No limits to immigration

[Natalie Severn]

Some very fair points have been raised but we still have to remember that this thread is about immigration. Muslim men mistreating white girls is unacceptable but unless they are immigrants it is not relevant to this thread.

Bob's concerns are about immigrants abusing the hospitality of this country but the article he posted did not specifically refer to immigrants calling for a separatist Muslim state in our cities but 'extremist' Muslims - which I would take to mean 'devout Muslims'. Some of these may well be immigrants but most of them would not be.

The 7/7 bombers were all British by the way. Now - whether or not British Muslims should be behaving in such a way is worthy of deabte but requires a separate thread.

Hi Julie,
But with Bob seeming to be particularly worried about the separatist 'behaviour' of certain Muslim's, the replies here surely echo that particular concern?
I find such separatism worrying myself because I am all for people working together and finding what they can unite around ---what they have in common as workers,parents,part of a community-not what they can be tribal about.
On your other point ,I don't think that British Muslim bombers ---any bombers at all---blowing up a bus full of innocent people or a tube full of innocent people, can ever be a matter up for 'debate'.
It was too shocking for words.
I have a great regard for so many of your posts Julie, but I have to disagree here,
Best,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nats

I know you were addressing Bob, but I thought I'd chip in (and don't get us mixed up ; he writes books, I write captions )

I grew up in an area which, at the time, had the highest concentration of Jews in western Europe. I had Jewish friends at school and, later on, there were Jewish people whose houses I would be invited to. I have no trouble with Hasidic Jews or any other kind of Jews. They are not making silly statements about which laws to obey etc.

I also get on well with the Asians I have met. These are moderate, common sense sorts of people. But there must be a level playing field, and an extremist is an extremist, whatever colour he may happen to be.

I am almost persuaded that a little separatism may be ok! .I have no problem actually with people keeping their customs and religion as long as its not widow burning or female mutilation or wife beating.
I wasn't objecting to people keeping their customs and religion just pointing out that other groups in the uk have practised separatism just like some Muslims and some people seem unaware of that fact.
Best,
Norma

[Robert]

Hi Nats

Well, I myself practise separatism because e.g. I don't watch soaps, X Factor, Britain's Got Zombies etc. After all, a totally typical Englishman would be untypical! I think one way to look at it is, do you know what reaction to expect from a person? And are you treading on eggshells? If the answer to the first question is No and to the second is Yes, then there's a problem.

[Bob Hinton]

Bob, The Muslim's are not the only people .Are we to demonize the Jewish Community in Stoke Newington for this type of community too?

But I don't believe the Jewish community here want to set up a separate Jewish state operating under Talmudic law do they?

As far as I know they are quite happy to live under British law and governance. If however they started to set up their own state within a state, then yes I would oppose them too.

[Bob Hinton]

Travellers

Yes,ok Zodiac - good points.But I could give you examples of travellers and their children [and their caravans horses and dogs-] being treated like vermin thrown off their patch of land -thats often little more than wasteland with nowhere to go at all- by irate 'respectable 'white people in very English villages ----man's inhumanity to man-and women and all that---no race has a monopoly on cruelty,[or rape and murder for that matter].
.

But the point is Natalie the land these people are occupying and defiling isn't their land - and once they have turned lovely areas into garbage heaps they just move on - such is the way of the nomad.

[Bob Hinton]

No!

Hi Julie,
But with Bob seeming to be particularly worried about the separatist 'behaviour' of certain Muslim's, the replies here surely echo that particular concern?

Norma

No that is not true. What I am against is the appalling behaviour of some immigrants to this country, whether they are Muslim, Catholic, Hindu or any other race or religion you care to name.
This article happens to be about Muslims this one:

Deported Nigerian man with 131 aliases crept back into Britain to carry out £1m fraud


Conman: David Peters had 131 names
A deported Nigerian conman with 131 different identities sneaked back into Britain to carry out a £1million crime, a court heard yesterday.
The man, who calls himself David Peters, was jailed for fraud and deported to Nigeria seven years ago.
But six months later he took advantage of flaws in the immigration system, returning under a different name and was promptly being granted UK citizenship.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1RObYrB1c

Is about a Nigerian, and so on. I am fed up with people abusing our hospitality, robbing, cheating, murdering, raping and generally treating us like dirt.

