Just recently, I was listening to a "community radio" from Gloucester. What was that community? For hours and hours it sounded as if I listened to a Jamaican radio. I have nothing against Jamaicans, even less against Reggae. But you know what?
I don't like a country with deep traditions, its own indigenous culture etc., I wouldn't like to see it boil into a sort of unintelligible vinaigrette, multicultural farrago!..
Sure, the USA is a different case, but what about those 'good ole' nations in Europe? Africa and Asia can be losing their "God given" cultural identity too, but for other reasons, I guess.
So, many people from different (and differing) cultures are allowed into and enter such a country. What then? Should they learn and adopt the host country's spirit? Because I tend to think that unless that, there's a possibilty to the people who've lived there for generations to get things the other way round. Dissolution?

We have had a traditional welcome to immigrants in past times but nowadays it is something very, very different. The population is zooming up and at over 60 million and expected to go over 70  it is frightful. Utilities, schools, medical services, housing are all under strain - mostly in England although we are getting them up here gradually. They get houses dished out to them,furniture, bus passes and heaven knows what. Statisticians say that into the next century at the rate we are goiong the population will exceed 100 million eventually. As the indigenous have less children the framework of the nation changes and we are slowly becoming a hotch-potch rather than a shared sense of values.

This is an island and we are now ahead of the Netherlands on population cramming and is getting ridiculous. London, Birmingham and other centres of big populations are no longer traditional British. You can no longer have an open door and then start pandering to every lot of contradictory groups who want to be special cases. With so many places being swamped this relatively small island cannot go on as it is. All the guff about being a wide society is just that - guff. Instead we are developing apartheid and alienation and with a simmering militancy amongst many of the newbies the future will be bleak here.

So, you're concerned with the demographical and economical aspects too?
Do you travel within the UK?

With the exception of Scotland, I think all immigrants should make a full effort to assimilate into their new home country, and if they do not speak the language of the country which has become their new home country, they should be required by law to have a working knowledge of the language.

With the exception of Scotland, I think all immigrants should make a full effort to assimilate into their new home country, and if they do not speak the language of the country which has become their new home country, they should be required by law to have a working knowledge of the language.

The American Indians would have loved that idea!


I grew up in a neighborhood filled with Slavic immigrants, many of whom had only a handful of English words. Somehow they managed to muddle through.

Now the area north of the city, Dearborn, is under Muslim control. This tongue-in-cheek link outlines the problems that have ensued.

In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law.  The tough new law, slated to go into effect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.
The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.
- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/#sthash.dGtjmCVr.dpuf

Josh may I say that i don't sit at a pc all the time and I travel. This island is overcrowded and the most so in Europe. England especially has changed it;'s whole lfe style. We have ghettoes right across England and although not so bad up here in the northern  part of the Kingdom (Scotland to you!) It is starting here. All the liberal talk about multicultural is a load of cobblers and is not working. Yes they should be required to have  our language and so on but they get far too much tolerance as if we  should somehow create a dumping ground of Europe and Asia. Small wonder the French are so happy for immigrants to come here so the Welfare State can be misused.

Small wonder the French are so happy for immigrants to come here so the Welfare State can be misused.

I do not have any practical experience with or knowledge of the UK, but Belgium might repatriate me if I so much as tried to even use its welfare system. That situation persists even while paying into the Belgian welfare state.

but Belgium might repatriate me if I so much as tried to even use its welfare system. That situation persists even while paying into the Belgian welfare state.

Tin-Tin doesn't like you? or is it Poirot?

The point is that although it's vaguely conceivable that the UK is different than most places, this idea of immigrants moving someplace and "abusing the welfare system" is fictional. Not too long ago I saw Vlaams Belang trying to get votes by advocating for keeping things exactly the way they are. Of course, the way they phrased it they implied things are currently different.

The point is that although it's vaguely conceivable that the UK is different than most places, this idea of immigrants moving someplace and "abusing the welfare system" is fictional.

It depends.
Gypsies are good on that. Very... creative.

A good place to live from welfare is France, it's the only one. You must go a little bit south.

The point is that although it's vaguely conceivable that the UK is different than most places, this idea of immigrants moving someplace and "abusing the welfare system" is fictional.

It depends.
Gypsies are good on that. Very... creative.

A good place to live from welfare is France, it's the only one. You must go a little bit south.

To be resident there should be no requirements except the regular, follow the law, pay your taxes, kiss up, kick down... Next year you might be a resident of some other country.

To be a citizen there might be further civic ties, kiss the flag, be able to communicate, not being already a future liability like a career criminal, and so on.

If you get and raise children in a country there will be further responsibilities on their behalf.

Countries might in addition have their own people wish-list (university degree, half a million euros in small unmarked bills, no chewing gum). Many countries separate between short-term and permanent residency, the latter being a citizenship light with some limits and responsibilities.

In addition to the musts, there are some shoulds. The residents should learn the local languages early on, the earlier you learn it the earlier you benefit. The country should provide language lessons on attractive terms (relevant teaching, free or "learn now, pay later"), and access to  network for jobs and living. Immigrants bring to a country capabilities the natives often lack, but are often prevented from using them by the lack of contacts and local knowledge. The country shouldn't "promote" people (permanent residency, citizenship) without them showing the capability needed. You cannot "demote" a citizenship unless the person has another, but it is possible to do so both with no-longer-permanent and temporary residency.

