Another immigration discussion

Remove all ads!

Immigration is a troublesome issue, no doubt about that and I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. What I meant was that lazy slob immigrants aren't lazy slobs because they are immigrants, they are lazy slobs because they are lazy slobs and they bug me no more or no less than any other lazy slob.

The demographic issue is also very real, pretty much all western democracies face a negative population growth unless we take immigrants but here I differ quite a bit with Snook. If we continue to lure away all the hardworking, intelligent people from poorer countries how will they ever be not poor? In the long run it is better for everyone if the people with lots of ambition and capacity stay and improve their own countries than if we keep picking the cherries from the cake. To tie back somewhat to what Barmy said earlier, we need international solidarity. This shortsighted egoistical "my country first" philosophy is bad, real bad we need to start thinking about the entire globe and not just ourselves.

In the link they said a medium sized city in Sweden had received more refugees from Iraq than the entire USA but the point of this has never been that Sweden or Södertälje received an immense amount, we didn't. We took a fair amount but not nearly as much as during the 90's from the Balkan. The point of that is that the US basically took nothing, no one. You guys went in and wrecked a country and barely received any refugees and basically never do from any conflict and I personally find that to be disgraceful.

The main problem as I see it with this issue is that it has been hi-jacked by ignorant a-holes which makes any public discourse on the topic really difficult and of course that this lumping people into categories is a very slippery slope. The only thing we can really do to solve it in the long run is to try to fix things so people do not feel the need to abandon everything, move across the world, live with 30 other people in a two room apartment and make a living cleaning subway toilets for 2$ an hour instead of staying where they are. We are not doing that by luring away the intelligent and ambitious people.

 

I agree with this. And I would like to add, that of those that fall into this stereotype, that it is a smaller subset that actually intended for it to happen that way. Many people still look at the US as the land of opportunity, and it can be if you are willing to work your ass off. I think some people come here thinking that it will be easy, and find themselves living off the government when they discover that it is not. The grass is not always greener.

 

On the contrary, it's not a matter of racism but a matter of doing what can be done. If someone is born in Canada (or England, or wherever) and they are lazy little bastards, we can punish them, cut them off welfare, or even imprison them if they commit a crime. But we cannot send them anywhere, more's the pity.

But an immigrant is a different matter. Before they enter the country, we have no legal obligation to let him enter. If he has not become a citizen, we have no legal obligation to let him stay. In the case of Canada, this is true if said immigrant is from England, the US, the Ukraine, Ethiopia, or Australia. Race has sweet **** all to do with it. Behaviour is what it's all about, and I'm just as vociferous in demanding the removal of an Irish freeloader (and I'm from Irish stock!) as I am for the removal of a Sudanese one.

As I said in a previous post, we already have enough -- more than enough, actually -- lazy, criminal pieces of crap -- I see no need to increase that number through immigration. I DO see the need to increase the number of decent, hardworking, respectful, law-abiding citizens through immigration. I mean, get serious, if one of our goals in allowing immigration is to make our country stronger, how does letting some useless, welfare sucking dirtbag in accomplish that goal?

As for culture, NOG said it quite well. Eat whatever food you want, worship or don't worship as you wish in your own home or religious building, dress how you want as long as it covers your naughty bits, sing the songs you want to sing, dance the dances you want to dance, tell the stories you want to tell, and read the books you want to read in the writing system of your choice. I'm all for culture.

But within all of those things, follow our laws. Don't try to mutilate your daughters in the name of your culture -- we don't permit that here, and we will not change that position to satisfy you. Don't beat the living $%^& out of your wife and say that it is your right according to your religion. Don't tryt o change the safety regulations at work -- wear the required safety gear or go get another job, but don't try to claim the foreman is racist because he's trying to keep you alive and safe.

 

What we and you do permit is the mutilation of your sons.

 

Your point being?

 

Nothing that has anything to do with this discussion really. Just been really peeved that male genitalia mutilation is completely acceptable while the female version is generally reviled. They have the same origins and basically the same basic function. Lowering and controlling the pleasure derived from sex and thus "deviant" sexual behaviour.

 

Ahh, righty-o then. We can hash that one out in another thread.

 

As a circumcised male (who admittedly refused to have his own sons circumcised) , I am be happy to inform you that my circumcision has most assuredly not lowered the pleasure I derive from sex, nor has it stopped me from ever engaging in "deviant" sexual behavior (no, I'm not going to elaborate). While studies do show that circumcised males experience a slight decrease in sensitivity, this really just means we get to have sex longer -- and in my mind, this hardly counts as a bad thing.

By contrast, circumcised females cannot experience orgasm and derive no pleasure from sex. Male and female circumcision are not equal.