[Bob Hinton]

.I have no problem actually with people keeping their customs and religion as long as its not widow burning or female mutilation or wife beating.

Norma

So in reality you are quite happy for them to follow their customs and religion as long as you can decide which ones they can keep? The problem is Nats if you say to a certain group "Cut yourself off from Britain and our laws and ways, set up your own little country north of Watford Gap, you mustn't be surprised if some of their ideas turn out to be less than enlightened.

What I can't understand about these people is if they want their own country with their own laws, then why come here? Surely they had that back home?

[Limehouse]

I offer my apologies if you feel that my posts have contributed to leading this thread astray.



I'm sorry, but you really can't dismiss it in such an offhand manner! Life isn't as nice and tidy as that. Some of these men are immigrants, so I guess that its ok for me to mention them is it??? Some are the children or even grand children of immigrants, so, oops, better not mention them, they're a whole different ball game, even when they are one of those involved in the self same act of mistreatment!!! It may make a difference to you but I assure you that it makes Sod All difference to the victim.



Did you actually bother to click the link that Robert, not Bob, provided?

http://www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com/

If so did you actually bother to read it? Now that is my definition of "extremist" Islam. Can you honestly say that it is in no way "extremist" but rather, merely "Devout"???



Are you serious??? You really think that there is a debate??? There is no f-ing debate, of course they shouldn't be "behaving in such a way" anymore than David Copeland, the London Nail Bomber should have been "behaving in such a way".

Apologies again for daring to go "off-message"

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

Hi Zodiac/Norma

Firstly Zodiac - I would like to apologise beacause I phrased myself badly and did not mean to dismiss your views so flippatly concerning whether they belong on this thread.

What I was trying to point out was that these issues are very important and worthy of discussion but when the topic of the thread is whether immigrants should be allowed to travel the world and settle and work anywhere they choose - posts about people who may well be part of an ethnic community (and possibly/probably sons/daughtes/granchildren of immigrants) but are not actually immigrants cloud the issue because it's a different debate.

The behaviour you described in Bradford and Leeds is horrific whether carried out by immigrants or British Muslims. It should not be tolerated. Indeed - I have recently undergone training in the methods used by 'groomers' - usually men who target young girls and prepare them for sexual exploitation. Every effort should be made to find and punish this behaviour.

The point about extremism is a very important point because I think that if it is going to be used in a newspaper article about the establishment of separate Muslim states - and linked to photgraphs of women with their faces covered - we should be very sure we are not making a connection between devoutism and terrorism. The article Bob posted was trying to make a link between Muslim extremism and terrorism in order to make the establishment of these states seem terrifying. The question I am asking is - if your are a devout Muslim but live entirely within the REAL Muslim law - is it fair to be branded alongside terrorists?

My remarks concerning the 7/7 bombing were misunderstood - my fault for the way I phrased it. What I meant was - we can certainly discuss why some British Muslims turn to such tactics on a thread that is not about immigration. Their actions were unforgiveable - appalling - and we should be able to ask why young men who have grown up with all the advantages and freedoms they had - should want to bomb their fellow compatriots.

Once again - sorry if my message came across all wrong.

JUlie

[Natalie Severn]

No that is not true. What I am against is the appalling behaviour of some immigrants to this country, whether they are Muslim, Catholic, Hindu or any other race or religion you care to name.
This article happens to be about Muslims this one:

Deported Nigerian man with 131 aliases crept back into Britain to carry out £1m fraud


Conman: David Peters had 131 names
A deported Nigerian conman with 131 different identities sneaked back into Britain to carry out a £1million crime, a court heard yesterday.
The man, who calls himself David Peters, was jailed for fraud and deported to Nigeria seven years ago.
But six months later he took advantage of flaws in the immigration system, returning under a different name and was promptly being granted UK citizenship.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1RObYrB1c

Is about a Nigerian, and so on. I am fed up with people abusing our hospitality, robbing, cheating, murdering, raping and generally treating us like dirt.

