Germany Trying to Preserve Culture

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

I don’t think European countries have much of a choice when it comes to immigration.
There’s no natural population growth in any of them (memory serving Muslim Albania being the only country in Europe where natural population growth exists).
So, just to maintain population figures, they have to accept immigrants. It is in their best interests, however, to have immigrants integrate into the local culture, otherwise they’ll end up with Englostan and Germanistan pretty fast.

Another way would be to stimulate population growth via government programs that would provide benefits to families with more than 2 kids, but that probably won’t happen.

22

as a side note : France’s fertility rate has been slighty over 2 children born per woman since 2008 (partly because of overseas departments).

23

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

And let’s not beat around the bush, the rich do want the cheap labor and could give a shit about the native population. And the rich are the ones who have benefited, not the middle class.

[/quote]

Here we go…

The host Country created the political environment and business policies that allowed the rich to hire cheap labor, as do the middle class. How many times do middle class households hire illegals for construction and landscaping? Rich only?

We are so quick to blame the rich when the fact is the rich only react to the business environment that allows the hiring of illegals and immigrants.

One example is the Senate race in CA.

Boxer has been in for 28 YEARS! She created the crap CA business environment that DRIVES BUSINESS OUT, yet now she bashes Carly Fiorna for outsourcing CA jobs when she was CEO for HP. That’s pretty much her entire argument. Barbara created the environment, yet criticizes businesses for reacting to those policies BOXER created.[/quote]

The argument is much more complicated than that. I’m not disagreeing with you on your points, but it depends what you mean by “rich”. I don’t consider somebody making $500,000/year to be rich.

I’m talking Wall Street rich. The hedge fund hyenas,derivative pushers, zombie bankers and asset strippers like Soros are the ones to blame for the current state of the world economy. These are the people that have been pushing for globalization, immigration and free trade at all costs to line their already very deep pockets.

It has been roughly 30 years since the big push to outsource all of our industry with the promise that globalization will lead to a better life for Americans and the world abroad. What has happened is actually the exact opposite. The gap between the rich and poor in America is largest it has ever been, over 40 million American rely on food stamps and roughly 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2 a day.

Everything is connected. You can’t talk immigration without bringing up the economic reasons as to why people want to emigrate in the first place.

24

[quote]kamui wrote:
as a side note : France’s fertility rate has been slighty over 2 children born per woman since 2008 (partly because of overseas departments).[/quote]

yeah, it improved in some other countries slightly as well.
care to guess the most popular name for newborn males in London, Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo?

25

Mohammed ?
probably true in Paris suburbs too.

but on the other hand, it’s definitly not the case in middle sized towns and rural areas.

i don’t know if “globalization” and the so-called multicultural policies are complete and utter failures, but i’m pretty sure our current urban policies are.

concentration + immigration = bad idea

26

It’s definitely a problem. Though I would say that the next generation usually assimilates even if the parents try their damndest to prevent it. That may not hold true with Islamic immigrants in Europe. But I think it’s genearally true with Asian and Spanish immigrants here.

27

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
This will continue to be a growing trend, as it should be, and not for any racial reasons but because globalism as a system is a complete and utter failure. Countries had self sustaining economies for hundreds of years but with the advent of globalization it was suddenly deemed ok to let millions of cheap labor workers into your country so that the rich could exploit them.

And let’s not beat around the bush, the rich do want the cheap labor and could give a shit about the native population. And the rich are the ones who have benefited, not the middle class.

[/quote]

The middle class benefits by cheaper prices for consumer goods. Query whether it’s worth it, though. I don’t think it is especially when unemployment is high. People say Americans wouldn’t do the jobs immigrant workers do. But they would if they didn’t pay a slave wage. And if they wouldn’t, they have no right to be on welfare. Of coure, if wages go up, prices go up.

28

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]makkun wrote:
The German state has never had a proactive approach towards multiculturalism or even an integrative approach - especially not the two conservative sister parties CDU and CSU which have been involved in government for 21 of the last 27 years. Its immigration and citizenship laws have always reflected the notion that people would ‘go home’ one day - and hence simply haven’t invested into integrative efforts. That’s why e.g. you can be third generation Turkish, born in German, speak only German and still not be a German citizen.

