"While dictators rage and statesmen talk, all Europe dances — to The Lambeth Walk."

Friday, 22 May 2009

Two Different Approaches to Immigration

Various news reports from the past couple of weeks suggest that Italy and Germany are taking a very different approach to immigration issues.

The German government 'integration representative', Maria Böhmer, called for a thorough investigation into the falling number of immigrants seeking German citizenship and naturalisation:

“We need an exhaustive analysis,” she said, adding that the sudden fall in naturalisations after years of steady growth “worries me greatly.”

Knowing Germany as I do, I would imagine a celebration would be more appropriate than an investigation.

But no - the number of immigrants seeking citizenship has fallen by 15% since a 'controversial' language test was introduced two years ago.

The rest of the article is worthy of inclusion:

Overall applications dipped below 100,000 – the lowest number in a decade, the inquiry found.Böhmer said that naturalisation officials could be more service-oriented and help immigrants see the advantages to becoming German citizens. And with an eye to recent criticism about the citizenship test and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) refusal to allow dual citizenship, Böhmer (also a CDU member) said she would avoid any “rash answers.”

Böhmer’s comments come ahead of a controversial event planned for Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday, when she will personally lead a citizenship ceremony for 16 immigrants. The event is meant to honour the contribution of immigrants to Germany in the run up to the 60th anniversary of the modern German republic. In a weekend video podcast message, Merkel said it was in Germany’s interest to naturalise as many immigrants as possible.

In Italy, there is currently a totally different state of affairs.

On 8th May 2009, the Guardian reported that officials in the Italian city of Milan had proposed 'segregated' public transport.

Matteo Salvini, secretary of the Milanese branch of the anti-immigration Northern League, told supporters at a rally that there should be 'seats for Milanese' on the city's trains, trams and buses.

Predictably, opposition politicians invoked the spectre of the Rosa Parks affair. Salvini, however, had a slightly different take:

"It was just a provocation to say the residents are now in a minority and, as such, need safeguarding."

Like the rhetoric or not, he makes a legitimate point. Parts of Italy have been swamped with unassimilable Third World migrants for years. They are often responsible for heinous crimes, as well as the same patterns which are seen elsewhere - harassment of Western women and being violently territorial.

Berlusconi's government had been criticised just days previously for its new policy of automatic repatriation for boat people caught in international waters- a very sensible approach which I have advocated for years:

However, Berlusconi, whose government is already under attack for its immigration policies after the Italian navy returned to Libya more than 200 boat people without letting them apply for asylum, said: "Salvini himself has said it was a quip, a provocation."

The interior minister, Roberto Maroni, a Northern League member, hailed it as a "turning point" in his battle to stem the flow of immigrants through Italy's Mediterranean islands. But the UN and human rights groups accused the government of violating international treaties to which Italy is a signatory.

On Thursday the occupants of three boats adrift, reportedly in Maltese waters, were escorted back to the Libyan coast by Italian naval vessels. It was the first time that Libyan authorities were known to have accepted back migrants who set off from their coast. The shift appeared to reflect recent agreements between Berlusconi's government and Libya.

Since launching a tough new policy on boat people last week, Italy has turned back six boats carrying a total of 1,500 immigrants and asylum seekers which were trying to reach the country's southernmost outpost, the island of Lampedusa.

This policy seems the only one which can stem the invasion and colonisation of Europe. Such words are not meant to be provocative, but accurate - even respectable mainstream figures such as historian Niall Ferguson refer to the 'colonisation' of Europe by North Africans.

The European Union, of course, were absolutely outraged by Berlusconi's defence of his territory, his borders and his people. Immigration is causing increased tensions in Italy, and there are genuine fears for the future.

Berlusconi went a step further, however - on the 11th May 2009, he announced that he did not want a 'multi-ethnic' Italy.

Previous Left-wing governments had "opened the doors to clandestine migrants coming from other countries, with an idea of a multi-ethnic Italy," Mr Berlusconi said.
But that kind of society was "not our idea", he added, as he sought to reassure Italians who were alarmed at the number of immigrants pouring into the country, particularly from eastern Europe and Africa.

Again, the usual suspects were up in arms. Opposition MPs called the remarks 'a disgrace', and the EU and UN Refugee Agency weren't very happy.

Berlusconi has two valid points in his favour, however; firstly, most Europeans have never been asked how they feel about mass immigration and its plethora of negative results. When polled, the vast majority in most countries seem to feel there is too much immigration, and the social changes it has caused have gone far enough.

Secondly, rejecting a multi-ethnic Italy is not a call for genocide or expelling everyone who is not white or Italian, as some on the Left pretend; it is a simple statement of fact that Italy is not a 'nation of immigrants' in the American tradition. It is the rejection of a politicised term which describes a modern ideology or even cult rather than a physical state of being.

It is an endorsement of that nation's past and culture; Italy is what it is today because it was built by Italians. Whatever the future may hold for Italy, there will be no call for ideologues to re-write the past to prove that mass Third World immigration is a constant (as they have begun to do here in Britain); rejecting the term multi-ethnic means that Italy will remain Italy, and that anyone who does not wish to fit in should not go there.