What I am against Bob is any campaign by the Daily Mail [or any other National newspaper] wanting to intensify, through a criminalisation campaign , hostility or hatred towards any specific community,immigrant or otherwise.
These alarmist and menacing headlines of the Daily Mail seem intent on stereotyping and demonising Muslim people by claiming there are those among them who are not only terrorists but are now out to set up their own states with their own laws ready to do battle presumably with the host state. How do we know this claim is not based on weak and biased research by a Daily Mail reporter ?

After last night's exposure of the extent of News of the World's reporters revealing their despicable activities viz a viz their phone hacking of murder victims and their families and of the grieving and bereft relatives of service men and women ,is it not best to question the veracity of such' bogey man out to get you' headlines, Bob?To defer judgment until more is known about this matter and find out whether such data is reliable or exaggerated?
Do we really want The Daily Mail to to be issuing clarion calls to the nation that might be likely to unleash another wave of 'Paki bashing' that resulted first time round in the death of a pupil of mine named Gurdip Chaggar ,in 1976 ,a bright child of 15 who was polite and gentle and a prefect at the school I taught at.Gurdip was waiting for a friend in Southall,minding his own business when a group of 'Paki bashing' skinheads approached him wielding their knives.
Lets try to find some common ground and strive for unity as a people,
Norma

For the record I am against all 'separatist 'schools that are based on fundamentalist religions-Christian,Muslim , Jewish whatever.I believe school to be a place where young people are trained socially as well as in academic and other subjects----about how to participate and contribute to a more harmonious society.I am also against any idea of separate states within states---or anything that encourages any kind of tribalism or ghettoisation.

[Bob Hinton]

For the record I am against all 'separatist 'schools that are based on fundamentalist religions-Christian,Muslim , Jewish whatever.I believe school to be a place where young people are trained socially as well as in academic and other subjects----about how to participate and contribute to a more harmonious society.I am also against any idea of separate states within states---or anything that encourages any kind of tribalism or ghettoisation.

Hear! hear!

[Errata]

For the record I am against all 'separatist 'schools that are based on fundamentalist religions-Christian,Muslim , Jewish whatever.I believe school to be a place where young people are trained socially as well as in academic and other subjects----about how to participate and contribute to a more harmonious society.I am also against any idea of separate states within states---or anything that encourages any kind of tribalism or ghettoisation.

I am of two minds on this, and it is difficult. Firstly, as a Jew I know the value of Jewish schools (or yeshivas). We have one here, and while I had no desire to attend, I was often jealous of the kids that did. They were so comfortable in their religion. They never had to explain, never had to be afraid, never felt alone. And in this part of the country where there just aren't a whole lot of Jews at all, that was no small bonus.

On the other hand, I went to a small private school for most of my educational career that did have a fair number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, even a few neo-pagans. So I was exposed to just about everything. And that was something I wouldn't trade for anything. But when I had to move to a public school, I spent some time wishing I had gone instead to the yeshiva.

The other side of this is quality of education. The private school I went to concentrated of humanities and the arts. It demanded academic rigor, and expected all of its students to at least go on to schools like Northwestern, Oberlin, Sarah Lawrence, etc. But more importantly it demanded that it's students know how to express themselves in productive way, to understand the social and political structure of our world, and to not only know how to try and change the world, but to want to.

My school was rare.

Most private education in the states is limited to religious schools or gender segregated schools. You get a really smart kid in East Tennessee, you can either put them in an all boys school a la Dead Poet's Society (which was in fact based on a school here), or you put them into a Catholic school regardless of their religion. In my state, you can't leave them in Public School, where a high IQ is considered, no joke, to be a handicap or a learning disability.

