Is this a language learning thread or an immigrant bashing thread?

Do you beleive speaking/writing/reading multiple languages is an indicator of higher intelligence?

mastering multiple languages is not based on intelligence but made easy for children if the environment, parents, country, friends and school provides the base for it. for children who have parents with different mother tongues, who perhaps master additional languages which are used at home, learning languages is a breeze. in Saudi Arabia we had an Ethiopian housemaid and a Yemeni driver. it took our son less than a year to converse fluently with both in Amhari (including those most difficult "click-cluck" sounds) and Arabic whereas my wife and me were struggling to form simple sentences.

most impressive for us was (after we were able to differentiate) that he could switch instantly from yemeni arabic when addressing the driver to hejazi dialect when talking to his Saudi friends

Is this a language learning thread or an immigrant bashing thread?

actually this is the thread "how to change a light bulb". but everybody knows by now where threads lead to.

You tell me that learning 5 languages is not so impressive; really?

of course it is not impressive. take for example young children from six different countries. they speak at least 5, perhaps even 6 languages.

Welcome to another multi-language speaking/reading/writing member who knows what it means to speak many languages. But Mr. Koheesti is more impressed with a Russian in Siberia who learned Swahili rather than another world citizen who speaks 5 or more languages.

Right...

Someone who grew up in south western Europe who speaks/reads/writes French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan IS NOT as impressive as a Russian speaking/reading/writing Swahili. You are probably of a different opinion.

Do you beleive speaking/writing/reading multiple languages is an indicator of higher intelligence?

It's an interesting point, some people have a savant-like selective intelligent where they are extremely good in one field and hopeless in others. The movie Rainman provided an example where Dustin Hoffman was a maths wiz but autistic in other parts of his life.

No doubt there are people who acquire languages easily.

Intelligence is hard to quantify, there's plenty of smart people around who left school early.

Similarly there are a few well educated people who....

Exactly!

I saw a picture of the 2 most wealthy men in the USA, together sitting in a private plane on their way to China:

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Two of Americas greatest and they are even pretty close to each other, never mind the gap in age.

Gates is a brilliant man who understood the importance of the future in PC's and started developing software (whilst IBM said PC's would never take off) and on the other hand we have one of the smartest investors in the world, Mr. Buffett, an amazing phenomenon as well.

But, I doubt if the first could do what the other accomplished. I doubt it very much. The first left his education career and started in a garage creating Microsoft and Buffett is still living in his old house and driving a relatively old car.

At the same time there are a few well educated people who.....

But, I'm afraid we're taking sides roads and are off track in the topic at hand:

Can Multicultural Countries In The West Be Successful Qua Integration ?

1. Is the USA successful with their multicultural integration ? I'm not sure.

2. Are the countries in Europe successful with their multicultural integration ? NO

AFAIK it is a strange and different situation if one compares the US with Europe.

In Europe we seem to have more problems with immigrants and Muslim population in particular than in the USA.

Germany alone has some 20% of the population (some 80 million peole) descending from immigrants and more than 3 million Muslims.

Amongst the 20% are around 3 million Turkish citizens and many of them are not integrated and do not (yet) speak German.

Comments ?

LaoPo

Is this a language learning thread or an immigrant bashing thread?

I thought it was an immigrant bashing thread. I really don't know what all the discussion about language has to do with it. Muslims have been trying to take over Europe for centuries. Nothing much has changed except the methodology.

America has less problems because there is no historical precedent and a longer way to travel.

Do you beleive speaking/writing/reading multiple languages is an indicator of higher intelligence?

mastering multiple languages is not based on intelligence but made easy for children if the environment, parents, country, friends and school provides the base for it. for children who have parents with different mother tongues, who perhaps master additional languages which are used at home, learning languages is a breeze. in Saudi Arabia we had an Ethiopian housemaid and a Yemeni driver. it took our son less than a year to converse fluently with both in Amhari (including those most difficult "click-cluck" sounds) and Arabic whereas my wife and me were struggling to form simple sentences.

most impressive for us was (after we were able to differentiate) that he could switch instantly from yemeni arabic when addressing the driver to hejazi dialect when talking to his Saudi friends

Agreed.

