Naguib Sawiris wants to make a new country for migrants (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 05, 2024, 02:21:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Naguib Sawiris wants to make a new country for migrants (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Naguib Sawiris wants to make a new country for migrants  (Read 3146 times)
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,630
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« on: September 06, 2015, 06:48:44 AM »

No. We need immigrants in European countries and among Europeans, not packed together nearby.

I think there's definitely an argument to be made that putting them in middle of European countries might do more to encourage liberalization of views. Also there are worries that such an island might become a giant ghetto (vs. like 50 little ghettos all spread out, no real difference but it would certainly LOOK worse).

Why do you NEED immigrants though? I think it's more that the immigrants need Europe.


He wants the left to win elections, you know. That's not going to happen without mass immigration of people who will often be on welfare.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,630
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2015, 04:39:54 PM »

If you need an influx of foreigners to make your system sustainable, something is wrong with your system.

The less crazy solution would be "have more children".

This.

Look at Urk in the Netherlands. They have the highest TFR (total fertility rate) in the country. This is because they hold to conservative values.
I still want to visit that place once Tongue
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,630
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2015, 07:46:47 AM »

The Dutch system is actually a collection of different factions rather than a reformist liberal one. The famous Dutch tolerance is more about letting these groups co-exist than "lol drugs prostitutes".

Urk is not a good example of a stable society. Suicide and cocaine. That's all I will say...

Back to topic, as others has said the reason multiculturalism has failed is because of ghettoisation. They've been allowed to keep certain aspects of their society that are abnormal and sometimes unacceptable in ours. If the village people weren't so scared of brown people we could house them around the country. But instead we ghettoise them, and then the same racist people complain that their country is going to the dogs.

You reap what you sow...
Of course you're right on the Netherlands and on Urk.

But where does the whole idea of some sort of a "racism gap" between villagers and urban people come from? This might have been true in the past, and it might still be true in some countries (France, Sweden), but in many countries, like the Netherlands (and probably Belgium), it certainly isn't the case. I don't think one can say "multiculturalism has failed", it hasn't: it is a popular soundbite among politicians, but it doesn't reflect reality. In reality, people from lots of backgrounds coexist in harmony. The problem is that there are issues with Muslim minorities, sure, but that doesn't render multiculturalism itself "failed" - it is simply the new reality. And it is exactly like Famous Mortimer said: people want to live with people who are similar to them. So of course a Moroccan family would prefer to live in a neighborhood with a mosque, a halal butcher, and other Moroccans. This is normal. It's the same with European Jews, who are not "ghettoized" (anymore) at all.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 10 queries.