Of course they are. But they are not any less dangerous than Moroccans are to your national culture.
So, what you’re saying is that three generations down the line, the Pole of a Pole of a Pole might become Swedish enough to pass muster. But a Moroccan will still be too alien.
I know that talk, and it’s bullshit because integration is not a one way street.
Uncle Kobal’s story time ! Had a mate in college. Black guy from “the projects” who had managed to make it out somehow. Born in France, raised in France. About as Muslim as I’m Christian, which is to say not very much at all, not enough not to get plastered with the guys anyway. Good enough education, spoke perfect French of course. Better grades than mine, more work experience, fewer problems with authority.
But when time came to find a part-time job to go along with the degree, three phonecalls was all it took for me and I was an assistant systems administrator, just like that. He had to call and call for over a month and had to take the first, shittiest company that answered his CVs. Which wasn’t even near what we were training for. He just wasn’t French enough I suppose. An “ethnic” last name along with a listed address on the wrong side of town will do that, “political correcteness” or not.
So you and **Raleigh **keep talking about them nasty immigrants being a problem, lazy, out to get unemployment benefits at your expense, and causing trouble because they can’t let go of their own culture.
If you won’t accept them into yours anyway, the fuck are they supposed to do ?
[QUOTE=RaleighRally]
Actually there was a Swedish-Polish union at one time.Polish–Swedish union - Wikipedia
[/QUOTE]
Lasted a whole seven years, too. Damn near ancestral mingling of cultures, there.
No, I’m saying that Polish would probably assimilate more easily in Sweden than Moroccan’s and wouldn’t change the overall culture as much if they formed a large segment of the population.
Politicians should probably be more sensible about who they recruit. They should look to serve the interests of the people who vote for them that is the point of having a government - to protect its citizens.
… which boils down to “racist Swedes might mistake a Pole for a Swede, but they sure as shit won’t think a guy named Zarkawoui is a Viking”. Yeah, I got that.
The ease of assimilation (and lack thereof) is exactly what I’m talking about, Chen. And what is not all on the foreigners.
Sweden for Swedes ? Yeah, fuck that.
Who cares about Swedish culture ? Who in America today cares about Puritan culture, who in Italy cares about Roman customs, who in Egypt cares about who the current Pharaoh is or should be ? Cultures come and go. Who gives a shit ? What makes any of them worth preserving ?
So Swedes got a good thing going for themselves right now. Good on them. 90% of the world has a shitty thing going for the most part. They’re coming to the good places one way or another. Can’t blame them for that, either. You’re die hard intent on keeping Sweden for Swedes ? Try and make Somalia a’ight for Somalis. Because as long as you’re doing better than anyone else, anyone else is going to want to jump on that wagon. Hiring people with sticks to keep stowaways away from the rich man’s wagon (i.e. closing the borders) will not work.
I daresay the British Raj had more cultural influence both ways. But Yorkshire pudding still ain’t curry.
Again, it’s their country. Just like the Japanese, Israelis, Kenyans or whoever else, the citizens can determine their recruitment policy. If they consider that Islam will change their society in ways they dislike, that is there prerogative.
Indeed, what is with those Israeli’s or Tibetans, Cubans or Japanese, or Taiwanese or Ugandans, wanting their own country - what is wrong with those people?!
And you mention Swedes have a good thing going for themselves. So why would they want to change?
When Ashkenazi Jews first started arriving in America in large numbers in the late 19th Century, they seemed every bit as alien here as Arabs might seem in Sweden now. Many expressed doubts they could ever really be Americans. And they did all the things poor immigrants do, good and bad, including crime and gangsterism, and caught all the usual public flak for it, plus the special flak Jews catch for being Jews (but less of that than in the Old Country). Today, it’s hard to imagine America without them and it’s hard to imagine anyone more American.
I could support them (or you) trying to preserve their good thing by pure numbers - e.g. “no more than X new immigrants per annum” or “only immigrants who fill X, Y, Z socioeconomic spots”.
Whenever you try and turn it into “only immigrants from country X”, that’s racist/ethnocentric bullshit. No exceptions.
Likewise, to greater or lesser degree, with the Germans, and the Irish, and the Italians, and the Chinese, etc. And, someday, I’m sure the Mexicans. (And don’t forget that there have been “Mexican” families living in the Southwest as long as it has been U.S. territory. They belong. Someday the newcomers will.)
The only ones who still don’t seem to quite fit in are the American Indians. 
Again, who they let into their country is entirely their prerogative. If they decide they only want Inuits, that is up to them. They are the ones who have to live there afterall.
What they could do is simply recruit on the basis of skills - that is one way to get around the reduced social capital from diversity. They would also avoid the problems of an underclass developing.
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/dealing-with-diversity-the-smart-way
If you say so. Their current prerogative is to let everyone in, which is what you guys are bitching about.
But if they didn’t, it would be my prerogative to call them assholes on it.
It might not be nice, but it might be in the best interests of the people who live there. As I said above, if they continue to do that eventually their social welfare system will be overloaded. Also, Sweden leads Europe in rape - public resistance to that is likely to increase:
It seems that their media and politicians are largely of the far left no borders ideology, but maybe I’m wrong. Certainly the quite sensible Swedish Democrats seemed to provoke some outrage amongst the media over there.
I dunno about Sweden, but America already has an underclass. Many waves of immigrants had to start there and work their way up to proles. But the only groups that seem to stay in the underclass from one generation to many are poor blacks, and poor whites (more Anglos than ethnics – think Jeff Foxworthy material), and poor Indians – all of whom are descended from people living in this country before Independence. And immigrants threaten to form an underclass?!
:dubious: Chen, neither media nor anybody else would have to be of “the far left no borders ideology” to be somewhat outraged by the Sweden Democrats. They don’t represent any politics that has done any country anywhere in the world any good in the past two hundred years.
And that quite sensible Mr. Hitler sparked quite some outrage despite saying what was in the best interest of the Germans :dubious:.
Do you have *any *idea what kind of scum you’re rooting for here ? The Swedish Democrats, like the Front National, the BNP and the lot of them are *not *sensible and do not argue from any well reasoned position. They’re a bunch of xenophobic, populist fuckwads who wouldn’t know a good social policy from a dead moose.
No need to Godwinize. It’s quite damning enough to place the SD within the tradition of the Know Nothings. That has done no country anywhere in the world any good in the past two hundred years.
I would firstly argue that that is a gross misrepresentation of what is happening. I’d then point out that where I come from, the UK, has the same sort of immigration situation as Sweden. Sweden’s main problem has been the seemingly intentional creation of specific areas which will be “the immigrant areas”. From the areas around Malmö to the likes of Rinkeby and Botkyrka in Stockholm. Their planning for where to put the refugees has been abysmal.
The main problem is accepting too many people and jeapardising their system. Also, they are unnecessarily increasing their crime rate and risk to public safety.
But what constitutes poverty? Just today Svenska Dagbladet (one of the two major non-tabloid papers) has a story about how difficult it is for some children in Sweden and goes on to talk about the difference between what foreign and “Swedish” kids have. The opening sentence is just amazing:
Which translates as:
These are the sort of things we’re talking about. Seriously.
So? How did you handle it in Britain?