As well as turning back boat people, the Italian parliament has made entering Italy illegally a crime. This perfectly logical policy can only continue to be logical if the rest of Europe adopts it post-haste.

Rather than condemning Berlusconi, I feel the governments and nations of Europe should be emulating him. If the mainstream do not address the growing sense of disenfranchisement which natives in many European countries feel - someone else will.


Dr.D said...

I had no idea that the Italians would be the ones to show Europe the way, but someone has to do it. If Italy is the one, power to them! No other country seems to be able to see things very clearly at this point.

Earl, you used the term, 'nation of immigrants' in the American tradition. I would suggest to you that a more accurate term would be to describe America traditionally as a nation of European immigrants. It is popular mythology that America has always been equal parts from all over the globe; this simply is not true. Until the very ill considered Immigration Act of 1965, the vast proportion of the US population had its origins in Europe which provided a degree of homogeneity, even if not the same as that found in Denmark or Ireland. It is only in the past 45 years that things have really gone to pieces in the US with large numbers of mestizos and muzlims coming in unchecked.

DHH said...

I may be in a complete minority but I see two issues that are interlinct here.

The first is that I certainly believe that it is necessary to clearly ensure that immigrants are exactly that. A real immigrant "choses" or "wants" to live in that country and thus must accept, ackwoledge, support and protect the ideals, practices and habits of that country. In fact they should become a citizen and defend that country as a person born there. This should be done by contract and if they cannot fulfill it or abuse that, they lose the right to be there and be deported. Having said that, the country must ensure that their own beliefs and needs are catered for as long as it does not clash with that country. Others are only visitors or refugees whom are there temporarily, if they want to stay then go to phase 1.

The issue is that this is not done.

The second issue is Open Europe, and that makes it impossible to create nationality standards and unless there is one EU nationality and sovereignty, the first is almost impossible to do.

The issues is not Muslims Mestizos, it has nothing to do with culture, religion but the host countries ensuring that the politics and rules are set before someone enters and that what is acceptable and what is not is clear. More than that, once that is clear, the country is then free and on a moral high-note to be strict on enforcement - they can say "we warned and told you so" and "you signed an undertaking that you have breached".

Dr.D said...

DHH, you speak of things as they ought to be, and I don't think anyone will disagree with you about that on most points. The problem is, things are not functioning that way in reality.

You say, "A real immigrant "choses" or "wants" to live in that country and thus must accept, ackwoledge, support and protect the ideals, practices and habits of that country. In fact they should become a citizen and defend that country as a person born there. This should be done by contract and if they cannot fulfill it or abuse that, they lose the right to be there and be deported."

In point of fact, this is not at all what is happening with the mestizo invaders coming into the USA at the present time. They have no intention of supporting the USA. They are proudly citizens of their various Latin countries and have no desire to become US citizens. They violate US law freely, they sponge off the US welfare system and send their spare cash back to Latin America. They are an invading army, just not in uniform.

You say that the problem is not with their culture, but I would say that it is. It is their culture that says that it is permissible for them to invade the US, steal from the US, evade US law, etc. all the while having a clear conscience according to their own cultural norms. That is a problem of culture. Similar but worse problems exist with the muzlims.

You say that the host country should set the rules and then enforce them. I could not agree more. The problem is, in the US we have a government that has refused to do its sworn duty to defend the country. It refuses to defend our borders. Now that is a problem. The laws are there. The problem is the people charged with taking the action, and that is an "immigration problem" on our side of the issue.

DHH said...

Dr D.

I would disagree with you again that it is culture and again with Muslims which you are then suggesting is the religion.

Those that come from latin America and invade the US are not doing so because the culture says it can do so. Their culture is almost exclusively Catholic and like any culture they understand what theft, taking advangate of etc.

The problem is pure economics, looking for a better life and thus jumping the border to make it better or to bring money back home. Nothing sinister except of course the drug busines which is just as much the gringo's problem of being the clients happy to pay.

As for the Muslims, it is exactly the same thing but you have categorized a religion instead of a race. IT is still the same scenario, coming to make a better life or bring back money but added that there is fundamentalism involved and that like the drug pushers, is a policing/immigration vetting problem that the authorities did not tackle seriously in the past.

Lastly, it is not this administration that is to blame, the problem started in the early 1970's and all the administrations failed in various forms and this administration still has to prove itself on how it wll tackle it.

Dr.D said...

DHH, you said, "
Those that come from latin America and invade the US are not doing so because the culture says it can do so. Their culture is almost exclusively Catholic and like any culture they understand what theft, taking advangate of etc. The problem is pure economics ..."

I think we need to put "Catholic" is quotes because it is not the same Catholic religion that is understood by, for example, most Irish-Americans. A person does not seek a solution to his problems that is outside his own cultural norms. If he truly believes that theft is not acceptable, he does not become a theif, etc. So the fact that there is an available target does not make a man a thief; it is what is in his heart, what come from his own (Latin) culture.