Is this a language learning thread or an immigrant bashing thread?

I thought it was an immigrant bashing thread. I really don't know what all the discussion about language has to do with it. Muslims have been trying to take over Europe for centuries. Nothing much has changed except the methodology.

America has less problems because there is no historical precedent and a longer way to travel.

Distance is part of it but we also get a higher class of immigrant. What I mean by that, is immigrants go to Europe's socialist paradise's because of all the "free" stuff they get - healthcare, education (including university), money, in some cases free flats, etc. Europe gets a lot of bums looking for a free ride through life (not all, but a MUCH higher % than the US). The immigrants who come to America know they are going to have to work for it and they are OK with that.

Look at the illegal immigrant problem we have in America now - all these people taking jobs or doing jobs that Americans don't want to do. any gov't services they get for "free" is because as illegals they are getting paid under the table. Point is, our immigrants come for the opportunity to work and make money,

In my company we brought over a specialist from the US. He's Algerian by birth but has a green card. He used to live in France and Germany. He is waiting to get his French passport. He still wants to stay in America with his family but would return to Europe for any health issues and maybe send his kids to school there because it's "free" (he isn't paying French or German taxes). He's going to try to get the best of both worlds. I'm not sure if that would work but that's what he plans.

Someone who grew up in south western Europe who speaks/reads/writes French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan IS NOT as impressive as a Russian speaking/reading/writing Swahili. You are probably of a different opinion.

Do you beleive speaking/writing/reading multiple languages is an indicator of higher intelligence?

1. The languages you mention are all inter connected so called Romance languages but that doesn't mean that a Spanish speaking person can understand Catalan; NO WAY!

There are about 10 million people speaking Catalan and they are the most proud people of Spain (and the economical engine for Spain as well), next to the Basque people, but there are more Spaniards speaking Spanish/Castilian (and not understanding Catalan) than there are Catalans.

But the Spaniard can manage himself with some hand and feet movements to make himself understood in Italy and Portugal but France is already more difficult for him; a lot more!

However, most of the higher educated Catalans speak French.

But your opinion that a person, speaking French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan is not so impressive as a Russian, speaking Swahili is not shared by me.

It shows you don't understand the difficulties in languages. I speak Spanish also but there's no way I can manage Catalan; it's too complicated and I can only understand maybe 10 to 15% and that would already be an exaggeration since I am guessing too much.

2. Not necessarily more intelligent but it takes many years of study to speak, read and write foreign languages; next to that there are people who have a natural feeling for languages and there are people who will never adapt and learn another language but their own and the latter is the vast majority of the world population.

LaoPo

So you like to focus on the "diffculties" of Catalan for other Romance language speakers and ignore the fact that if you are a native speaker of French, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian, then learing the other three (or even Catalan) would be much, much easier than say, a native Russian speaker learning Swahili. Keep squiming.

I had a roommate from Brazil back in 1990. He told me that he doesn't speak Spanish. We were at the supermarket one day and he gets into this conversation with some old guy. He told me later that the old guy was from Guatamala. I replied that they speak Spanish in Guatamala and that I thought he didn't speak Spanish. He said something about still being able to understand each other.

This is a very long read but it is on topic.

______________________________________________________

Germany and the Failure of Multiculturalism

October 19, 2010 | 0855 GMT

By George Friedman

German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared at an Oct. 16 meeting of young members of her party, the Christian Democratic Union, that multiculturalism, or Multikulti, as the Germans put it, “has failed totally.” Horst Seehofer, minister-president of Bavaria and the chairman of a sister party to the Christian Democrats, said at the same meeting that the two parties were “committed to a dominant German culture and opposed to a multicultural one.” Merkel also said that the flood of immigrants is holding back the German economy, although Germany does need more highly trained specialists, as opposed to the laborers who have sought economic advantages in Germany.