With net immigration, the number of asylum seekers, etc. significantly down (a trend that has held over years now), Merkel is simply reacting to a trend kicked off by the likes of Thilo Sarazin (and just in the last few days Horst Seehofer) who are mimicking anti-immigrant populists in other European states to raise their profile. In a sense, Merkel is complaining about something her own party has fostered: lack of integration based on a lack of integrative measures. I.e. in order to complain about a failure of multiculturalism, it would have to be tried in the first place. It’s a bit sad that a normally relatively rational (albeit conservative) politician like Merkel now jumps onto this bandwagon - though given her abysmal approval ratings not really a surprise.

Makkun[/quote]

So if I understand this correctly, Germany does not feel compelled to take measures of integration because the people that actually live there don’t technically live there, and people who have been there for several generations have never lived there?

That requires a person to play jedi mind tricks on themself that I can’t comprehend.

In fact, just considering this has sprained my corpus calosum.

[/quote]

The Germans just choose not to give citizenship to foreigners so that if they ever decide these people don’t belong in their home they can tell them to leave. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea to do that but it is their right to decide who is family and has a right to stay in their home.

29

[quote]makkun wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[…]
So if I understand this correctly, Germany does not feel compelled to take measures of integration because the people that actually live there don’t technically live there, and people who have been there for several generations have never lived there?

That requires a person to play jedi mind tricks on themself that I can’t comprehend.

In fact, just considering this has sprained my corpus calosum.[/quote]

Germany has always been quite conservative on this issue and policy has been driven by the conviction that it is not a target of immigration (‘Deutschland ist kein Einwanderungsland’) - thus ignoring the problem that it of course is. Therefore imho necessary reforms of citizenship and immigration laws have been stalled, and measures haven’t been taken. So indeed yes, there have been several generations of people with a migration background living in Germany who don’t hold citizenship - and incentives to gain it, as well as integrative measures (such as funding for language classes etc.) have been lacking. If you find that weird - be my guest.

My point about Merkel is not so much the need to address this issue of immigration / integration (for which her party had plenty of opportunity), but that she jumps into the debate now: numbers are down significantly, but in spite of that the debate is raging (probably stoked by economic fears). And - it’s a bit hypocritical given that her party is consistently to blame for not updating the pertinent laws.

Makkun [edited for typos][/quote]

Given the history of Germany it makes sense that they don’t want to get stuck with people who are not welcome but they can’t go anywhere else. You should watch the movie Ship of the Damned. It was based upon the true story of how in the thirties the Germans loaded a bunch of Jews onto a boat and tried to send them out of the country. Nobody wanted to let them off of the boat, not even the British who were in control of the Palestine mandate. Eventually the boat ended up back in Germany and the rest is history.

Merkel is a dirt bag.

30

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I don’t think European countries have much of a choice when it comes to immigration.
There’s no natural population growth in any of them (memory serving Muslim Albania being the only country in Europe where natural population growth exists).
So, just to maintain population figures, they have to accept immigrants. It is in their best interests, however, to have immigrants integrate into the local culture, otherwise they’ll end up with Englostan and Germanistan pretty fast.

Another way would be to stimulate population growth via government programs that would provide benefits to families with more than 2 kids, but that probably won’t happen.[/quote]

It is not in the best interests of European countries to have mass immigration from the third world. It is dragging the standard of living down. It is dumbing down the society. Creating disunity. Dramatically increasing crime rates.

In Britain for example out of a population of 60,000,000 there are over 8,000,000 people who are unemployed. A large percentage of the immigrants and their families have never worked a day in their lives. As soon as they got off of the boat they went onto welfare. While the ones who got a job took a position that could have been used to get an indigenous Brit off of welfare.

While birthrates may be going down longevity is going up. The ideology that says we need mass immigration to deal with a future where our populace is increasingly old and decrepit is based upon a paradigm that may not exist when that future arrives.

31

Freedom of association.

People have the right to form their own groups and associate with whomever they please in any language they please.

32

Something that needs to be kept in mind is that the perspective vis-a-vis the Americas and Europe is very different when it comes to mass immigration. Europe is only now experiencing something that America went through several hundred years ago. If several hundred years ago some American Indians had said all these white people moving here is not going to be good for us and done something about it they wouldn’t be where they are now.

