Marina Schwarz

I agree with your analysis of the current situation. However, I believe that root cause is lack of economic integration, which is then made worse by cultural isolation. Basically I think that if we could integrate immigrants into our economy cultures could co-exist. In fact, everybody would win, as Europe needs these workers due to current demographics. 

There are encapsuled areas in Denmark too, although they are not as bad as Paris, but also very good examples. And almost all of the good start with integrating people into the economy - i.e. finding them work. And we need their labour... 

8 hours ago, mthebold said:

When we talk about integrating new people into a country, which parts of the host country's culture should we expect them to adopt, and which parts of their culture can be left intact?  I.e. to what extent must they integrate to be functional members? 

It guess it depends on how you define culture. Take me forexample. I watch American made movies & listen to 70s country. I eat Italian, French, Spanish and South American food. I have a good friend that from Iran - he is a surgeon. I could go on. Diversity is good.

What I think is essential when integrating new comers is that we make them understand understand the laws and social codes of our societies. And we are failing at that. Big time. Remember when you point 1 finger at others you point 3 at yourself. A simplistic summary is that European immigration policies are failing because

1) We do not properly  explain to immigrants, in a language they can understand (and by that I mean social language) how our society functions etc. Our immigration policies are built basis a western understanding of people. 

2) Many Europeans are scared of losing social benefits to immigrants. They fear that immigrants will take theirs. It the old pie theory - they worry about their slice of the pie instead of worrying about making the pie bigger! 

I run my own business. It is not labour intensive, but I have many friends that own and run labour intensive businesses. Interestingly, they all say that it is not always Western European labour that has the best work ethics - I have many examples. Once immigrants make into employment they generally do well in the job and in society. They just don't understand how crack our social codes to find employment. Now, I guess you could say - bad luck for them. They should just put more effort into learning. Fair play. Except - we need their labour. so everybody wins if we change our immigration policies. 

Let me be clear - I don't deny there are bad examples. I don't deny there are problems. I don't deny that there many immigrants, maybe too many. I just say - let's be constructive! As stated earlier - I do not believe in zero sum thinking. 

Side-note : If Europe collective had taken responsibillity we wouldn't have so many immigrants.

52 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

What I think is essential when integrating new comers is that we make them understand understand the laws and social codes of our societies. And we are failing at that.

Spot on. Thank you for this summary.

Also with you on the responsibility but as we can all see this responsibility-taking has now swung too far. Now everything is Europe's fault.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Marina Schwarz

22 hours ago, mthebold said:

Can you expand on that "memory of the Ottoman empire ruling over" you?  I was taught that the Ottoman Empire existed, but have no clue what it was like. 

Of course I could. I'll leave that for another day, however. It's going to be long because I will need to incorporate the latest deliberate change in how we see history.

2 hours ago, mthebold said:

Sounds reasonable at face value.  I'd question a couple points though: 

1) Expanding the pie requires a certain level of intelligence & education along with certain virtues.  If immigrants possessed those traits, why didn't they expand the pie in their own country?  You'll point out America's history of immigration.  I would not this difference: in the past, America had land to spare.  Immigrants ventured forth to the frontier and made their own way.  Failure meant death.  None of that is the case in modern, wealthy welfare states, so past immigration cannot be used as an example.  

2) Being a good citizen is more than being an industrious, low-level employee.  Mexico, for example, is full of hard working people.  Mexico is also corrupt, violent, and incapable of "expanding the pie" - all due to the culture that exists there.  If you tolerate that culture in your own country, you won't get an expanded pie; you'll get what Mexico has.  

3) On one hand, people claim automation is killing jobs.  On the other hand, they claim we simply cannot survive without immigrants.  Which is it?  Furthermore, what's wrong with your culture that people won't procreate?  In America, I hear women say that they refuse to bring children into such a terrible world; is it the same in Europe?  And if so, how do we expect humanity to make progress if the people with foresight (i.e. the intelligent people) refuse to bear children?  If that continues, there will be no Western culture, and the world will devolve into the medieval mess it was before Western Humanism existed.  

There are, of course, exceptions within any culture.  I have no doubt that a doctor, lawyer, or other working professional could understand Western culture, see its advantages, and integrate smoothly.  Unfortunately, the immigration the US & Europe are seeing isn't professionals.  It's the masses.  I don't see that working out well.  

I don't deny any of questions / points you raise. I think we agree on more than we disagree.

Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to be leaning towards "zero sum thinking", whereas I am the opposite. I honestly believe that regulated economic growth (regulated so as to avoid things like child labour, trade imbalances i.e. things any reasonable person can agree is horrible) through the free market and innovation can lift people out of poverty. Everywhere I have travelled in Africa and South America I have encountered people that want to work and make a living for their families. That means the basis is alrigth. There is something to build on.

Now, I am not naive - the world will not change over nigth and nor will peoples attitude. 

7 hours ago, mthebold said:

3) On one hand, people claim automation is killing jobs.  On the other hand, they claim we simply cannot survive without immigrants.  Which is it?  Furthermore, what's wrong with your culture that people won't procreate?  In America, I hear women say that they refuse to bring children into such a terrible world; is it the same in Europe?  And if so, how do we expect humanity to make progress if the people with foresight (i.e. the intelligent people) refuse to bear children?  If that continues, there will be no Western culture, and the world will devolve into the medieval mess it was before Western Humanism existed.  

I think a lot of women in Europe simply have other interests they would rather pursue than raising children. Also, a lot of women are delaying having children in favour of career building and some delay it too long. You're free to blame radical feminism for that. I probably would if I thought it's appropriate to lay blame. Also, I think reproductive problems are on the rise at least in certain parts of Europe. Not sure about the factors at play but there's probably a multitude of them. 

Isn't the "terrible world" argument old? I so thought it was.

Ah, but dispassionate is so out. Hyperemotional is in. And we do it voluntarily. What a ridiculous species. But lovable, let's not forget. We're lovable.

6 hours ago, mthebold said:

I'm still not seeing how my thinking is "zero sum".  Any situation can be positive sum, negative sum, or zero sum depending on who is involved & how it's played.  What am I missing?  

My point is simply that immigrants can be a resource. To an extent maybe an unwanted resource, but a resource none-the-less. A resource with capacity for good and bad as all human beings. How we choose interact with them has a big impact on how this resource develops. If we see and treat them as a paria that then likelyhood of them becoming that is bigger. Whereas if meet them at their level and speak to them in way they can understand we can develop this resource in a positive way. You will say : why should we? it is their responsibillity. My answer is : What does it matter whos responsibillity it is if it works out well for all parties? 

In another thread you mentioned that immigration causes downward pressure on wages. My answer to that is that competetion is good. Competetion makes us do better, innovate... in short create growth. I understand that this has to be balanced and not just achieved on the back of cheap labor. 

I am an employer. I will always hire the best candidate. Regardless of religion, skincolour or passport. Interestingly, The best candidates do not always look like me. What we look for when we hire is willingness to learn and work. that's it. When then put a lot of effort into training.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Rasmus Jorgensen

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

Fair enough.  

Why aren't we putting that same effort into our fellow citizens though?  

Not sure what you mean? I put the same effort into every employee, person etc. I do not give preferential treatment to anybody. That includes people with Danish passports. A human being is a human being. 

On 11/9/2018 at 11:45 PM, mthebold said:

We owe more support to the families who paid taxes their entire lives, fought the wars for freedom, and built the country's wealth.  Your commitment to your own citizens should be higher than your commitment to immigrants.  First, take care of the people who got you where you are.  Then look outward.

For starters - I am sorry if I came across as trying to paint a picture of myself as being noble. That was not my intention. 

I actually think you are missing my point. I believe that if we turn immigrants into a positive resource then that has a positive impact on society, An impact that is to the benefit of natural born citizens as well, including myself and my family. Like it or not, as far as Europe is concerned, immigrants are here and they will keep coming (this is a fact - look at living conditions in Africa and compare to Europe). We can then choose

1)  spend money on keeping them away which won't work or 

1)  spend money integrating them into our economy so that we create growth at home and

3) enact policies that allow them to build their own economies... this is the only sustainable way to stop migration.

The problem with my approach:

1) It aims at the longterm. No short-term relief. 

2) No short-term feel good by watching other being miserable. 

Fundamentally, I believe that anti-immigrantion parties through-out the West does not actually help the people they claim to be helping. However, they do a good job giving that impression. Now, you could rigthfully say that it is easy for me to take this stance as I am not in the middle of the problems. I have no counter to that. I know that it easy for me to point to solutions when I am not feeling the brunt of the pain in my near or extended family or community. But it does not mean that I am wrong either.

On 11/9/2018 at 11:45 PM, mthebold said:

"Maximum offloading of responsibility by corporations onto governments, and minimum labor costs through increasing the labor pool." 

This is just plain wrong. As mentioned in another thread - the total social cost increases when more people are covered. That is a fact. I am happy to have a discussion about different approaches and points of view. that is good. But statements that blatantly ignore facts does not belong in a serious discussion. 

