Alexander

[Sulla the Dictator]

Well, since MSF has potentially had some spillover here, I figured this section of the board might not be as dead as it has been.

“Now that the wars are coming to an end, I wish you to prosper in peace. May all mortals from now on live like one people in concord and for mutual advancement. Consider the world as your country, with laws common to all and where the best will govern irrespective of tribe. I do not distinguish among men, as the narrow-minded do, both among Greeks and Barbarians.

I am not interested in the descendance of the citizens or their racial origins. I classify them using one criterion: their virtue. For me every virtuous foreigner is a Greek and every evil Greek worse than a Barbarian. If differences ever develop between you never have recourse to arms, but solve them peacefully. If necessary, I should be your arbitrator. You must not consider God like an autocratic despot, but as a common Father of all; so your behavior may resemble the life siblings have in a family.

On my part I should consider all equals, white or blacks, and wish you all to be not only subjects of the Commonwealth, but participants and partners. As much as this depends on me, I should try to bring about what I promised. The oath we made over tonight’s libations hold onto as a Contract of Love”.


--Alexander the Great at Opis

Fine words and an excellent sentiment for what I hope will be a new non-racist section of the Phora. :D

[MrAngry]

Hear hear.....

[Blighter]

Here here.....

Where, where?

I think hear hear is the expression you are looking for.

[todd]

We regained MSF from the Dark Hordes of Mugabe...

[Dan Dare]

I hadn't seen Sulla's 'fine words' before, but it's hard to understand how any reasonable person could disagree with the general sentiment, at least in principle.

But, of course the 'nigger in the woodpile', as it were is not so much that the pious wish that '... all mortals from now on live like one people [and] ...consider the world as your country', but rather that all mortals now consider our country (ie the Eurosphere) as their world.

If they'd only stay put there'd be a lot less strife.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I hadn't seen Sulla's 'fine words' before, but it's hard to understand how any reasonable person could disagree with the general sentiment, at least in principle.

But


(Cough)


as it were is not so much that the pious wish that '... all mortals from now on live like one people [and] ...consider the world as your country', but rather that all mortals now consider our country (ie the Eurosphere) as their world.

If they'd only stay put there'd be a lot less strife.

However when they do not, a moral state grants rights and freedoms to the people it governs and taxes.

[Hakluyt]

Could the irony really be lost on Sulla? It is true, anti-racism and the negation of ethnicity have always been part of successful imperial policy. These things are obstacles to the acquisition of power and the domination of commerce.

[Dan Dare]

(Cough)



However when they do not, a moral state grants rights and freedoms to the people it governs and taxes.

The first duty of a moral state is to take account of, and safeguard, the interests of those in whose name it governs.

This precludes that the state should extend largesse in the form of residential or economic rights to those who do not belong there.

Such a duty would require the government of the United States, say, to obtain a direct electoral mandate before acquiescing in the further importation of millions of unassimilable foreigners.

[Vissario]

Miscegenation and the obliteration of mutually-exclusive religion would lead to a new era in the human race where people work together seamlessly for the benefit of all. Alexander's vision was for people to stop thinking in terms of a "eurosphere" but instead in terms of a "terrasphere". Only the bigoted, the ignorant, and the selfish among us can really disagree with this goal.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I´m more than happy to disagree with your Barbie doll philosophy Vissario without the need to accept your cheap slurs.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The first duty of a moral state is to take account of, and safeguard, the interests of those in whose name it governs.


Which DOES NOT usually clash with the duties it owes to those people it subjegates. Unless one is a nihilist who believes force is its own virtue.

Do you believe that the Scots and Welsh should be thralls in service to England?


This precludes that the state should extend largesse in the form of residential or economic rights to those who do not belong there.


That all depends on your definition of 'belong'. Indians or Pakistanis, for example, who are the decendants of people who moved there while these areas were part of the Empire have every right to live there. So too with Turks, Filipinos, and others who were INVITED into Germany during the 1970s and 1980s to meet labor requirements.


Such a duty would require the government of the United States, say, to obtain a direct electoral mandate before acquiescing in the further importation of millions of unassimilable foreigners.

Well I do not defend illegal immigration. As to LEGAL immigrants, I have absolutely no problem taking in workers or people of quality regardless of country of origin.

[Dan Dare]

Miscegenation and the obliteration of mutually-exclusive religion would lead to a new era in the human race where people work together seamlessly for the benefit of all. Alexander's vision was for people to stop thinking in terms of a "eurosphere" but instead in terms of a "terrasphere". Only the bigoted, the ignorant, and the selfish among us can really disagree with this goal.

Could you enumerate for us the benefits that would accrue to the indigenous population of the Eurosphere from adopting such a vision?

[Dan Dare]

Which DOES NOT usually clash with the duties it owes to those people it subjegates. Unless one is a nihilist who believes force is its own virtue.