The statements were striking in their bluntness and their willingness to speak of a dominant German culture, a concept that for obvious reasons Germans have been sensitive about asserting since World War II. The statement should be taken with utmost seriousness and considered for its social and geopolitical implications. It should also be considered in the broader context of Europe’s response to immigration, not to Germany’s response alone.

The Origins of the German Immigration Question

Let’s begin with the origins of the problem. Post-World War II Germany faced a severe labor shortage for two reasons: a labor pool depleted by the devastating war — and by Soviet prisoner-of-war camps — and the economic miracle that began on the back of revived industry in the 1950s. Initially, Germany was able to compensate by admitting ethnic Germans fleeing Central Europe and Communist East Germany. But the influx only helped assuage the population loss from World War II. Germany needed more labor to feed its burgeoning export-based industry, and in particular more unskilled laborers for manufacturing, construction and other industries.

To resolve the continuing labor shortage, Germany turned to a series of successive labor recruitment deals, first with Italy (1955). After labor from Italy dried up due to Italy’s own burgeoning economy, Germany turned to Spain (1960), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961) and then Yugoslavia (1968). Labor recruitment led to a massive influx of “Gastarbeiter,” German for “guest workers,” into German society. The Germans did not see this as something that would change German society: They regarded the migrants as temporary labor, not as immigrants in any sense. As the term implied, the workers were guests and would return to their countries of origin when they were no longer needed (many Spaniards, Italians and Portuguese did just this). This did not particularly trouble the Germans, who were primarily interested in labor.

The Germans simply didn’t expect this to be a long-term issue. They did not consider how to assimilate these migrants, a topic that rarely came up in policy discussions. Meanwhile, the presence of migrant labor allowed millions of Germans to move from unskilled labor to white-collar jobs during the 1960s.

An economic slowdown in 1966 and full-on recession following the oil shock of 1973 changed labor conditions in Germany. Germany no longer needed a steady stream of unskilled labor and actually found itself facing mounting unemployment among migrants already in country, leading to the “Anwerbestopp,” German for “labor recruitment stop,” in 1973.

Nonetheless, the halt in migration did not resolve the fact that guest workers already were in Germany in great numbers, migrants who now wanted to bring in family members. The 1970s saw most migration switch to “family reunions” and, when the German government moved to close that loophole, asylum. As the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese returned home to tend to their countries’ own successive economic miracles, Muslim Turks became the overwhelming majority of migrants in Germany — particularly as asylum seekers flocked into Germany, most of whom were not fleeing any real government retribution. It did not help that Germany had particularly open asylum laws in large part due to guilt over the Holocaust, a loophole Turkish migrants exploited en masse following the 1980 coup d’etat in Turkey.

As the migrants transformed from a temporary exigency to a multigenerational community, the Germans had to confront the problem. At base, they did not want the migrants to become part of Germany. But if they were to remain in the country, Berlin wanted to make sure the migrants became loyal to Germany. The onus on assimilating migrants into the larger society increased as Muslim discontent rocked Europe in the 1980s. The solution Germans finally agreed upon in the mid-to-late 1980s was multiculturalism, a liberal and humane concept that offered migrants a grand bargain: Retain your culture but pledge loyalty to the state.

In this concept, Turkish immigrants, for example, would not be expected to assimilate into German culture. Rather, they would retain their own culture, including language and religion, and that culture would coexist with German culture. Thus, there would be a large number of foreigners, many of whom could not speak German and by definition did not share German and European values.

While respecting diversity, the policy seemed to amount to buying migrant loyalty. The deeper explanation was that the Germans did not want, and did not know how, to assimilate culturally, linguistically, religiously and morally diverse people. Multiculturalism did not so much represent respect for diversity as much as a way to escape the question of what it meant to be German and what pathways foreigners would follow to become Germans.

Two Notions of Nation

This goes back to the European notion of the nation, which is substantially different from the American notion. For most of its history, the United States thought of itself as a nation of immigrants, but with a core culture that immigrants would have to accept in a well-known multicultural process. Anyone could become an American, so long as they accepted the language and dominant culture of the nation. This left a lot of room for uniqueness, but some values had to be shared. Citizenship became a legal concept. It required a process, an oath and shared values. Nationality could be acquired; it had a price.