Americans didn’t start out as a melting pot where they assimilated into the indigenous culture. They set up a separate culture that could not have survived without the kindness and help of the indigenous people. The Pilgrims who came off of the Mayflower were dying until the American Indians discovered them, took pity on them and taught them how to live off of the land.

It is easier for people to assimilate into American culture because people know it is something new and is not related to a specific race or ethnicity. Another thing to bear in mind is the much touted American melting pot was for most of this countries history a melting pot of European Christians. We didn’t have the widely disparate ethnicity’s that the Europeans are trying to combine.

33

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I don’t think European countries have much of a choice when it comes to immigration.
There’s no natural population growth in any of them (memory serving Muslim Albania being the only country in Europe where natural population growth exists).
So, just to maintain population figures, they have to accept immigrants. It is in their best interests, however, to have immigrants integrate into the local culture, otherwise they’ll end up with Englostan and Germanistan pretty fast.

Another way would be to stimulate population growth via government programs that would provide benefits to families with more than 2 kids, but that probably won’t happen.[/quote]

It is not in the best interests of European countries to have mass immigration from the third world. It is dragging the standard of living down. It is dumbing down the society. Creating disunity. Dramatically increasing crime rates.

In Britain for example out of a population of 60,000,000 there are over 8,000,000 people who are unemployed. A large percentage of the immigrants and their families have never worked a day in their lives. As soon as they got off of the boat they went onto welfare. While the ones who got a job took a position that could have been used to get an indigenous Brit off of welfare.

While birthrates may be going down longevity is going up. The ideology that says we need mass immigration to deal with a future where our populace is increasingly old and decrepit is based upon a paradigm that may not exist when that future arrives. [/quote]

It’s a lose/lose situation, increased longevity actually makes it worse since the retired folks are relying on those who are still working to pay enough in taxes to cover their pensions, health benefits etc.
Yes, Europe is being color- and religion - blind when accepting new immigrants and not enforcing or even promoting any kind of assimilation (shit, in Sweden it’s considered “racist” to demand that immigrants must speak Swedish to become citizens).
But again, low birthrates is what’s behind all this.

34

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
This will continue to be a growing trend, as it should be, and not for any racial reasons but because globalism as a system is a complete and utter failure. Countries had self sustaining economies for hundreds of years but with the advent of globalization it was suddenly deemed ok to let millions of cheap labor workers into your country so that the rich could exploit them.

And let’s not beat around the bush, the rich do want the cheap labor and could give a shit about the native population. And the rich are the ones who have benefited, not the middle class.

[/quote]

The middle class benefits by cheaper prices for consumer goods. Query whether it’s worth it, though. I don’t think it is especially when unemployment is high. People say Americans wouldn’t do the jobs immigrant workers do. But they would if they didn’t pay a slave wage. And if they wouldn’t, they have no right to be on welfare. Of coure, if wages go up, prices go up.[/quote]

Much like the drugs the pharmaceutical giants continue to push on people, the cheaper prices on goods are merely a temporary high, a band-aid, a cover up of the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem.

Sure, some people will benefit initially. Shipping our industry overseas, having goods produced at slave labor wages and then shipping them back to the home country will initially lessen the cost of the product while simultaneously increasing profit. The problem, and very big one, happens when the country the industry was initially shipped out of, begins to see the effects of poor economic decisions.

There is one immutable fact that many people failed to see…if you don’t produce anything then you don’t have an economy. This has been particularly lost on (perhaps it is willful ignorance?) the governing elites and many of the so called economic experts.

America doesn’t even produce the level of education that it was once renowned for. China and India are producing engineers at 10 times the rate America is. That and many of the engineers in our universities are from these very countries. And as for the many kids that do go to college, they end up getting degrees in such lauded fields as…Religious studies, Art History, Women’s Studies, Philosophy. :frowning:

And by the way, what are most of the cheap goods that Americans get? A bunch of cheap, toxic, worthless crap produced in China and sold in Walmart.

Globalization has been the death knell of the American middle class, unions (private not public…different story), and the country as a whole. If America wants to reclaim its greatness it would do well to end most of its free trade agreements, reinstate Glass Steagall and the Sherman Anti-trust Laws, and clamp down on the Financial Gangs on Wall Street that are picking the country clean.