Do you believe that the Scots and Welsh should be thralls in service to England?

No, but the relevance of the question to the matter at hand is somewhat unclear

That all depends on your definition of 'belong'. Indians or Pakistanis, for example, who are the decendants of people who moved there while these areas were part of the Empire have every right to live there. So too with Turks, Filipinos, and others who were INVITED into Germany during the 1970s and 1980s to meet labor requirements.

My definition of 'belonging' extends rather beyond the narrow legalistic sense of being issued a piece of paper that says from now you are a 'Briton' or a 'German'. That may be satisfactory for Americans but plays rather poorly elsewhere, particularly in contemporary Europe. And where I might add, it is playing more and more poorly almost by the week.

As for the guest workers who were recruited for temporary assignments in the UK, Germany and elsewhere during the 50s and 60s, the public were repeatedly reassured at the time that, once the economic need for their presence had ceased (which it had by no later than the early 70s), they would be required to return home.

As it happened of course, none of these governments had the bottle to fulfil their obligations when it came time to do it.

Well I do not defend illegal immigration. As to LEGAL immigrants, I have absolutely no problem taking in workers or people of quality regardless of country of origin.

If that's your criterion for qualifying legal immigrants into the US, then you must be disturbed that less than 15% of all legal immigration consists of workers or 'people of quality', as you put it. We can't really be sure about the latter of course, but since that segment of the migrant flow is largely self-selecting (under the auspices of the provisions for 'family reunion' or applicants for asylum), they might all be certifiable cretins for all the control the US government has over who gets admitted.

[todd]

Miscegenation and the obliteration of mutually-exclusive religion would lead to a new era in the human race where people work together seamlessly for the benefit of all.Ever heard of the Crips and Bloods? They kill each other over what color jersey people are wearing.

But OK...we'll enter a new era without race and mutually-exclusive religions. We could just kill each other for the thousands of other reasons people have killed each other over the centuries.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

Miscegenation and the obliteration of mutually-exclusive religion would lead to a new era in the human race where people work together seamlessly for the benefit of all. Alexander's vision was for people to stop thinking in terms of a "eurosphere" but instead in terms of a "terrasphere". Only the bigoted, the ignorant, and the selfish among us can really disagree with this goal.

Yes, Alexander the Great was militantly committed to putting an end to Eurocentrism, a plauge that nearly drove classical Greece to its knees.

[Dan Dare]

Could you enumerate for us the benefits that would accrue to the indigenous population of the Eurosphere from adopting such a vision?

Still working on it?

Perhaps Mr. Angry and harjit might consider giving you a hand, they're dab hands at making the case for vibrant, multicultural societies in which people just like them assist us benighted racists in perfecting our appreciation of the joys of diversity.

I mean, after only a few short years of pondering this on the Internet, they've collectively managed to come up with a huge list of benefits. There are ethnic eateries, colourfully exotic dress styles, and exciting new dance syncopations, and also, ....um... not to mention, ....err.

Well that's about it, really.

[todd]

Still working on it?

Perhaps Mr. Angry and harjit might consider giving you a hand, they're dab hands at making the case for vibrant, multicultural societies in which people just like them assist us benighted racists in perfecting our appreciation of the joys of diversity.

I mean, after only a few short years of pondering this on the Internet, they've collectively managed to come up with a huge list of benefits. There are ethnic eateries, colourfully exotic dress styles, and exciting new dance syncopations, and also, ....um... not to mention, ....err.

Well that's about it, really.Sir, please don't feed the trolls, it makes them associate food with the forum. And once this happens, there is no getting rid of them. If you could take your seat we will continue with the tour.

*And over to your left, you'll see a pack of fat nerd trolls. Notice the large amounts of Doritos and Mr. Pibb. Fat nerd trolls are an especially lethargic species of troll, spending upwards of 80% of the day in front of the computer. When they aren't having LAN parties, they spend their time trolling political forums and starting edit wars at Wikipedia like their ancestors have done for generations*

[Dan Dare]

Long experience in these matters has confirmed that merely asking for a Schedule of Benefits is a surefire way to silence any yappings about the wonders of the MultiKulti.

[MrAngry]

Long experience in these matters has confirmed that merely asking for a Schedule of Benefits is a surefire way to silence any yappings about the wonders of the MultiKulti.


Why do you roll out the usual diatribe Dan, for your benefit again, I do not support multiculturalism, please get that into your head. The benefits you listed earlier have never come from me, although they have some relevance.

[Sulla the Dictator]

No, but the relevance of the question to the matter at hand is somewhat unclear


It is unclear to you the similarity in relationship between Wales and England one hand, and Great Britain and India on another?