To be French, Polish or Greek meant not only that you learned their respective language or adopted their values — it meant that you were French, Polish or Greek because your parents were, as were their parents. It meant a shared history of suffering and triumph. One couldn’t acquire that.

For the Europeans, multiculturalism was not the liberal and humane respect for other cultures that it pretended to be. It was a way to deal with the reality that a large pool of migrants had been invited as workers into the country. The offer of multiculturalism was a grand bargain meant to lock in migrant loyalty in exchange for allowing them to keep their culture — and to protect European culture from foreign influences by sequestering the immigrants. The Germans tried to have their workers and a German identity simultaneously. It didn’t work.

Multiculturalism resulted in the permanent alienation of the immigrants. Having been told to keep their own identity, they did not have a shared interest in the fate of Germany. They identified with the country they came from much more than with Germany. Turkey was home. Germany was a convenience. It followed that their primary loyalty was to their home and not to Germany. The idea that a commitment to one’s homeland culture was compatible with a political loyalty to the nation one lived in was simplistic. Things don’t work that way. As a result, Germany did not simply have an alien mass in its midst: Given the state of affairs between the Islamic world and the West, at least some Muslim immigrants were engaged in potential terrorism.

Multiculturalism is profoundly divisive, particularly in countries that define the nation in European terms, e.g., through nationality. What is fascinating is that the German chancellor has chosen to become the most aggressive major European leader to speak out against multiculturalism. Her reasons, political and social, are obvious. But it must also be remembered that this is Germany, which previously addressed the problem of the German nation via the Holocaust. In the 65 years since the end of World War II, the Germans have been extraordinarily careful to avoid discussions of this issue, and German leaders have not wanted to say things such as being committed to a dominant German culture. We therefore need to look at the failure of multiculturalism in Germany in another sense, namely, with regard to what is happening in Germany.

Simply put, Germany is returning to history. It has spent the past 65 years desperately trying not to confront the question of national identity, the rights of minorities in Germany and the exercise of German self-interest. The Germans have embedded themselves in multinational groupings like the European Union and NATO to try to avoid a discussion of a simple and profound concept: nationalism. Given what they did last time the matter came up, they are to be congratulated for their exercise of decent silence. But that silence is now over.

The Re-emergence of German Nation Awareness

Two things have forced the re-emergence of German national awareness. The first, of course, is the immediate issue — a large and indigestible mass of Turkish and other Muslim workers. The second is the state of the multinational organizations to which Germany tried to confine itself. NATO, a military alliance consisting mainly of countries lacking militaries worth noting, is moribund. The second is the state of the European Union. After the Greek and related economic crises, the certainties about a united Europe have frayed. Germany now sees itself as shaping EU institutions so as not to be forced into being the European Union’s ultimate financial guarantor. And this compels Germany to think about Germany beyond its relations with Europe.

It is impossible for Germany to reconsider its position on multiculturalism without, at the same time, validating the principle of the German nation. Once the principle of the nation exists, so does the idea of a national interest. Once the national interest exists, Germany exists in the context of the European Union only as what Goethe termed an “elective affinity.” What was a certainty amid the Cold War now becomes an option. And if Europe becomes an option for Germany, then not only has Germany re-entered history, but given that Germany is the leading European power, the history of Europe begins anew again.

This isn’t to say that Germany must follow any particular foreign policy given its new official view on multiculturalism; it can choose many paths. But an attack on multiculturalism is simultaneously an affirmation of German national identity. You can’t have the first without the second. And once that happens, many things become possible.

Consider that Merkel made clear that Germany needed 400,000 trained specialists. Consider also that Germany badly needs workers of all sorts who are not Muslims living in Germany, particularly in view of Germany’s demographic problems. If Germany can’t import workers for social reasons, it can export factories, call centers, medical analysis and IT support desks. Not far to the east is Russia, which has a demographic crisis of its own but nonetheless has spare labor capacity due to its reliance on purely extractive natural resources for its economy. Germany already depends on Russian energy. If it comes to rely on Russian workers, and in turn Russia comes to rely on German investment, then the map of Europe could be redrawn once again and European history restarted at an even greater pace.

