Chile Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/poli ... 649012.stm

Typical British (and increasingly American) politico: If you think Britain should remain British (as opposed to say, Pakistani), you are a bigot. That'll cost Labour a few more points/seats.....not that there is any chance of UK (or US) immigration policy (meaning "lack thereof") changing.

John Hyre, Self-Hating Hispanic, No Doubt

What are you from Bradford or sommet bruv?

dkhazenirad wrote:What are you from Bradford or sommet bruv?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYM1Glriz6s

murf,

Very funny clip

JHyre,

FYI, being British means to have either been born in the UK or have become naturalised ... it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Also, I'm curious why you chose to use Pakistani since Eastern European immigration was allegedly what the lady seemed to be concerned about.

My thoughts exactly, Britain is an amazing mix of people, and I can say firmly that cosmopolitanism does work, however when people put blame on one race (i.e Pakistani) it causes more resentment in such things of riots in recent years.

Ps. British-Persian mix here!

There are plenty of true Britons who are not English, Scotish, etc by race. Personal experience in the US tells me such people are often "more American (British) than the Americans (British). There are also plenty of immigrants in UK (and Europe in general, to a much lesser degree in the US as well) who have no intention of assimilating and are quite hostile to their surroundings. My message to the latter would be "go home". More later, today will be quite busy for me. Basic points in re immigration, to elaborate later:

1) You do not have a right to immigrate to my coutry, or any other. You arrive and remain at the sufferance of the citizens of said country.
2) Each country should determine the number and composition of immigrants based on its own best interests, including economics & culture. Politically correct idiocy should play no role in such determinations.
3) If you choose to immigrate to a country, you should plan on assimilating. That does not mean you should forget your ancestral culture - but at least speak the language and respect the laws. It is not the duty of your new country's citizens to accomodate your culture, it is your job to accomodate theirs.

John Hyre, Son & Husband of Legal Immigrants Who Fit In To Their New Home

JHyre wrote:3) If you choose to immigrate to a country, you should plan on assimilating. That does not mean you should forget your ancestral culture - but at least speak the language and respect the laws. It is not the duty of your new country's citizens to accomodate your culture, it is your job to accomodate theirs.

Here here.... this is something I can get behind (number 2 not so much). We have similar problems in Canada as well... for example some middle easterners move here thinking they can live by the same rules as the did back home. Well it is Canada not the Islamic Republic of Canada... there rules and laws that have been in place here for the past 200 years are the reasons Canada is where it is globally... the rules and laws for middle eastern countries are the reason they are were they are globally.

If you want it to be just like the place you left just go back.

I have to agree with JHyre and these are just some of the reasons we chose to move from the UK to Chile. If you choose to live in another country, yes, you should be expected to live by that country's laws, you should work and contribute to that country and you should learn the language and integrate with the people of that country. If you aren't prepared to do that, then don't move there. People of different colour,cultures and religious backgrounds aren't the problem; Britain has a fantastic multicultural society with many wonderful and different people, it's what makes Britain special, in my opinion. We don't care what colour you are or what your religious beliefs are just fit in with us and work with us. One of my Indian friend's mom never learned to speak English and I always felt she was a little isolated as her sons and their families always spoke English when they were together. They celebrated Diwali, but also Christmas and Easter and they would have Muslim friends round for meals on Ede. They supported England at Football but never cricket (I wonder why!). I have many friends from different backgrounds, I grew up in Birmingham where there is a huge Asian and black population and never experienced any problems, but things have changed over the last few years and Britain is no longer a good place to live. If you fly the Union Jack you are seen as racist, political correctness has reached extremes bordering on the ridiculous and laws are being made for minorities. I'm very proud to be British and I hope the day never comes when I can no longer say that.

JHyre wrote:3) If you choose to immigrate to a country, you should plan on assimilating. That does not mean you should forget your ancestral culture - but at least speak the language and respect the laws. It is not the duty of your new country's citizens to accomodate your culture, it is your job to accomodate theirs.

Amen! I have no intention of leaving the US to reesablish it somewhere else. If that was the case, then there's no point in leaving in the first place. The point of moving is to move into another culture that I find more appealing.

j. Ro wrote:

JHyre wrote:3) If you choose to immigrate to a country, you should plan on assimilating. That does not mean you should forget your ancestral culture - but at least speak the language and respect the laws. It is not the duty of your new country's citizens to accomodate your culture, it is your job to accomodate theirs.

Here here.... this is something I can get behind (number 2 not so much)...

Agree with number 3. But actually I think number 2 is the key... and it's exactly where European countries fell down: because they didn't consider themselves "immigration countries" they didn't establish clear rules and manage the process. Instead it happened "organically", with rules made up as they went along, causing resentment among both natives and immigrants.

As far as number 1 is concerned... well.. it's a very US-centric view. The EU provides some legal guarantees for internal migration (which is why the "Polish plumbers" went to the UK and Ireland... I don't know what Brown's woman was worried about, they've mainly returned to Poland again anyway).

Also, in the past, European immigration has often been based on colonialism, and if a country is sanctimonious enough to claim a "mission civilisatrice" as a justification for colonialism (I'm not sure if there's a similar saccharine soundbite encapsulating British colonialism), some of the colonized might actually call the natives on it, and establish that they do actually have rights, and that the rule of law can't be applied in different ways to people of different ethnic backgrounds. The same is true of some European economic migration, for example to fuel the German "Wirtschaftswunder" of the 1950s and 60s, workers from Spain, Portugal and Turkey came to Germany, where there was some kind of unstated understanding that the workers would pay pensions and social security to support Germans and all quietly go home afterwards... well, that was an epic fail, it turned out they had made the same contributions and had the same rights as anyone else.

The other thing I don't like in number 1 is "at the sufferance"... as an immigrant anywhere, do you want to be looking over your shoulder all the time? Or, as a native, are you so insecure you want immigrants to feel they're being merely tolerated? (that's what I understand being "at the sufferance" to mean). Establish the ground rules, provide stability, and leave immigrants contribute and participate. Same as is done to attract any kind of foreign investment. Simple as that.

Frank, I think John's #1 is aimed more at criminals.
If you are OK with immigrants driving drunk, committing welfare fraud, (insert crime of choice but you get the drift) here in the US, then #1 would be an issue.

Frank,

Thanks for your insightful response to JHyre's post. I share your (and John's) view that implementing a well thought out (points based system?) immigration policy is essential to mitigating future resentment on the part of natives and immigrants.