My definition of 'belonging' extends rather beyond the narrow legalistic sense of being issued a piece of paper that says from now you are a 'Briton' or a 'German'.


Excellent, I'm looking forward to hearing you elaborate on this. Please do.


That may be satisfactory for Americans but plays rather poorly elsewhere, particularly in contemporary Europe. And where I might add, it is playing more and more poorly almost by the week.


If you say so. I for one won't pretend that the obvious Islamist threat is somehow unrelated to this, and that we're seeing some 'European racialist' uprising.

With the continued blurring of national distinctions as Europeans depend more and more on this 'EU' nonsense, we'll see this go out the window too.


As for the guest workers who were recruited for temporary assignments in the UK, Germany and elsewhere during the 50s and 60s, the public were repeatedly reassured at the time that, once the economic need for their presence had ceased (which it had by no later than the early 70s), they would be required to return home.


Well they haven't. And since they haven't been required to do so by the elected governments of these nations, and since many have permanent legal status, you should play by the rules of the game established at the start of hte entire affair.

After all, that is what makes Britain a Western nation and Germany an aspiring one, no? Rule of law and all that? A sense of national fair play?



As it happened of course, none of these governments had the bottle to fulfil their obligations when it came time to do it.


They're not actually the same governments.


If that's your criterion for qualifying legal immigrants into the US, then you must be disturbed that less than 15% of all legal immigration consists of workers or 'people of quality', as you put it.

That statistic is absurd, of course. I have no problem with brick layers or street sweepers applying for citizenship.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Long experience in these matters has confirmed that merely asking for a Schedule of Benefits is a surefire way to silence any yappings about the wonders of the MultiKulti.

Schedule of benefits......hmmmm. I wasn't aware that the citizens existed to serve the state. I thought we WON the war which settled that argument.

[Dan Dare]

It is unclear to you the similarity in relationship between Wales and England one hand, and Great Britain and India on another?

Yes it is. I've always been under the impression that one is a principality within the United Kingdom, and has been so since the 13th century, while the other is a sovereign independent state which at one time was part of the British Empire, as was of course what is now the United States. So I'm not detecting any great similarity between the relationships. Help us out.

Excellent, I'm looking forward to hearing you elaborate on this. Please do.

It might be more interesting to hear your argument for the opposite case. You appear to be supporting the proposition that nationality and citizenship should be tradeable commodities that that are more or less available to anyone who cares to turn up.

If you say so. I for one won't pretend that the obvious Islamist threat is somehow unrelated to this, and that we're seeing some 'European racialist' uprising.

With the continued blurring of national distinctions as Europeans depend more and more on this 'EU' nonsense, we'll see this go out the window too.

Actually such national distinctions appear to be stubbornly resistant to such blurring, not withstanding the herculean efforts of the managerial elites to force through such a transformation. Germans continue to be obstinately German, and so on.

Astute observers remark that the EU 'nonsense' has probably already peaked anyway, with the torpedoing of the Treaty of Nice.

Well they haven't. And since they haven't been required to do so by the elected governments of these nations, and since many have permanent legal status, you should play by the rules of the game established at the start of hte entire affair.

The rules of the game were, as previously noted, that temporary guestworkers were supposed to be just that, and would be returning on completion of their assignments.

But, as Helmut Schmidt lamented, we have come to learn that there is no such thing as a temporary guest worker (GW Bush please note).

After all, that is what makes Britain a Western nation and Germany an aspiring one, no? Rule of law and all that? A sense of national fair play?

There is no statute on the books that I am aware of that requires either government to provide permanent residence and, potentially, citizenship, to millions of foreigners. That such a state of affairs has come to pass is not a matter of laws and fairplay, but rather the result of arrogant smugness, complacency, straightforward incompetence, and most important, lack of bottle.

They're not actually the same governments.

True. But there seems to have been a remarkable consistency of policy in this area. or more correctly, lack of policy.

That statistic is absurd, of course. I have no problem with brick layers or street sweepers applying for citizenship.

When you say that statistic is absurd, are you disputing that 85% (or more) of legal immigrants into the United States are admitted for reasons other than for taking up employment?

And btw, immigrants are not citizens, you should avoid conflating the two categories which are not necessarily (or even actually) congruent.

[Dan Dare]

Schedule of benefits......hmmmm. I wasn't aware that the citizens existed to serve the state. I thought we WON the war which settled that argument.

Please refer to posts passim.

Immigrants are not citizens, although some of the latter may have been immigrants at some point.

[Dan Dare]

Why do you roll out the usual diatribe Dan, for your benefit again, I do not support multiculturalism, please get that into your head. The benefits you listed earlier have never come from me, although they have some relevance.

I take it you'll be unable to help Vissario out then.

Still never mind, eh. He seems to have left the field anyway.