The take home point should be this: Why is Germany still a productive and vibrant economy while Americas wastes away? The Germans still produce things. Things of quality, things that you know if buy them are going to work, work well, and work for a long time. What does America have? Derivatives, flash trading, collaterized debt obligations.

35

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I don’t think European countries have much of a choice when it comes to immigration.
There’s no natural population growth in any of them (memory serving Muslim Albania being the only country in Europe where natural population growth exists).
So, just to maintain population figures, they have to accept immigrants. It is in their best interests, however, to have immigrants integrate into the local culture, otherwise they’ll end up with Englostan and Germanistan pretty fast.

Another way would be to stimulate population growth via government programs that would provide benefits to families with more than 2 kids, but that probably won’t happen.[/quote]

It is not in the best interests of European countries to have mass immigration from the third world. It is dragging the standard of living down. It is dumbing down the society. Creating disunity. Dramatically increasing crime rates.

In Britain for example out of a population of 60,000,000 there are over 8,000,000 people who are unemployed. A large percentage of the immigrants and their families have never worked a day in their lives. As soon as they got off of the boat they went onto welfare. While the ones who got a job took a position that could have been used to get an indigenous Brit off of welfare.

While birthrates may be going down longevity is going up. The ideology that says we need mass immigration to deal with a future where our populace is increasingly old and decrepit is based upon a paradigm that may not exist when that future arrives. [/quote]

It’s a lose/lose situation, increased longevity actually makes it worse since the retired folks are relying on those who are still working to pay enough in taxes to cover their pensions, health benefits etc.
Yes, Europe is being color- and religion - blind when accepting new immigrants and not enforcing or even promoting any kind of assimilation (shit, in Sweden it’s considered “racist” to demand that immigrants must speak Swedish to become citizens).
But again, low birthrates is what’s behind all this.

[/quote]

You are thinking in the paradigm of we grow old, become infirm and can no longer be economically active. Advances in medical technology like stem cells are going to create a new paradigm where we are no longer growing old, falling apart and dying like they used to. When that happens I think that elements of the old paradigm such as retirement and pensions are going to have to be reconsidered and may even become a thing of the past.

Low birthrates is an excuse that is being used as cover for an ideologically driven agenda that is being driven by Marxists, communists and Fabians. They are using mass immigration as a way to create divisions in society that didn’t exist before that they can exploit.

36

sifu - while advances in medical field may increase longevity and allow one to stay active longer (although in France they are rioting right now protesting the increase in retirement age from 60 to 62 lol) - low birthrates in western countries is a very real problem.
Check out Buchanan’s “The Death of The West” - he ain’t no Marxist I’ll tell you that much.
Yes, just like any other real issue, it can be used as an excuse to promote all sorts of agendas, but the underlying problem is there and can’t be denied.

37

Why is this even controversial?

38

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The Germans just choose not to give citizenship to foreigners so that if they ever decide these people don’t belong in their home they can tell them to leave. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea to do that but it is their right to decide who is family and has a right to stay in their home.
[/quote]
That’s not true.
Actually, it’s kinda easy to get German citizenship. I’m not saying, though, that acquring German citizenship is tantamount to being integrated.

As a tangential:
what makes me cringe are immigrants who shit on Germans, German culture and Germany, but still apply for German citizenship for benefits’ sake. I’ve seen and experienced this stance from Muslims, primarily. It’s also funny to note how tolerant Germany is towards Muslims (and other religions, for that matter), whereas other religions aren’t always well liked in ‘Muslim’ countries.

For contextual info:
I’m an agnostic German having grown up in multi-cultural surroundings and thankful for that. And some of my friends are Muslims. I’m not against Muslims, it’s just that Islam + lack of education tends to bring out the worst in a person. The same goes for other religions + lack of education, but not to the extent it does with Islam. Mind you, I’m talking out of my own experience, so it’s rather a subjective view.

39

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Freedom of association.

People have the right to form their own groups and associate with whomever they please in any language they please.[/quote]

As do the Germans.

40

I just have to know what Orion thinks on this issue…Orion?..Orion?

U Mad?