Merkel’s statement is therefore of enormous importance on two levels. First, she has said aloud what many leaders already know, which is that multiculturalism can become a national catastrophe. Second, in stating this, she sets in motion other processes that could have a profound impact on not only Germany and Europe but also the global balance of power. It is not clear at this time what her intention is, which may well be to boost her center-right coalition government’s abysmal popularity. But the process that has begun is neither easily contained nor neatly managed. All of Europe, indeed, much of the world, is coping with the struggle between cultures within their borders. But the Germans are different, historically and geographically. When they begin thinking these thoughts, the stakes go up.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101018_germany_and_failure_multiculturalism?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101019&utm_content=readmore&elq=82227bcf57ad4537a18f4ac5a09b39e1

It would be interesting to see how many Western expats in Thailand would have to leave if they had to learn to speak, read and write in Thai, to an exam standard, before getting a visa.

I totally agree that immigrants from any country to any country need to learn the language and gain an understanding of the culture if they want to live there.

"The Germans simply didn’t expect this to be a long-term issue. They did not consider how to assimilate these migrants, a topic that rarely came up in policy discussions."

there was no consideration necessary. the first 'wave' of Gastarbeiter from Europe's south, who did not return to their relevant countries, were integrated and assimilated as smooth as one can think of. intermarriages mid/end of the 60s were on the daily to-do list, there was no formation of ghettos and no separation because of different culture or religion. the latter started with the influx of workers from Turkey in combination with asylum seekers from mostly poor countries all over the world.

Merkel’s statement is therefore of enormous importance on two levels. First, she has said aloud what many leaders already know, which is that multiculturalism can become a national catastrophe. Second, in stating this, she sets in motion other processes that could have a profound impact on not only Germany and Europe but also the global balance of power. It is not clear at this time what her intention is, which may well be to boost her center-right coalition government’s abysmal popularity. But the process that has begun is neither easily contained nor neatly managed. All of Europe, indeed, much of the world, is coping with the struggle between cultures within their borders. But the Germans are different, historically and geographically. When they begin thinking these thoughts, the stakes go up.

Stratfor =

Merkel said "...allowing people of different cultural backgrounds to live side by side without integrating has not worked."

irrelevant are Merkel's long term intentions. as sure as christian, jewish and muslim prayers end with 'amen' she'll be out of her present job come next elections. after that "Greens" and "The Left" will form a coalition and tax the living beejesus out of those who can be taxed to finance integration and assimilation of foreign migrants.

Someone who grew up in south western Europe who speaks/reads/writes French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan IS NOT as impressive as a Russian speaking/reading/writing Swahili. You are probably of a different opinion.

Do you beleive speaking/writing/reading multiple languages is an indicator of higher intelligence?

1. The languages you mention are all inter connected so called Romance languages but that doesn't mean that a Spanish speaking person can understand Catalan; NO WAY!

There are about 10 million people speaking Catalan and they are the most proud people of Spain (and the economical engine for Spain as well), next to the Basque people, but there are more Spaniards speaking Spanish/Castilian (and not understanding Catalan) than there are Catalans.

But the Spaniard can manage himself with some hand and feet movements to make himself understood in Italy and Portugal but France is already more difficult for him; a lot more!

However, most of the higher educated Catalans speak French.

But your opinion that a person, speaking French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan is not so impressive as a Russian, speaking Swahili is not shared by me.

It shows you don't understand the difficulties in languages. I speak Spanish also but there's no way I can manage Catalan; it's too complicated and I can only understand maybe 10 to 15% and that would already be an exaggeration since I am guessing too much.

2. Not necessarily more intelligent but it takes many years of study to speak, read and write foreign languages; next to that there are people who have a natural feeling for languages and there are people who will never adapt and learn another language but their own and the latter is the vast majority of the world population.