 

Never said they were, I said they served the same basic function. Also, have you had sex both before and after your circumsision? Removing those skinflaps numbs your penis and lowers the pleasure gotten from sex and the time to reach climax (which to some is a good thing).

We are off-topic though but it is something I feel strongly about. That ritual torture and mutilation of small children is not only completely OK but encouraged in parts of the Western world is beyond me. Sure, ripping away the clitoris and removing a large part of the sensitivity from the male equivalent is not the same thing but to me the difference is purely cosmetical. I have heard some of the arguments and they are just vile, hygienic?!? How freaking hard is it to pull back? The penis looks like it does for a reason and you sure aint improving on it by removing part of it. For me morally male or female circumsision is the same, the female variant might be more brutal and invasive but in the end they are both mutilation.

 

I think your still looking at it as "you" and "them", its very easy to single people out and say they do somthing and pull a race card, but others do it, I've watched a woman run through an office in high heels and sue the company because her boss shouted at her and she claimed he was being sexist in the workplace, thats no different from an immigrant pulling the race card, if people think there is a system to be taken advantage of they will do, those type of people are everywhere on this tiny planet Immigrant or not.

And as for the tiny planet its a lot smaller than it was back in the 50's and it will continue to get smaller as technology, society and politians evolve which they are all at an astounding rate these days.

I wonder what will happen when we first land on mars and settle on it, will the world unite as one and celebrate a global acheivement or will the world turn on the "type" of people that make the first settlement due to fear or jelousy? Humanity is a strange thing but lucky for us it is different everywhere you go.

And sorry for totally dodging your genitalia posts I'm having my brekkie right now

 

I'm an immigrant: I came to New Zealand from Taiwan when I was six years old, and now I'm 20 - I've lived here for fourteen years since June 4th. I consider myself at least partially Kiwi, and so do my friends.

I agree with what LKD is saying. If you go to another country, you should be expected to learn their language, respect their laws. OTOH, the immigrant should also be expected to be able to maintain their culture and be respected.

It's difficult being an immigrant. NZ is fairly tolerant and welcoming to foreigners, but racism still exists. I experienced it first-hand, and sometimes I still get stabs of it today. First impressions mean a lot - immigrants are hypersensitive when they first move into a country; one single rude comment can mean a hell of a lot. In situations like these it's quite normal, I think, for immigrants to band together and thus create a secluded community which may give the image of attempting to be outside local laws and so on.

But there are also jackasses. I've often seen Asians who are just that - jackasses. Rude, disrespectful, and not giving a damn about anything. People like that exist everywhere, but in a foreign place, they only stand out because of their race. And people like that damage the reputation of hardworking, honest immigrants, because others often do not differenciate between individuals or even specific cultures. Thus you talk about "that Asian cannot drive" instead of "that guy cannot drive" or "that Japanese person cannot drive".

So what I'm saying is: this aggressive stance by immigrants is often a reaction, which may be imagined or real (and I am getting reminded of the movie Crash). And, more often than not, it's a minority who are actually *******s.

Most of the posts so far seem to be discussing this from the "native"'s experience, so mostly this post is just to inject a bit of perspective from the other side.



EDIT: I've thought of a few more points to add.
Speaking from personal experience, my culture obviously have unfair preconceptions about Western cultures too. Westerners are often seen as brash, rude, open, etc. In my family, which is fairly intelligent (if I do say so myself), we occasionally make comments based on these - comments that could be interpreted with tinges of racism. But it's in a general, semi-playful tone, and it is understood that in your heart you know that these comments obviously don't apply to everyone.

This is in *my*family. I imagine it could get far more radical in other ones.

Oh, and there's the issue of communication. English education in Taiwan sucks like crap. I picked up English reasonbly quickly, but I was young, and going to school daily, so I was exposed to it (and I had lots of friends who thankfully viewed my foreign-ness as a point of interest, not racism). Lots of people can't speak English well, or may lack the confidence to even if they know the words (my stepmum is like this). This all serves to give an impression of isolation/aggression, and also may increase the immigrant's own paranoia. Imagine you're at a foreign country, and you only know how to say "Hello" "Goodbye" "Thank you" and so on. How would you feel? How would you think others are seeing you? If they look at you while talking to themselves in words you cannot understand, what would you think? It doesn't matter what they're actually saying, it's the perceptions.

On the subject of culture, Chinese culture is hugely different to Western culture. We have different ceremonies, traditionals, food...you know, culture. These are delicate subjects and toes are often stepped on, on either side. Think about it - there's so many culture tidbits that you can only really understand if you've lived somewhere - how do you expect them to learn about your culture while they're not actually experiencing it? There's only so much you can learn from textbooks. Culture is a learning progress, and newcomers often make mistakes.

