubt it could be actually done.  But I'll admit, it wasn't something I had thought of.  Give you credit for that.


----------



## K-man (Feb 11, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I thought that this from the BBC might be relevant to the debate:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12415597


In particular from Iran's 'conservative' paper:


> "Presently, more than two million Muslims reside in Britain under harsh conditions, on the pretext of terrorism they are deprived of many of the rights."


 
And Christians in Iran (are there any left?) have what rights? :erg:


----------



## K-man (Feb 11, 2011)

The problem for Muslims trying to assimilate is Apostasy. 



> When Sofia Allam left the Muslim faith for Christianity, the response from her family was one of persecution and threats. Alasdair Palmer explores the dangers facing Islam's apostates
> 
> Sofia Allam simply could not believe it. Her kind, loving father was sitting in front of her threatening to kill her. He said she had brought shame and humiliation on him, that she was now "worse than the muck on their shoes" and she deserved to die.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html


 
It's a bit of a disincentive to hitch up with a non Muslim!

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100504/interviewex-muslim-on-faith-womens-right-obama/





 
The problem is different from previous rounds of immigration where people wanted to be part of their new country. :asian:


----------



## granfire (Feb 11, 2011)

K-man said:


> In particular from Iran's 'conservative' paper:
> 
> 
> And Christians in Iran (are there any left?) have what rights? :erg:



and since when do we take the word of any of the talking heads or 'official organs'?!


Those are the blowhards of the other side...not to be believed just like the blowhards on this side who scream persecution every time somebody questions religious tradition vs bullying...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Feb 11, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interesting concept. Just the same, I would predict difficulty if the stated goal was to break up ethnic communities on the grounds that they're breeding grounds for behavior we don't want - ie, terrorism. I suspect the ACLU would be all over that like white on rice.
> 
> Any such law would have to be so carefully crafted to avoid targeting one group that I doubt it could be actually done. But I'll admit, it wasn't something I had thought of. Give you credit for that.


 
If I were to do something like this, I  would actually do something along the lines of block grants to non-profit organizations for college education, housing opportunities, small business loans.  This is coupled with a PSA campaign announcing opportunities for minorities.  If we believe that these things would allow people to have more opportunity and participation in the American dream, which is what we are ultimately seeking, there is no need to mention anything about breeding grounds.


----------