LaoPo

So you like to focus on the "diffculties" of Catalan for other Romance language speakers and ignore the fact that if you are a native speaker of French, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian, then learing the other three (or even Catalan) would be much, much easier than say, a native Russian speaker learning Swahili. Keep squiming.

I had a roommate from Brazil back in 1990. He told me that he doesn't speak Spanish. We were at the supermarket one day and he gets into this conversation with some old guy. He told me later that the old guy was from Guatamala. I replied that they speak Spanish in Guatamala and that I thought he didn't speak Spanish. He said something about still being able to understand each other.

I gave a mere example,speaking of the Catalan language.

But I indeed differ from your opinion and let's keep it that way, shall we ?

After all, learning a language in the host-country of your choice is only one aspect of the whole integration process and that's where this topic is about - integration -

LaoPo

Distance is part of it but we also get a higher class of immigrant. What I mean by that, is immigrants go to Europe's socialist paradise's because of all the "free" stuff they get - healthcare, education (including university), money, in some cases free flats, etc. Europe gets a lot of bums looking for a free ride through life (not all, but a MUCH higher % than the US). The immigrants who come to America know they are going to have to work for it and they are OK with that.

Look at the illegal immigrant problem we have in America now - all these people taking jobs or doing jobs that Americans don't want to do. any gov't services they get for "free" is because as illegals they are getting paid under the table. Point is, our immigrants come for the opportunity to work and make money,

Good points.

LaoPo

"The Germans simply didn't expect this to be a long-term issue. They did not consider how to assimilate these migrants, a topic that rarely came up in policy discussions."

there was no consideration necessary. the first 'wave' of Gastarbeiter from Europe's south, who did not return to their relevant countries, were integrated and assimilated as smooth as one can think of. intermarriages mid/end of the 60s were on the daily to-do list, there was no formation of ghettos and no separation because of different culture or religion. the latter started with the influx of workers from Turkey in combination with asylum seekers from mostly poor countries all over the world.

I agree for the full 100%.

Nowadays problems in Europe are for a large part religion related and the Islam religion in particular and I hate to talk about religion since it mostly ends up in a heated debate but in this case I can't avoid it. Let's try to keep it civil.

The "Gastarbeiter"/Guestworkers from Southern Europe were in most cases Catholic and integrated, as Naam already said, smoothly and intermarriages were very common. .

The point is that that religion was NEVER a problem in Western Europes society once the guestworkers arrived but only started once we were surprised by a kind of religion most Europeans never heard of: The Islam.

So far so good.

The problem escalated when the first wave of guestworkers from North Africa and Turkey arrived. Some of them were already married and some of them were still single and had a bride sent from their home country. The married ones were allowed to have their wifes send over and got (more) children.

All this because their religion forbids them to marry with non Islamic girls.

Internarriage was, and still is, completely out of the question within the Islam.

Most Europreans here on board of TV grew up in a very tolerant society but untill 50 to 60 years ago it was also uncommon for a Christian boy to marry a Lutherian girl or even Jewish girl.

That changed very rapidly in the sixties and since then interreligious marriages became very common.

Not so within the Muslim world and because of their strict religious rules they still stick together in their own created neighbourhoods whilst, at the same time, many refuse to integrate.

In my circle of family and friends I know quite a lot of people from all sorts and standings but none of them is befriended with someone who's Muslim, simply also since in Europe, people go out to bars and restaurants, clubs etc. but Muslims don't go there and do not integrate in that kind of -normal- society in Europe. Consumption of alcohol is also a no-no within the Islam.

Another point is that Europeans (and Americans as well) get less and less children, whilst immigrants have a much higher rate of births than their western fellow citizens.

Since the majority of immigrants are Islamic the Muslim population is also growing much faster.

How these new kids are going to integrate has to be waited for but if i see the youngsters in Europe without a job (France 25% and Spain almost 40% of youngsters are jobless!!) I fear for the worst since the jobless rate amongst the children of immigrants is even higher and up to 80% since they are, for the larger majority, low educated !

LaoPo

It would be interesting to see how many Western expats in Thailand would have to leave if they had to learn to speak, read and write in Thai, to an exam standard, before getting a visa.