As for tribalism or ghettoism... there's good and bad there as well. It's certainly hard to find bad things to say about the Amish. They are subject to US law, but they have additional cultural laws. Native Americans on reservations certainly didn't choose to be there originally, but now there is a concerted effort to preserve their traditional way of life, and that can only happen in relative seclusion. They are sovereign territories. Still bound by Federal law, but not bound by state law. And I think that's a good thing as well. I'm pretty sure the Blue Fugates aren't doing themselves any good. And certainly things like Jonestown are to be avoided at all costs.

In an idealized society, most of this separation would be unnecessary. But which do we do first, prepare society for inclusionism and tolerance which will take a very long time, or disband the tribalist societies and shove them into a greater whole that is not terribly welcoming? It's hard to know how best to proceed, or if that is even in everyone's best interest. Certainly the Inuit tribes did not benefit from their state's version of inclusion.

[Limehouse]

In an idealized society, most of this separation would be unnecessary. But which do we do first, prepare society for inclusionism and tolerance which will take a very long time, or disband the tribalist societies and shove them into a greater whole that is not terribly welcoming? It's hard to know how best to proceed, or if that is even in everyone's best interest. Certainly the Inuit tribes did not benefit from their state's version of inclusion.

Another excellent post Errata - and the Amish example was another very good example of how people can establish a separatist community without bothering anyone else - although this would be much harder to do well in the middle of a large city.

With reference as to why people would choose separatism - well you only have to read a few of the views on this thread to understand why people might want to band together for comfort and solidarity and something familiar.

[Natalie Severn]

In an idealized society, most of this separation would be unnecessary. But which do we do first, prepare society for inclusionism and tolerance which will take a very long time, or disband the tribalist societies and shove them into a greater whole that is not terribly welcoming? It's hard to know how best to proceed, or if that is even in everyone's best interest.

‘Multiculturalism simply means cultural diversity and that diversity can either be a good thing, leading to integration, or a bad thing, leading to separatism. It is the social and political context that determines in which direction multiculturalism develops.’
A. Sivanandan [ Director of the Institute of Race Relations-UK]

This happens to be my own view of the issue.
I fail to see why you polarise the discussion here, Errata ,by talking about 'shoving' tribalist or separatist groups into an unwelcoming wider society?Why would we need to do that?
Surely multiculturism,unity in diversity,as Sivanandan suggests ,comes about most naturally as a by product of other struggles? In Britain today there are surely a great many issues currently to get involved in , issues that cross communities , that affect everyone from unemployment,the closure of hospitals, closing down of resources -childcare services,services for the aged, the disabled etc which would serve to strengthen our multicultural society and unite us?

Muslim people now are being stereotyped not just as terrorists [or incipient terrorists] but as backward bigots whose values and intolerance threaten our freedoms and whole way of life and this demonisation in the tabloids and other media is being reinforced by anti terror and police measures which target that community .

[Errata]

Surely multiculturism,unity in diversity,as Sivanandan suggests ,comes about most naturally as a by product of other struggles? In Britain today there are surely a great many issues currently to get involved in , issues that cross communities , that affect everyone from unemployment,the closure of hospitals, closing down of resources -childcare services,services for the aged, the disabled etc which would serve to strengthen our multicultural society and unite us?

I agree that multiculturalism is a great thing. But we aren't there yet. We don't have unity in diversity. We have some comfortable alliances, some uncomfortable alliances, and some true raging hatred. Most people still engage in community efforts even outside their own communities. They work for better health care, more cops, less government waste, whatever. And I can think of any number of people who would (and have) welcome my efforts on their projects or their charities, but who will not let me into their country club or date their son.

I have no desire to step outside my society. I don't feel the need to separate myself from the rest of the city or the region. But I understand why some people do. I was not raised that way. I was raised with kids from all over. A lot of people weren't raised that way. Do I think all kids should go to a school like mine? No. There were plenty of kids who simply couldn't handle the way things were done at my school. They left after a year or two. If they go on to thrive at Catholic School, I can't think that's a bad thing. Kids deserve to thrive. And if that's in an isolated community or a segregated school, so be it.