Just a small interjection here, if you don't mind:  The differences in society and the populations involved factor heavily into the points about health care.  The VA reference is absolutely valid in the U.S., but in relatively small countries with little global military commitments, not so much.  Please continue, your conversation is fleshing out some good details.  I don't know if they can be applied each to the other, but they are good points nonetheless.

We seem to have gotten off topic on this one.

So, to get back topic, I believe diversity is in fact good. To illustrate I will offer another example : My wife is cuban. My parents are getting older. In time, when my kids are little and I have built a house that is better suited for it, I would like for them to move with us so as to avoid them staying at nursing home for as long as possible. This is not a very Danish thing - we tend to farm this out to publicly run nursing homes (for several reasons, but that is a different discussion). My point is that I do not view Danish culture as superior in any and all things - outside input is good!

 

Wow. This is a fascinating discussion.,  So good, in fact, that I shall restrain and refrain my usual temptation(s) to jump in and hijack it!

Marina, I thank you for starting up this discussion.  Cheers.

Diversity can be a good asset.  However, words are important, and the word 'diversity' is often misunderstood.  Often, we think it means 'race', but in reality, it simply means 'knowledge'.  A diverse group of people are those who have a variety of different backgrounds that has resulted in a diverse base of knowledge.  So, for instance, electing a black man, an indian woman, and an adrogynous chinese person provides no real diversity if all three indivudals grew up on the same street and to families in the same social-economic strata.  However, electing three white males aged 24-29 would provide diversity if one came from a poor family in the midwest, another from a rich family that does business overseas, and that last from a missionary family out of Africa.  

Multiculturalism can strength a people when, like Marina says, assimilation does happen.  But what do you do when assimilation does not happen.  As a case in point, and speaking of...

On 11/8/2018 at 9:50 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

women in Europe

...I happened across some of articles today.  Since I was not intentionally searching for any of these articles (or their subject matter), I can only assume this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Also, these articles are all from this week: 

https://voiceofeurope.com/…/another-day-another-gang-rape-…/

https://voiceofeurope.com/…/14-moroccans-sexually-abuse-g…/…

https://voiceofeurope.com/…/sex-attacks-up-70-in-just-one-…/

https://www.dcclothesline.com/…/illegal-alien-released-by-…/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/…/shocking-video-shows-machete-ga…/

 

On 11/8/2018 at 5:25 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

What I think is essential when integrating new comers is that we make them understand understand the laws and social codes of our societies. And we are failing at that. Big time.

^Are we failing at teaching or are they failing at learning?  Education is a two-way street.  Sometimes a student deserves that F.  

On 11/8/2018 at 11:43 PM, mthebold said:

Stupid people breed like rabbits because they can't imagine the consequences of their actions - and even if they could imagine, they still lack the discipline to do anything about it.  Intelligent people have foresight, and that foresight allows them to imagine the evils of the world bearing down upon them, the pain they'll endure, the work of parenting, etc. 

^I feel like you are describing the opening scenes in the movie Idiocracy.  ...it was a terrible movie, but a great predictor of the future.  

On 11/9/2018 at 2:20 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

My point is simply that immigrants can be a resource.

^The key word here is 'can'.  Simply because we want them or expect them to be a resource doesn't mean they won't just then go on to choose to become a terrible liability.  I do, however, agree with what you said about competition.  

On 11/12/2018 at 4:13 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I believe that if we turn immigrants into a positive resource then that has a positive impact on society, An impact that is to the benefit of natural born citizens as well, including myself and my family. 

^Again, you are making this about you, when, in reality, you have no real say in what someone else chooses to do.  Yes, they may decide to do what you want them to do by them choosing to have a positive impact on society, or they may decide to rape your daughter because she was alone at night and without her male escort, which, of course, violates their law. 

Key word: "their."

The early immigrants in America assimilated so well primarily because there were no government handouts waiting for them upon arrival.  In order to succeed in America, those immigrants had to interact with the Americans who were already established, and this integration fostered that assimilation.  Today, however, huge government handouts make such interaction unnecessary, and this now handicaps both today's immigrants as well as today's taxpayers.  

The best thing that could be done to help immigrants effectively assimilate would be to immediately end all social programs and aid packages for said immigrants.  This would include mandating that hospitals are no longer required to treat illegal immigrants at tax-payer expense.  

Make crime illegal again!  (<--- I feel like that slogan would work well on a hat).

 

Sadly, these headlines are not going away anytime soon. Even more sadly, there are certain groups of women who blame this, too, on the local men and "the patriarchy."