I apologise for attributing said benefits to you; do you have any others to contribute though? I'm always anxious to learn about new research in this field.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Yes it is. I've always been under the impression that one is a principality within the United Kingdom, and has been so since the 13th century, while the other is a sovereign independent state which at one time was part of the British Empire, as was of course what is now the United States. So I'm not detecting any great similarity between the relationships. Help us out.


Glad to. You seem to miss the fact that the "United Kingdom", or "Great Britain", was in fact an Empire within an Empire. The Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish were all obviously seperate and distinct peoples.

Yet here you are, speaking of a "British people", which is an Imperial designation masking the obvious ethnic (Cultural, and lingual) differences.

You would not say, I am sure, that the Welsh or the Irish or the Scots were worthless people, suitable only for an English yolk. That would make you a ridiculous caricature, would it not? So why is it that you seem to relish such dismissal of OTHER subjects of the crown?


It might be more interesting to hear your argument for the opposite case.


I'm sorry, I didn't see an opposite case. You said something to the effect of having a concept of belonging that meant more than a little piece of paper but neglect to mention what that concept is. Only what it is not.


You appear to be supporting the proposition that nationality and citizenship should be tradeable commodities that that are more or less available to anyone who cares to turn up.


Eh? Not at all. I'm saying that I don't care how well or poorly a person TANS when considering their membership in this society, be it as an engineer or as a dishwasher.

I have never said that simply 'showing up' is a sufficient factor.


Actually such national distinctions appear to be stubbornly resistant to such blurring, not withstanding the herculean efforts of the managerial elites to force through such a transformation. Germans continue to be obstinately German, and so on.


I haven't noticed that. In fact, before Frau Merkel I thought the Germans were obstinately French.


Astute observers remark that the EU 'nonsense' has probably already peaked anyway, with the torpedoing of the Treaty of Nice.


We shall see. You folks seem to be placing all your chips on this in order to compete on a global stage. Now that you've got it up and running, I'll be paying attention to how integrated economic systems wear away at your national identities. Soccer not withstanding, of course.


The rules of the game were, as previously noted, that temporary guestworkers were supposed to be just that, and would be returning on completion of their assignments.


Except that its not quite the same, is it? A worker who takes a factory job in Munich and builds a life there is making a perfectly rational and reasonable decision when he wants to stay there. As an individual, he's free to change his mind on the subject. And it is CERTAINLY the case that people born in Germany of Turkish parents identify with the nation they grew up in.

So we can understand the position of the Turks, who were there legally of course. And we can understand the position of Turkish children, who are German in all but blood. But I'll tell you, for the LIFE of me I can't understand why the Germans, on their own, in democratic process, granted citizenship to these people.

Well thats not quite right. The cherished 'blood and honor' laws secretly held by all Europeans is the fantasy of BNP drunks in some dingy bar in Leeds. Waved around by politicians in close elections, and thrown away for the same reasons. Shroeder wanted to pad his party's base by a few million voters.

So it is pretty understandable. No one cares. And its hard to blame the Germans. The Turks are a fine people, hardly a problem at all.


There is no statute on the books that I am aware of that requires either government to provide permanent residence and, potentially, citizenship, to millions of foreigners.


The Germans passed such a statute.


When you say that statistic is absurd, are you disputing that 85% (or more) of legal immigrants into the United States are admitted for reasons other than for taking up employment?


No, your ''85% of immigrants are not people of quality'' rubbish. There's nothing wrong with reuniting a family. In fact, I'm surprised at you. I didn't know that you wanted the isolated, male job holder to engage in interracial sexual congress with indigenous peoples, rather than bring his family over!


And btw, immigrants are not citizens, you should avoid conflating the two categories which are not necessarily (or even actually) congruent.

I'm not conflating the two, actually.

[Dan Dare]

Glad to. You seem to miss the fact that the "United Kingdom", or "Great Britain", was in fact an Empire within an Empire. The Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish were all obviously seperate and distinct peoples.
I believe that present-day historians discount this 18th century nonsense, cf Norman Davies’s “The Isles”. The actual fact of the matter is that, over the past 2,000 years or so, the various tribes that then inhabited the British Isles have been milling around, more or less willy nilly, ever since and have become so intermingled that it is practically impossible to identify with any certainty, obvious outliers such as Welsh or Gaelic speakers aside, who belongs to one tribe or another.
Yet here you are, speaking of a "British people", which is an Imperial designation masking the obvious ethnic (Cultural, and lingual) differences.
The fact that one Briton prefers to swan around in a tartan kilt, whereas another puts on cricket flannels on his days off is, in the grand scheme of things, neither here nor there. It should be noted that each of the ethnic groups that inhabited the Isles pursued the Imperial project with equal vigour, in fact some say that the Scots in particular more than held their end up when it came to planting the Union Jack in various out-of-the-way places. I can’t say that I would disagree with that assessment.
You would not say, I am sure, that the Welsh or the Irish or the Scots were worthless people, suitable only for an English yolk. That would make you a ridiculous caricature, would it not?
It would take a braver man than I to even hint at agreement to such an obviously ludicrous notion.
So why is it that you seem to relish such dismissal of OTHER subjects of the crown?
To whom are you referring? Channel Islanders? Manxmen? Pitcairn Islanders?
I'm sorry, I didn't see an opposite case. You said something to the effect of having a concept of belonging that meant more than a little piece of paper but neglect to mention what that concept is. Only what it is not.