A wise man told me that the only antidote to intolerance was the suppression of fear. People exclude because they are afraid. And the fear is not going away. And if a community is going to be excluded, or even undermined, then pulling away from the larger community may be what is necessary for a culture's continued survival.

In all of my anthropology and sociology classes, we learned about almost nothing but dying cultures. Little ways of life being included out of existence. People are not wrong to fear that. Some cultures are so fragile that cannot be included into a larger society without being obliterated. The San people of the Kalihari for instance. Their way of life is so alien to ours that mere contact with outsiders threatens their entire existence.

But to be fair, the Kalihari Bushmen live nomadic lives in a very remote part of the world. I firmly believe that if you move to a city, you should accept the fact that you live in a city. An apartment building of Sharia law is just stupid. If you didn't want to be around so many outsiders, you probably should not have moved to say, London. There plenty of places here in my home state just remote enough to set up a little Iran if that's what you want to do. Don't be so egomaniacal as to think that a city of millions should revolve around you. I think there are some uninhabited islands in the Marshall Island Chain, population 12 ish. Go there and set up your utopian society. That bit is just sheer idiocy.

[Cogidubnus]

I genuinely hesitate to revive this thread (which seems to have been so divisive) but do so because it leaves me, and I suspect others, with genuinely split-feelings...I hope everyone will make a genuine effort to be civil...

For the record I am against all 'separatist 'schools that are based on fundamentalist religions-Christian,Muslim , Jewish whatever.I believe school to be a place where young people are trained socially as well as in academic and other subjects----about how to participate and contribute to a more harmonious society.I am also against any idea of separate states within states---or anything that encourages any kind of tribalism or ghettoisation.

In principle so am I...yet my kids went to an RC school (they were entitled because my wife is nominally an RC)...they went because it was the BEST school (barring hugely expensive "public" - N American = private) available...if the best school had been the C of E just 6 miles up the road, then we'd have played on my nominal C of E qualification...I make no secret of it...my "faith" is pretty weak...

So how about these Roman Catholic, Church of England, Jewish or other faith schools? Who, in law, (and how), makes the distinction which schools are acceptable. Who subsidises the school. Who decides who (if anyone) subsidises it's transport? What if it's a Muslim School...should that be different?

The reality, of course is, that in many cases it's the other way round - I can only speak for the UK, but here Faith Schools are actually a lot cheaper for County Councils than secular schools...because the churches in question pay a HUGE subsidy towards the education/indoctrination of their offspring...(and consequently the denial of subsidised transport to faith schools is actually a betrayal of principles established in the 1948 Education Act - but that's another argument altogether!)...the real difference of course is that C of E and Roman Catholic schools generally only indoctrinate children in the very broadest manner in a faith nominally espoused by the nation - Christianity...Jewish Schools seem to slip through the net through antiquity and pacifity...let's be fair...but thereagain, I'm recently aware of a broadly Buddhist School near my home...(I assume it's ok because I have a huge respect for the Dalai Lama, but how do I know?)

So is the distinction purely the existence of certain Muslim (or indeed other clerics) who preach the destruction of "Western Civilisation", "Western Religions", alleged "Western Values" etc? How can the law distinguish? Should we revert (selectively) to an "evict the foreigners" policy? (that's a rhetorical question by the way)...How should the necessary laws be worded? How do you suppress or modify basic beliefs?

I have real difficulties with questions like these...I have an instinctive answer for all of them, which equally instinctively I "know" is right...and in case anyone wonders, far from being a reactionary with a conscience, my brain actually tells me I'm fundamentally a liberal with reality issues...it's just as I get older I veer more towards the former than the latter but feel more guilty about it...which surely means I'm not a bleeding heart liberal?

All the best

Dave