I totally agree that immigrants from any country to any country need to learn the language and gain an understanding of the culture if they want to live there.

Would the western expats then get to play by the same rules as Thais? Would they get to own land outright? Would they not necessarily be guilty of anything involving a Thai (car accidents, etc)? Is it true that in a marriage between a Thai and foreigner, in the event of the Thai's death, the foreigner can't inherit any property?

Are Turks in Germany held to different laws than Germans?

The Re-emergence of German Nation Awareness

I for one would welcome this. Germany needs to takes its rightful place as a major world leader instead of being France's junior partner.

The Re-emergence of German Nation Awareness

I for one would welcome this. Germany needs to takes its rightful place as a major world leader instead of being France's junior partner.

Explain the second part of your sentence please.

LaoPo

It would be interesting to see how many Western expats in Thailand would have to leave if they had to learn to speak, read and write in Thai, to an exam standard, before getting a visa.

I totally agree that immigrants from any country to any country need to learn the language and gain an understanding of the culture if they want to live there.

Would the western expats then get to play by the same rules as Thais? Would they get to own land outright? Would they not necessarily be guilty of anything involving a Thai (car accidents, etc)? Is it true that in a marriage between a Thai and foreigner, in the event of the Thai's death, the foreigner can't inherit any property?

Are Turks in Germany held to different laws than Germans?

I agree with your stance.

Thai inconsistancies aside, before anyone condemns Turks for not speaking German (for instance), I would hope that they speak the vernacular of wherever they have chosen to live (I don't mean a 2 year sojourn..I mean to settle down).

The Re-emergence of German Nation Awareness

I for one would welcome this. Germany needs to takes its rightful place as a major world leader instead of being France's junior partner.

Explain the second part of your sentence please.

LaoPo

France plays a bigger role in Europe than Germany - perhaps because of nation awareness issue. The permanent members of the UN Security Council are the US, UK, France, Russia & China. I never understood why France was there. Maybe just to add a 5th so there wouldn't be any tie votes and there weren't really any other decent candidates. WWII is the reason Germany & Japan weren't going to be on it but the time has long passed for them to be added to make 7 the number of permanent members.

Speaking of the thread topic and Japan - they don't have any integration issues, do they?

The Re-emergence of German Nation Awareness

I for one would welcome this. Germany needs to takes its rightful place as a major world leader instead of being France's junior partner.

Explain the second part of your sentence please.

LaoPo

France plays a bigger role in Europe than Germany - perhaps because of nation awareness issue. The permanent members of the UN Security Council are the US, UK, France, Russia & China. I never understood why France was there. Maybe just to add a 5th so there wouldn't be any tie votes and there weren't really any other decent candidates. WWII is the reason Germany & Japan weren't going to be on it but the time has long passed for them to be added to make 7 the number of permanent members.

Speaking of the thread topic and Japan - they don't have any integration issues, do they?

I totally disagree with you.

The fact that France is a -permanent- member of the UN Security Council doesn't mean that France plays a bigger role in Europe. Au Contraire.

They wish.....Sarkozy would wish for...

However, the real economical engine with 12 cylinders at full speed is Germany and has a lot more power in the EU than France.

France's (65 Million people) GDP is around $ 2.100 Trillion whilst Germany's (82 Million people) is close to $ 3.000 Trillion.

But, France is always "acting" like they are in charge and power in Europe (leaning still on Louis Quatorze's XIV image of Roi du Soleil (Sun King) perhaps ?) but reality is different.

The external debts from France and Germany are more or less the same with around $ 5.000 Trillion but per capita Germany is better off, a lot better.

But, I'm afraid we're again drifting away from the OP: integration in the West.

And, about Japan; let's not drift away too far into the Far East from the original OP: "...Multicultural countries in the West...."

LaoPo

Would the western expats then get to play by the same rules as Thais? Would they get to own land outright? Would they not necessarily be guilty of anything involving a Thai (car accidents, etc)? Is it true that in a marriage between a Thai and foreigner, in the event of the Thai's death, the foreigner can't inherit any property?