I had hoped that it might have been apparent, but since it obviously wasn’t, allow me to spell it out. Athough you seem to be heading along the right lines with your next remarks, to wit:

Eh? Not at all. I'm saying that I don't care how well or poorly a person TANS when considering their membership in this society, be it as an engineer or as a dishwasher.

I have never said that simply 'showing up' is a sufficient factor.

I’m not sure how familiar you are with the immigration and naturalization regulations that currently apply, but I’m getting the sense that, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, the answer would be somewhere between ‘not very’ and ‘not at all’.

Suffice to say, all that is required to obtain US citizenship (after showing up), is to obtain a green card and then hang around for a period of five years keeping a (more or less) clean nose, following which you have to pass a risibly simple test and then… hey presto! a brand-new Murrcan is minted. That’s it.

I haven't noticed that. In fact, before Frau Merkel I thought the Germans were obstinately French.
Hmmm. I’m beginning to think that your qualifications for even commenting on such matters are rather dubious. We’d need to know how much time in total you personally spent in either Germany or France before commenting further.
We shall see. You folks seem to be placing all your chips on this in order to compete on a global stage. Now that you've got it up and running, I'll be paying attention to how integrated economic systems wear away at your national identities. Soccer not withstanding, of course.
There is a world of difference between a Common Market and a United States of Europe. My sense is that the pendulum is swinging back towards the former.
Except that its not quite the same, is it? A worker who takes a factory job in Munich and builds a life there is making a perfectly rational and reasonable decision when he wants to stay there. As an individual, he's free to change his mind on the subject. And it is CERTAINLY the case that people born in Germany of Turkish parents identify with the nation they grew up in.
All well and good except that, once again, the individual preferences of Turkish Gastarbeiter and their offspring are not of great importance. And it is definitely not the case that the overwhelmingly majority Turks born in Germany identify themselves as Germans, as any number of sources will readily confirm.
So we can understand the position of the Turks, who were there legally of course. And we can understand the position of Turkish children, who are German in all but blood. But I'll tell you, for the LIFE of me I can't understand why the Germans, on their own, in democratic process, granted citizenship to these people.
Well, until 2000 when the Federal Republic was pressured to agree to harmonise its citizenship laws with EU ‘norms’ it was practicably impossible for anyone of Turkish (or any non-German) ancestry, even if born in Germany, to claim German citizenship, because of the then-prevailing jus solis legal forms. Perhaps at some future point when the Germans re-awake, the extreme folly of this capitulation will be acknowledged, and they will revert once again to the ancient ancestry-based citizenship laws that had been the de facto system since the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, if not before. And, hopefully, other countries, including the UK, will be emboldened enough to follow suit.

At that point, in Western Europe at least, we will once again come to see citizenship as something other than a commodity that may be bought and sold like a membership to a strip club.
Well thats not quite right. The cherished 'blood and honor' laws secretly held by all Europeans is the fantasy of BNP drunks in some dingy bar in Leeds. Waved around by politicians in close elections, and thrown away for the same reasons. Shroeder wanted to pad his party's base by a few million voters.
Fat lot of good it did him, eh?

So it is pretty understandable. No one cares. And its hard to blame the Germans. The Turks are a fine people, hardly a problem at all.
I’m sure most Germans would concur that Turks are a fine people, but best admired from a considerable distance.
The Germans passed such a statute.
They did? What was it called, and when was it enacted?
No, your ''85% of immigrants are not people of quality'' rubbish. There's nothing wrong with reuniting a family. In fact, I'm surprised at you. I didn't know that you wanted the isolated, male job holder to engage in interracial sexual congress with indigenous peoples, rather than bring his family over!
That you are comfortable with the fact that the US government has no say whatsoever in who constitutes 85% (or more) of its immigrant stream speaks for itself. As long as they present appropriate paperwork attesting that they are a relative or prospective spouse of someone already in then that’s it, they’re in, person of quality or not.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I believe that present-day historians discount this 18th century nonsense, cf Norman Davies’s “The Isles”. The actual fact of the matter is that, over the past 2,000 years or so, the various tribes that then inhabited the British Isles have been milling around, more or less willy nilly, ever since and have become so intermingled that it is practically impossible to identify with any certainty, obvious outliers such as Welsh or Gaelic speakers aside, who belongs to one tribe or another.