Regardng the muzlims, you said, "
As for the Muslims, it is exactly the same thing but you have categorized a religion instead of a race. IT is still the same scenario, coming to make a better life or bring back money..." How completely mistaken! It is nothing of the sort. They are a religio-political movement on a drive for global domination. Their goal is to take over the world, and every scrap of territory they every occupy they claim belongs to izlam forever. Sure, they enjoy the "misery of living in the West" as they discribe it, with all the evils they attribute to it, but first and foremost they are about the expansion of izlam.

You say that the Zero administration is not to blame because the border problems extend back many years. Well, yes and no. It is certainly true that the failure to enforce the border goes back many years, and goes back through many prior administrations. On the other hand, it is also the fault of this administration for continuing this policy and for having campaigned of a pledge to continue just that failed policy.

We have not done well in the matter of international drug trafficking. We need to find a new policy that will take the profit out of this trade and make it far less attractive. The obvious one is to legalize drugs, but the American people are not quite ready to accept that policy, I think. I don't know what the answer is to this problem.

Culture is more important than economics as a determinative force in how people act. Culture sets the guidelines, the rules, within which we live our lives. Economics may push in one direction or another at different times, but culture says how far we can go. Different cultures set different limits, and we see that when we are invaded by Latin American culture right now. We see that when the muzlims are greatly offended by so many things that are accepted in the West. These are matters of culture. Culture matters.

DHH said...

Dr D.

You said: "They are a religio-political movement on a drive for global domination. Their goal is to take over the world, and every scrap of territory they every occupy they claim belongs to izlam forever."

First Dr D. I am a Muslim. Second, go ask a 70yr old Berber woman tending goats in the Atlas Mountains or a 15yr olf boy milking his camal in northern Mali what their global strategy is for world domination! Goodnes, get a grip!

I must assume that you have read to many very questionable websites for your resources and absolutely non in proper academic or theological studies. I find it rather tiring that this same garbage is touted over and over again, it really shows how the internet revolution only muddles things rather than improves knowledge.

Let me set the issue correct. Islamic (ie Qur'anic) Principles say nothing about taking over the world, converting "heathens" or the like, I repeat there is NOTHING. References to fire and brimstone, the world kneeling to the power of God etc is just as common if not a little less than the Torrah and the Christian version in the Old Testiment, and like in the Qur'an they are parable after-life references. To condemn the Qur'an for that you must automatically condemn the Torrah and Bible for the same thing.

What is happening here in regards to misinformation, propoganda and confusion in general is two facets.
1) Most Muslims live in the third world with lack of education, literacy, economic crisis and poverty.
2) Muslims take their faith more seriously than most in the west because secularism is less common.

Those two factors explain it all, it means that the good are very good and those that are bad abuse the religiousness. In fact almost all actions and language in the Muslim world will use some form of religious mention in it. When I walk through a door I now have the habit of saying "bismillah". A small but relevant example.

Thus and to make this short - Militants, radicals will claim whatever they believe necessary to get popularity for their cause so they go to the masses who are franklys peaking ignorants and claim rediculous religious justifications for their henious acts...Jihad - which most clerical leaders in the Muslim world reject, defence against a Christian Crusade etc, etc.

The question here for you Dr. D, is that the millions of ignorant illerates can be forgiven for falling for radical bullshit, but what excuse is there for those in the west who produce jihadwatch and the gatesofvienna and fall (or I believe capitalize) for that propoganda? Which are you?

Dr.D said...

DHH, the fact that we can find individual muzlims that are not intent on world domination does not discredit the fact that taken as a whole, the izlamic movement is moving in that direction. All we have to do is look at events on the ground to confirm this, events taken as a whole.

You attribute all the problems that the West has experience with muzlims as being with extremist and radicals, but that will not wash. Everywhere that a significant number of muzlims has settled, just ordinary folks, not extremists or radicals as far as anyone knows, the problems have been the same. This is true in Europe and it is true in America. No the problems are not with extremists and radicals, the problems are with izlam!! And we are definitely seeing it here in America too, so please do not tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

I will repeat a point I have made previously. Culture matters. The culture of izlam says that muzlims are entitled to trick and steal from non-muzlims and to murder them. We see them do this when they come to live among us, and they cite this as their justification. Their religious leaders incite violence against us while living among us. They obviously think we are entirely stupid; we use the word tolerant. But culture makes the difference. It is not just poverty, illiteracy, or religion. It is culture.

You indicate that you will presume to judge me by how I respond. It matters not what you think. I will continue to believe the evidence that I can see for myself and gain from sources that I consider reliable.

I'm sorry to hear that you are a muzlim. I never believe anything I hear from a known muzlim, not a thing. As far as I am concerned, you have entirely discredited yourself. I will not be responding to anything further that you post. We are finished.

WAKE UP said...

If you have any doubts about what the Muslims have done to Italy, read Oriana Fallaci's books "The Rage and the Pride" and "The Force of Reason".