Are Turks in Germany held to different laws than Germans?

of course not!

.

Yes - the best comment to date.

May I stick in my two penno'rth?

Multi-culturalism -v- integration.

How to deal with inflow of immigrants?

Personally I would support integration and make sure that prospective immigrants were aware that this was the policy of the country.

In order to stay in the country a series of tests would be taken, on language, history and customs of the host country. (Sounds like Australia? Why not?).

Also home visits to confirm that the standards are maintained in all aspects of life (coal in the bath acceptable, sheep not). If people want to immigrate to a Western country, then they have to fit into that country and keep it as attractive as it was when they decided to immigrate. Not turn it into the country they left, otherwise why did they leave?

Integration is a wild dream in today's world for countries that have let multi-culturalism run unchecked. It is not something that can be reversed unless you want to be called racists, Nazis, whatever. Look at France with their Roma. That wasn't a popular decision even though it was the right one.

For Europe it's too late, integration won't happen unless you deport the immigrants who don't pass integration tests. In the USA, in some states - like California - it's also too late.

If people want to immigrate to a Western country, then they have to fit into that country and keep it as attractive as it was when they decided to immigrate. Not turn it into the country they left, otherwise why did they leave?

Remind me again why Brits in Thailand must have their English breakfast, Sunday roast, footie night at the local pub singing footie songs, starting up pool leagues, etc? I'll answer that myself...just because people leave their home country doesn't mean that they reject their own culture. Often the reasons are either political, economical, religious, safety/heath or for better opportunities (education, etc).

btw - Immigrants can sometimes make the country more "attractive" than when they found it. I'm thinking of places like Chinatown, Little India, etc which you find in some cities.

btw - Immigrants can sometimes make the country more "attractive" than when they found it. I'm thinking of places like Chinatown, Little India, etc which you find in some cities.

I think the past 30-40 years in Australia would be the best example of that. Also USA from 1880's to 1920.

If people want to immigrate to a Western country, then they have to fit into that country and keep it as attractive as it was when they decided to immigrate. Not turn it into the country they left, otherwise why did they leave?

quite difficult for the European Union starting 2011 when a number of €U-country citizens from the east will gain the right to settle in any other EU-country of their choice. the same applies to the Roma which were expelled from France. if their "home country" Romania starts issuing them romanian passports (presently most of the Roma and Sinti do not hold any citizenship) Sarkozy will be out of luck if they return.

the Pandora box has been opened!

the Pandora box has been opened!

It's getting more absurd and speaking about integration in the country of their choice...

In The Netherlands there are around 20-30 refugees centers with around 20/25.000 asylum seekers and around 6 to 8.000 children amongst them.

Most of those asylum seekers come from poor, repressive (religion) but also Islamic countries like:

Somalia - Iraq - Afghanistan - Iran - and many other (African) countries.

A minority of these asylum seekers in the centers is Christian and are treathened and abused on a constant daily basis by the majority of Islamic asylum seekers; even women are not safe anymore.

It's very difficult for them to attend Christian lessons or go to Church; They can't tell their neighbours so and avoid all contacts with the majority of Islamic people, afraid and scared to death as they are.

There was a documentary about this 2 days ago and I was shocked by the images I saw of abused Christian asylum seekers.

Is that the way (some of the) Islamic asylum seekers are planning to integrate in their host country ?

That doesn't look too promising for the future.

LaoPo

I just find delightful irony in Germans complaining about being overrun by foreigners.

I just find delightful irony in Germans complaining about being overrun by foreigners.

..That's an unfair remark cdnvic.

The nowadays Germans have nothing to do with WWII and aren't guilty of anything during that war either, 70 years after WWII started and more than 75 years after the Nazis came into control.

Next, most countries in Europe, including Germany, faced a boom after the war and needed guestworkers (as we called them) and all those millions integrated later without any problems whatsoever in every single country.

It's the present 2 or 3 generations of immigrants, mostly from Islamic backgrounds, that are causing problems with the integration and that's where the topic is all about.

But I understand you were tempted to punch a needle.....

LaoPo