Interesting. Which historians deny that the Welsh, Scots, or Irish were distinct peoples?


The fact that one Briton prefers to swan around in a tartan kilt, whereas another puts on cricket flannels on his days off is, in the grand scheme of things, neither here nor there.


Not anymore. Not after all the 'mixing' and cultural transfusion, of course. Assimilated groups make for a modern "British" people. Not always so though, I'm afraid.


It should be noted that each of the ethnic groups that inhabited the Isles pursued the Imperial project with equal vigour


Well hold on, you just said they were not ethnic groups. Rather they are just the same people with fashion differences.


in fact some say that the Scots in particular more than held their end up when it came to planting the Union Jack in various out-of-the-way places.


Not surprising. The Kurds, for example, acted with zeal to enforce the edicts of Turkish Imperial authority in Armenia. I don't really know what that or Croats in Austrian uniform have to do with anything.


It would take a braver man than I to even hint at agreement to such an obviously ludicrous notion.


So then these conquered subjects of England deserve the same rights as any English subject, correct?


To whom are you referring? Channel Islanders? Manxmen? Pitcairn Islanders?


Hmmm....no. I'm referring to India, or Egypt, or Cyrpus, or Pakistan, during periods in which Britain ruled these lands and peoples of these regions came to Britain. Their descendants are some of the people you resent.

These people seem to me to be subjects of English Empire no different than the Welsh or the Scots. But you don't seem to think so.


I had hoped that it might have been apparent, but since it obviously wasn’t, allow me to spell it out. Athough you seem to be heading along the right lines with your next remarks, to wit:


Well you seem to have forgotten to 'spell it out'. I think its interesting how you've been prodding people to address something you seem uncomfortable expressing.


I’m not sure how familiar you are with the immigration and naturalization regulations that currently apply, but I’m getting the sense that, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, the answer would be somewhere between ‘not very’ and ‘not at all’.


Yeah, you can save your time with this type of nonsense. If you don't want to address an issue, you can just not quote it. I've actually helped people come here for business purposes, and on one occassion helped someone gain their citizenship.


Suffice to say, all that is required to obtain US citizenship (after showing up), is to obtain a green card and then hang around for a period of five years keeping a (more or less) clean nose, following which you have to pass a risibly simple test and then… hey presto! a brand-new Murrcan is minted. That’s it.


Right, so after coming here legally, being a law abiding citizen, holding a job (You forgot that one), paying your taxes, and passing a civics test, you are allowed to pledge your loyalty to the United States, and become a citizen of the Republic.

Thats terrible. Where are the blood rights? Where are the sacred Thule rituals to summon the spirit of dead Aryan dreadlords?

I don't see anything wrong with that system of naturalization, torch lit blood ritual or no. If its good enough for the Italians and Irish, its good enough for everyone else. It is a high irony that you, an migrant worker yourself, holds the idea of migratory labor in such contempt.


Hmmm. I’m beginning to think that your qualifications for even commenting on such matters are rather dubious. We’d need to know how much time in total you personally spent in either Germany or France before commenting further.


Nah, I don't need to have spent a great deal of time in either Germany or France. I'm pretty well informed. Certainly enough to be aware of the fact that 1/3rd of Europeans under 35 rank their "European" identity higher than their national identity. You might have missed this while cafe hopping in Paris or touring Berlin discoteks. :p


There is a world of difference between a Common Market and a United States of Europe. My sense is that the pendulum is swinging back towards the former.


Oh I don't know. Certainly the hamfisted Schroeder/Chirac approach might have set things back a bit, but not by much.


All well and good except that, once again, the individual preferences of Turkish Gastarbeiter and their offspring are not of great importance.


Obviously Germany did not agree.


Well, until 2000 when the Federal Republic was pressured to agree to harmonise its citizenship laws with EU ‘norms’ it was practicably impossible for anyone of Turkish (or any non-German) ancestry, even if born in Germany, to claim German citizenship, because of the then-prevailing jus solis legal forms.


What? I thought the EU was just a European free-trade zone, and not some ridiculous culture nanny working hard to paint over national distinctions and impose itself on the laws or traditions of its member states? :p


Perhaps at some future point when the Germans re-awake, the extreme folly of this capitulation will be acknowledged, and they will revert once again to the ancient ancestry-based citizenship laws that had been the de facto system since the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, if not before. And, hopefully, other countries, including the UK, will be emboldened enough to follow suit.


So here you favor stripping people of citizenship after it was granted legally by the people, in the form of their elected representatives?


At that point, in Western Europe at least, we will once again come to see citizenship as something other than a commodity that may be bought and sold like a membership to a strip club.