If you're born there, you should become a citizen as you exit the amniotic sac.

Is that the case in the country where you ,or anybody else here, live.

The US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Some people ain't never happy.
Right now, our big issue is with Mexicans crossing the border and heading North. There are parts of the city and suburbs here where English is definitely a second language-- when it's spoken at all.
Problem: Some of us can't be sure whether to be angry that Mexicans are taking our jobs-- or angry that Mexicans are applying for and receiving government aid.

Note: being something of a half-breed myself, I can never be quite sure whether to be happy that people from Europe-- specifically Scotland-- settled here, or be angry that Europeans took ancestral homelands and forced some of my ancestors onto reservations. Some of those reservations were none to secure if oil or gold would be discovered to be there, as White Man once again uprooted the original inhabitants to steal the mineral wealth of the land.

M., the two halves struggle within you, huh?

Problem: Some of us can't be sure whether to be angry that Mexicans are taking our jobs-- or angry that Mexicans are applying for and receiving government aid.

Speaking the language properly is actually a marketable asset. That is, if I wanted to compete with e.g. Polish immigrants at the bottom of the labor market, all else being equal, my native-speaker Dutch should put me ahead of them. Also don't forget that another country already paid for the immigrant's education. If they receive some government aid after contributing for years, that's their right as much as anyone else's.

The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.

By "Immigrants" I presume it refers to those who come to a country to become it's citizens. In my view such people should most definitely learn the language and respect it's culture. But I'd not go so far as insisting that they loose their root culture as well for that would diminish the refreshing of the host country. For example no more St Patrick's Day in New York.

All too often the term immigrants is also used to describe people who come into a country to work, with the intention of returning to their original country or simply moving on. That's where the word "should" can come to the fore but that depends on what work they do and on the character of the host country. English speakers (whether from an English speaking country or not) are fortunate in that respect since learning the local language is not always a necessity.

For example no more St Patrick's Day in New York.

The States is a multicultural country by default.
Otherwise they'd have or should have assimilated to the Cherokee in the first place, themselves.

Where the emigrant is from plays a big part.

European immigrants usually enter legally and contribute to the workforce with intentions on naturalization. Indian immigrants are more often intent on milking the government programs, educate their kids and use grants, for as much money to send back to India as possible until their visa runs out. Mexicans usually start out illegal sending money back until their family can acquire legal entry to use government money to educate their children and become citizens.

I'm not so sure immigration across the board is as beneficial as it should be.

If you're born there, you should become a citizen as you exit the amniotic sac.

Is that the case in the country where you ,or anybody else here, live.

As an automatic citizenship I think that is very much the exception. Hong Kong and the US are the cases I can think of. However, someone born in a country generally have significant advantages over a child that arrives at e.g. 3 months of age.

By "Immigrants" I presume it refers to those who come to a country to become it's citizens. In my view such people should most definitely learn the language and respect it's culture. But I'd not go so far as insisting that they loose their root culture as well for that would diminish the refreshing of the host country. For example no more St Patrick's Day in New York.

But your Dutch isn't terribly good, even though you lived in the Netherlands for more years than I. I happen to think that's perfectly acceptable. You had a job, you paid your taxes, and you didn't cause any trouble. It's no different in principle from a Turkish man who's done much the same for 40 years, but is now suddenly asked to take some ludicrous language and culture test. A culture test that most natives would fail because culture is regional.

European immigrants usually enter legally and contribute to the workforce with intentions on naturalization. Indian immigrants are more often intent on milking the government programs, educate their kids and use grants, for as much money to send back to India as possible until their visa runs out.

How can you milk the system when the system first milked you for many thousands? It sounds more like rightful retribution to me. (I'm only somewhat kidding. Given all the fees involved in the process it'll probably take at least a year of welfare before you're remotely approaching being even. Legal immigration to the US and the Netherlands is for the rich.)

Where the emigrant is from plays a big part.

Where emigrating to, even when emigrating, seems to have a significant role.

It might be as simple as different cross sections of society. In Norway Indian immigrants do considerably better than the natives on education and other social scores (though Indians in India are less educated than Norwegians in Norway). When Vietnamese arrived in Norway in mass as boat refugees a generation ago (Norway had a lot of ships to pick them up, and Vietnamese were second to Pakistanis as most common non-European immigrants), Vietnamese youth crime was very high. Now again they do much better than other groups. Other groups that do poorly in Europe tend can do well in North America.

Where the emigrant is from plays a big part.

So it does to where he goes.

In Europe, problems with immigration are more with the second and third generations than with the first generation of immigrants.
First generation are people that accepts low payments (but huge compared with those they had at their own countries) for having jobs that locals don't want to do but with their children things are different. Deep anti social behavior emerges at the second and third generations.

I don't know about the USA but I suppose the country is more socially open, things must be different.

It may appear more socially open because that is the standard propaganda but in practice somewhat different.

European immigrants usually enter legally and contribute to the workforce with intentions on naturalization.

To be fair though, they ( well, most of them ) also have a much easier time to actually get into the country legally and get a work permit. Still costs a pile of money and a lot of patience though.