@Epic

Firstly, I never defined diversity as race. The context for @Marina Schwarzs blog post was cultural diversity. 

Secondly, I am explicitly saying that the single largest reason for problems with immigrants in Europe is NOT that their culture is different. It is that they are NOT economically integrated into our societies. This is then made worse by the cultural differences. Something you seem to agree with:

3 hours ago, Epic said:

So, for instance, electing a black man, an indian woman, and an adrogynous chinese person provides no real diversity if all three indivudals grew up on the same street and to families in the same social-economic strata.

I am NOT denying anything you are raising. I am simply saying that the only way to fix this is to change integration policies so we can achieve economic integration. There is historic precedence for this : back in the 80s and 90s there was a saying that no country with a McDonalds in it had ever attacked America. The point was once people experienced economic growth they did not want to return to the life they had before. 

 

3 hours ago, Epic said:

^The key word here is 'can'.  Simply because we want them or expect them to be a resource doesn't mean they won't just then go on to choose to become a terrible liability.  I do, however, agree with what you said about competition.  

To elaborate on my view : How we design our integration policies CAN define how immigrants interact with our societies. The very first communication lesson I learned was that there is a sender and a receiver. As sender you need to think about how the receiver interprets your message. Our immigration policies are designed believing the recievers are like us. Of course they fail. @Jan Van Eck would put this down to poor quality bureaucrats. 

Now, you can say - if they come here, they need to adapt to us. Whilst the statement makes sense, it is not working. So, who cares if we need to re-design our integration policies if that works? Seriously, who cares if we need to meet them at their level if it makes these problems go away. I don't. I am a very pragmatic person. Immigrants will keep coming. Regardless of what border control means we put in place. Take one look at living conditions in Africa and compare them to Europe. So, why not do something real about this? 

Further to my above - I know there are lots of bad examples. There are also good. I have many small ones from my private life. And I can also show you lots of examples of bad stories and crime committed by natural born Danes. The real question is : Do we want to to actually improve the societies we live in? Or de we want to get short-term feel good by blaming our woes on others? I choose the former. I realize that I am giving very simple answers to a complex problems. This is partly because my written English could be better and partly because this is a very difficutl discussion to have as we come from very different and cultural contexts - reference my above re communication

33 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Seriously, who cares if we need to meet them at their level if it makes these problems go away. I don't. I am a very pragmatic person.

I also consider myself pragmatic but I'm not covering my head and body completely just to protect the religious sensibilities of Muslim immigrants who subscribe to rules that are in stark and irreconcilable opposition to my idea of individual freedoms. We do have to meet in the middle, @Rasmus Jorgensen, that's the only way that I see as fair. Not to mention that the more concessions one side makes, the more demands the other side will have. It's human nature.

2 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I also consider myself pragmatic but I'm not covering my head and body completely just to protect the religious sensibilities of Muslim immigrants who subscribe to rules that are in stark and irreconcilable opposition to my idea of individual freedoms. We do have to meet in the middle, @Rasmus Jorgensen, that's the only way that I see as fair. Not to mention that the more concessions one side makes, the more demands the other side will have. It's human nature.

Agree 110%. I would not want my daughter to have to cover herself either. 

All I am saying that, at least in Denmark, there is a very large and loud minority that does not want to move at all. And that is not helping. Thankfully, in my life I have meet many moderate muslims. The common denominator for all of them is that they are economically integrated, which leads me to believe economic inclusion is the only real remedy. 

3 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Agree 110%. I would not want my daughter to have to cover herself either. 

All I am saying that, at least in Denmark, there is a very large and loud minority that does not want to move at all. And that is not helping. Thankfully, in my life I have meet many moderate muslims. The common denominator for all of them is that they are economically integrated, which leads me to believe economic inclusion is the only real remedy. 

A pre-empt : My point is that I believe they are moderate because they are economically integrated. NOT the other way around. Overly simplistic I know, reality is of course push and pull, but it illustrate my point. 

And I'm sure they are economically integrated because they wanted to integrate. I'm not sure if economic integration is the cause for moderation or if it is the other way round. Radicals of all sorts are notoriously loathe of changing anything about themselves or their view of the world. Could you please elaborate why you believe integration leads to moderation rather than vice versa?

P.S.Large loud minority doesn't sound good. You should be less nice and welcoming. Seriously. 