Doubtful. 35 hour work weeks, encouraging homosexual relationships, and widespread support for abortionists comes at a price. Fewer babies in a world with growing economic rivals who don't have problems with labor. Your immigrants aren't your problem. They were, in fact, your quick fix solution.

Now you support a measure which will make the citizenship of ALL members of a nation meaningless, after you strip it once granted from 'unpopular' segments of society. The only upswing of that, I suppose, is that when the Marxist-lite opposition in these places regains power, they would feel free to strip you of YOUR rights. :p


I’m sure most Germans would concur that Turks are a fine people, but best admired from a considerable distance.


They're there by invitation.


They did? What was it called, and when was it enacted?


Well I believe Germany's change to its immigration law happened in 2000 or 2001. I don't know the name of the new law though, I don't keep track of the names of foreign laws.


That you are comfortable with the fact that the US government has no say whatsoever in who constitutes 85% (or more) of its immigrant stream speaks for itself. As long as they present appropriate paperwork attesting that they are a relative or prospective spouse of someone already in then that’s it, they’re in, person of quality or not.

Whoa there, 85% of legal immigrants aren't family members or relatives of that 15%. There are other types of immigrants, you know.

[Hakluyt]

Interesting. Which historians deny that the Welsh, Scots, or Irish were distinct peoples?
These terms are disingenuous. The existence of these groups does not negate the folk history on their larger plane of identity. The claim is that these peoples had intermingled throughout history (in culture, in language, in religious ideas, in genetics - in all the reference points normally used to measure commonality) to the extent where a common allegiance was a natural expression of their collectivity. In Europe, more often than not identity exists in layers rather than exclusions.

Dan Dare already cited you one, but almost every significant British historian of the past century holds to a similar view. Another I have recently read is Linda Colley (Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837).

[Dan Dare]

Interesting. Which historians deny that the Welsh, Scots, or Irish were distinct peoples?
None so far as I am aware, assuming the emphasis is on “were”, meaning at some time in the past. I believe the widely-accepted account relates how the Isles were resettled by hunter-gatherers from the Franco-Iberian refugia following the LGM, who then developed into tribal societies, later into various kingdoms (the ‘distinct peoples’ phase), and then eventually coalesced into a single society. You appear to be confusing dynastic conflict and political arrangements with genetic dissimilarity; the indigenous populations of the British Isles are actually strikingly homogenous, we should not be bemused by later regionally-based cultural accretions into believing otherwise.
Well hold on, you just said they were not ethnic groups. Rather they are just the same people with fashion differences.
Ethnic group was a poor choice of term, I would see the indigenous population of the British Isles (meaning that established by the 12th century at the latest) to be a single ethnicity, organised along tribal lines into various sub-ethnies, which are identifiable by cultural vectors, the most important of which were religious and political affiliation.
Hmmm....no. I'm referring to India, or Egypt, or Cyrpus, or Pakistan, during periods in which Britain ruled these lands and peoples of these regions came to Britain. Their descendants are some of the people you resent.

These people seem to me to be subjects of English Empire no different than the Welsh or the Scots. But you don't seem to think so.

Subject and citizen are two entirely different things. Neither the Welsh nor the Scots have ever been, nor seen themselves as, subjects of an English Empire. Such an Empire never existed anyway in any meaningful form. Any overseas possessions as did nominally belong to the Crown before the Act of Union were in reality commercial undertakings funded by venture capitalists. The Scots have been citizens of Great Britain since 1707, and the Welsh had enjoyed exactly the same rights and privileges as any other inhabitant of England or Wales for many centuries before that. To refer to either as ‘English’ subjects is asinine and ahistorical.

Indians et al were never at any time citizens of the United Kingdom and no legal claim to right of abode in the UK arises from whatever earlier status of ‘Imperial subject’ their ancestors may have had.

And it is definitely not the case that ‘peoples of these regions came to Britain … during periods in which Britain ruled these lands’. As late as the early 1950s there were no more than 30,000 ‘coloured people’ resident in Britain. Since then a further five million or more have materialised, during a period when many of these countries (like India and Pakistan) were already independent republics, and all the others were in the process of becoming so.

So the ‘you’ve got to let us in because you owe us due to the Imperial legacy’ argument for the continuing (or even the earlier post WW II) mass immigration from the ex-colonies is completely bogus.


Yeah, you can save your time with this type of nonsense. If you don't want to address an issue, you can just not quote it. I've actually helped people come here for business purposes, and on one occassion helped someone gain their citizenship.
If that’s really the case, then you should certainly recognise that what I am saying is true. Once an individual is able to obtain permanent residence, it is easier to obtain US (or UK) citizenship than it is to join many suburban golf clubs.
Right, so after coming here legally, being a law abiding citizen, holding a job (You forgot that one), paying your taxes, and passing a civics test, you are allowed to pledge your loyalty to the United States, and become a citizen of the Republic.