Now that I think about it that "minority are *******s" theory applies to Western cultures too, obviously. It's the minority who shout things like GO HOME TO CHINA while blazing a car across. But they make a deep impression, and immigrants, like natives, can often generalize.

 

That's a good post. What this world could do with is more mutual understanding.

 

To be honest, I don't care too much if they don't speak the language for the first few years. Hell, I don't care if they enclave up -- we have freedom of association here, and as long as they don't commit any crimes against other citizens, make a Chinatown, Little Italy, or whatever you want.

But don't expect the government to pay for a bunch of translators after you've been in the country for 15 frigging years. And don't claim racism if you don't get hired -- employers have every right to expect that they can communicate efficiently with their employees. I don't expect perfect English, but after 15 years the average Canadian should be able to understand about 85% of what you say and expect that the recent newcomer understand the same amount of standard English.

 

Then blame the government for the housing system, it always starts there but they never own up to it because they try to save money rather than invest on integration, hell if I was in another country as an immigrant but surrounded completely (ie china town) by other english people not only would I not see the need to learn the native language but without direct contact with the indiginous society find it pretty hard, the government never think about this when housing people, they pick a spot, lump everyone there and think everyone will be hunky dory... but it never goes down that well on both sides.

 

Housing system? How do you mean? Do governments get to choose where immigrants go in other countries?

 

In the UK most immigrants apply for housing assistance which means they get housed on a government estate, often forming insular communities. The system is designed to encourage people to move out when they can but as it is many simply reside in council housing as it is convenient and everything is taken care for

 

I may be a bit too tired to explain this, in the UK its such a business with immigration that they are very specific now on where people are housed due to domestic or even foreign complaints, the government list out to certain councils (state authorities) and they make the decision where to place people (normally places that need people to employ for jobs), after a while people may move on but like most human beings home is where the heart is and moving house... well its a pain in the butt unless you happen to hate it there.

Going on 8's comment most families that don't seek housing assistance are helped out by a family that already live in the country and / or know the country well from visiting it in the past, although it may be more costly it works out better for families that may have been divided or seperated from civil war, invasion, political fallout or unwillful exile... I have found that a lot of people that live in such a utopia of "western civilisation" as they claim are ignorant to the reasons why so many people seek sanctuary in another country.

Imagine one day you wake up and turn the news on, your leader (PM, President, King/Queen) tells the nation that anyone that believes Role Play Games are a sin and punishable by death unless they leave the country with in X amount of days, you'd feel pretty scared right?

Rant official over...

 

No they don't. Female circumcision removes all pleasure from sex... it actually makes sex painful. It is done mainly out of tradition or to ensure that women have no real reason to cheat. (If sex is painful, what woman would want to cheat on here husband?) Male circumcision, on the other hand, is also often done out of tradition, but it historically made infections due to improper hygiene less likely -- which back in the day was a very good thing -- and only slightly decreases a man's sensitivity. This is a far cry from "lowering and controlling the pleasure derived from sex" and "deviant sexual behaviour". Of course, that is not and never was the purpose of male circumcision. The same cannot be said for the female "equivalent".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of male circumcision (there's a reason my boys are uncircumcised), but you really have to stretch the truth to put male circumcision and female in the same ballpark. The male "equivalent" to female circumcision would be cutting off his penis.

My grandfather was older when he had to have a circumcision because of an infection. He didn't notice any real difference, primarily because male orgasm comes from the prostate. In the grand scheme of things, you really aren't lowering sexual pleasure unless you're performing an "ass-ectomy" or a straight-up castration.

 

You remove a piece of skin that normally covers the part that when it is stimulated the man climaxes. For women you remove the entire thing, for men you just numb it down as much as possible. I do not buy the hygiene thing even from ancient times I would think there would be a higher risk for infection if you voluntarily inflect a rather big wound than if you just let things be as they are. It is not possible to remove the penis or even hte tip of the penis and still function. What they do is as close as you can come to female circumsision and still have a functionable penis.

I have a friend who got circumsised just before his teens due to tight foreskin or whatnot which I would guess is a good enough reason but I wonder if there weren't any other way. He doesn't know the difference but we are quite close friends and we talk about most things like his marathon sex sessions. It can take him hours of stimulation to climax and I am sure that at times it can be useful but it sure as hell sounds like a chore to me.

 

Now what the heck is this even supposed to mean? You'll probably say next that an indigenous tribe members tribal tattoos are the same as flaying someone alive.

Now's one appropriate time to say this: It ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same ballgame!

But, admittedly, a botched up job in circumsicion is problematic, and if it's comes to tradition vs. playing it safe...well it usually isn't, but it'd definitely be better to play it safe.