 

A further example : 6-7 months ago I helped a somali immigrant in his 30s. He had been in Denmark for  3-4 years and just living on social benefits. I asked him what his training was. None really, just hard work in agriculture. I asked him what he had been doing to find. He said that he had been taking Danish classes etc learning to write CVs etc. In fairness his basic Danish was understandable. Far from good, but understandable. He said "they" couldn't find him a job. I said : What have YOU done? he said everything they told me. I said : Are you willing to work hard? He said yes, I want to feed my family. I said OK. First thing you need to do is drop this attitude that "they" need to find you work. I called a friend who owns a scrap yard. I asked if he could give this guy a chance. Last I heard the somali immigrant started an apprenticeship with a local small shipyard August. 

Above is an example of faulty immigration policies. There was a man who wanted to work, but instead helping him into employment we sent him through schooling, tried to teach him write CVs whilst living on social benefit. What this man needed was a chance to prove he could work. That was it. he needed to be taugth to seek out possible employeers and say : I may not speak Danish very well, but I can work hard. Do you have any openings? Can you give me a chance? He needed to be taugth our social codes.

Was it his responsibillity to learn this? Yes. Would he have learnt if I hadn't explained it to him in simple language? I don't know. Would he have gotten the first chance if I had not opened the door? Probably not. Is everybody happier? Yes.  Now, instead of sitting with his friends chewing khat and getting drunk talking about how horrible Denmark is, he going to work. I don't know what he says to his friends in his time off of course, but there is a chance that he is actually saying Danes are not all bad. And telling them what worked for him. And atleast for the time being he is off welfare, so tax payers should be happy. 

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Rasmus Jorgensen

30 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

And I'm sure they are economically integrated because they wanted to integrate. I'm not sure if economic integration is the cause for moderation or if it is the other way round. Radicals of all sorts are notoriously loathe of changing anything about themselves or their view of the world. Could you please elaborate why you believe integration leads to moderation rather than vice versa?

Most people I have met around the world want the same thing - make a little money and give their families a better life. Yes, there are radicals - the always will. My point is just that poverty (also comparative poverty within a society) is a petri-dish for radicalism.  

Back in 1969 Elvis said it like this: 

People, don't you understand
The child needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day?
Take a look at you and me
Are we too blind to see
Do we simply turn our heads, and look the other way?

So, Elvis was talking about crime, but the principle is the same. 

Does this + my other example explain it? 

to be clear - I believe radicalism of any kind has no place in society. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Rasmus Jorgensen

Maybe we are looking at this all wrong.  Maybe we shouldn't be talking about immigrants, but rather, maybe the fix can only be found in emigration!  Let's take the US, for example.  If we consider the United States to be a 'success', at least in the sense that refugees should both desire and be allowed to enter, then let's look at how the US got here in the first place.  It wasn't that immigrants came to the US because the US was a fabulous nation; no, the US became a fabulous nation because powerful, hardworking individuals emigrated to that land so as to form that nation.  Maybe what the Middle East and Africa really needs is for a group of hard-working, educated individuals to emigrate to their countries!  They could pass out blankets, and then all will be will with those places, too!  

@mthebold

You raise some good and fair points. I will respond to them indicidually. 

19 hours ago, mthebold said:

You insist that immigrants will come no matter what.  Immigration is easy to control if taken seriously; the problem is that countries aren't even trying.  

I believe this to be a law of nature. Just like capital will also flow to where best return is. Just like the original emigrants from to America were leaving desperate conditions in Europe in search of a better, so will emigrants from Africa and ME towards Europe. We cannot stop them. An example : US has been trying to stop drugs from coming into America for decades. Has it worked?

19 hours ago, mthebold said:

Your repeated point is that it can work.  The repeated ground reality is that it isn't working.  The evidence is stacked against you.

As you know I am saying the immigration policies are failing. And because immigrants will keep coming we need to start getting realistic about immigration policies. 

 

19 hours ago, mthebold said:

Before advocating for immigration, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that it will work. You must also show how you will make it work and provide empirical data to support your plan

I have never made a secret of that argue from simplistic examples and experiences from my own life. However, my younger brother is doing a doctorate integration policies in Denmark. It is English. He should be done with it in 6 -8 months. If you are seriously interested I will send it to you. Seriously. It can't get anymore datadriven than that. 

I would challenge you to do the same with your point of view. But serious sources. Not Breitbart or similar. 

19 hours ago, mthebold said:

I.e. it's not enough to claim diversity is good and make noble statements about helping people.

Fair enough. Although I never made secret of that I am talking about the difference each of us can do as individuals and using my personal life as examples. To be clear - I do not do or write anything to get any that'a'boys, but because I care about the society that my kids will grow up in. 

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Rasmus Jorgensen