…
Once again, an immigrant is not a citizen, law-abiding or otherwise. You should take more care with your terminology since it gives the impression you don’t really know what you are talking about. And also, there is no requirement that an applicant for citizenship has ever held a job or paid a cent in taxes.
Nah, I don't need to have spent a great deal of time in either Germany or France. I'm pretty well informed. Certainly enough to be aware of the fact that 1/3rd of Europeans under 35 rank their "European" identity higher than their national identity. You might have missed this while cafe hopping in Paris or touring Berlin discoteks.

This sounds somewhat reminiscent of John the Thinker holding forth on international economics and geopolitics from his rental aprtment in suburban Seattle. Like you, he has never needed to venture far beyond his comfort zone in becoming a self-styled authority on these and other matters. His mission has been to convince us that India is just like a slightly more-crowded version of American suburbia, while yours appears to be spreading the good word that the Germans deep down really love and admire their Turkish Landsmänner. It must be true, right? After all I found it on Google.

Oh I don't know. Certainly the hamfisted Schroeder/Chirac approach might have set things back a bit, but not by much.
The denouement will certainly come if and when they attempt to force through Turkish membership of the EU. But in order to do that, they will need to get the Treaty of Nice (or something similar) ratified first.
Obviously Germany did not agree.
Since the Germans have remained in ritual self-abasement mode since the end of WW II, the abject acquiescence of their government to international pressure and slavish conformance to EU Directives comes as no real surprise. In the meantime, the Germans themselves hold their own council.
What? I thought the EU was just a European free-trade zone, and not some ridiculous culture nanny working hard to paint over national distinctions and impose itself on the laws or traditions of its member states?
The EU *was* supposed to a free-trade zone; that is what the British electorate thought they were agreeing to join with in the 1975 Referendum. The EU has has attempted to insinuate itself further and further into the national affairs of each country, but is meeting ever stiffer resistance. The tide appears to have turned, the withdrawal of the Treaty of Nice was the first obvious sign, but there are others as well.

So here you favor stripping people of citizenship after it was granted legally by the people, in the form of their elected representatives?
Actually I am not. Have you read my Homeward Bound proposals, it’s all laid out there. Come back if there are any remaining questions.
But in brief, what I am in favour of is terminating immediately the present process of dishing out citizenship to more or less anyone who just happens to feel like turning up.



Doubtful. 35 hour work weeks, encouraging homosexual relationships, and widespread support for abortionists comes at a price. Fewer babies in a world with growing economic rivals who don't have problems with labor. Your immigrants aren't your problem. They were, in fact, your quick fix solution.
Immigration has solved nothing in Europe, anymore than it has in the US, Canada or elsewhere. Except improved the life-prospects of the immigrants themselves of course.
Now you support a measure which will make the citizenship of ALL members of a nation meaningless, after you strip it once granted from 'unpopular' segments of society. The only upswing of that, I suppose, is that when the Marxist-lite opposition in these places regains power, they would feel free to strip you of YOUR rights.
You’re going to need to point out where I have expressed support for such a measure, or withdraw the insinuation.
They're there by invitation.
Which expired ca 1970.
Well I believe Germany's change to its immigration law happened in 2000 or 2001. I don't know the name of the new law though, I don't keep track of the names of foreign laws.
And you sounded so definite on the matter. And I think you mean ‘citizenship’ not ‘immigration’. More unnecessary confusion.
Whoa there, 85% of legal immigrants aren't family members or relatives of that 15%. There are other types of immigrants, you know.

I know. I already mentioned a couple earlier in this thread. But’s let’s put some actual figures down.

In 2006 the US admitted 1,266,264 legal immigrants, that is the number of individuals granted permanent residence. Note that this does not include the almost 1.5 million ‘temporary’ workers and their dependents admitted during the same period. ‘Temporary’ workers include all those H1Bs, L1s etc, which is an interesting topic in itself.

The number of new permanent residents in 2006 breaks down as follows:

• Family-sponsored preferences: 222,229 (17.5%)
• Immediate relatives of US citizens: 580,483 (45.8%)
• Refugees and asylees: 216,454 (17.1%)
• Employment-based preferences: 159,081 (12.5 %)
• Diversity lottery: 44,471 (3.5%)
• Other: 43,546 (3.4%)

Source: DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics for 2006.

So, it’s obvious from the above that I was being over-optimistic in claiming that 15% of legal immigrants arrive for employment-related purposes. The actual figure is 12.5%. But even that does not provide the complete picture, since the total of 159,081 entering for employmen-related purposes includes 62,209 dependents, meaning that the actual numbers of immigrants admitted brought specifically to work was only 96,872, or a mere 7.7% of the total.