Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35110195)

Mmmmm - seems that the media are using one part of her speech for the headline; AM believes, quite rightly, that people who want to live and work in Germany should speak the language and abide by its laws. However, that does not make her anti-immigrant.

From the OP's link

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35110202)

Agreed - when I lived in Berlin, I learned German (and Russian, but that was for work...).

I did the same when I worked in the US and NZ.;)

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35110204)

Why, are there lots of German Russians in the US and NZ?.... ;)

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35110208)

Only in the Pentagon.. j/k

Originally Posted by Woolly One (Post 35110209)

I agree with all the above posts. However, ATM this just appears to be a re-occuring theme in Europe

The question is - can multicuralism ever work - in the long term?

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35110210)

Are you implying one of the CF team was/is a spook??? :)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35110202)

Agreed - when I lived in Berlin, I learned German (and Russian, but that was for work...).

I did the same when I worked in the US and NZ.;)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35110270)

i tried my hardest to learn the lingo when i worked in Scotland ,but sad to say i still haven't a clue what the average scot is saying , i did embrace their culture though lots of beer, and a fried pizza on the way home ;)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35110270)

i tried my hardest to learn the lingo when i worked in Scotland ,but sad to say i still haven't a clue what the average scot is saying , i did embrace their culture though lots of beer, and a fried pizza on the way home ;)

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35110459)

Immigrants do feel the need to "Stay with their own", hence the groups of people who live in the same area, & its fine to continue with their own cultures etc

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35110459)

Immigrants do feel the need to "Stay with their own", hence the groups of people who live in the same area, & its fine to continue with their own cultures etc, but any immigrant should learn the language of his or her adopted country.

I fail to see why some immigrants feel the need to try & change our customs, ways & laws, to conform with their native country. Why leave in the first place?

Ah............Benefits, I forgot.:erm:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110474)

"Benefits" come in many guises - not least natural resources.

As an ex squaddie you'll be only too well aware that England, together with other countries such as France & Germany, in the past saw no harm in seeking to take / taking over countries, exploiting their "benefits" and forcing the natural indigenous inhabitants to conform to their ideals, language and cultural quirks.

What is happing now is merely an extrapolation of that very same process although now that the shoe is on the other foot, for want of a better euphemism, some people are getting overly upset.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35110493)

The difference though between then and now is hopefully society has moved on and countries don't take over other countries and enslave the population ,what we do now is give various peoples a lifeline via immigration/asylum so that they can live in a better country without fear of being beaten ,raped or killed ,and don't forget that every single immigrant or asylum seeker is doing it on their own free will .We are not forcing anybody to come here or go to france ,germany,ect ,so yes they should embrace our culture,learn our language as well as bringing their own culture

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110519)

Obviously it's no different.

A proportion of the indigenous population of the UK, as evidenced by some posting in this thread, have a NIMBY approach to the issue. Contrary to your assertion people resident in the UK, whether by birth, immigration or for the puropses of asylum, are still prone to being beaten, raped or killed and that is a sad fact.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35110536)

I think i am correct in saying that GB has recognized it's responsibilities post empire by allowing immigrants from ex colonies and not just abandoning them .We have and still are providing a haven for many ex British colonies

Originally Posted by gazfan (Post 35110575)

That is a fair point, however, to take one example, the influx of 'Asian' families holding 'British' passports following the independence of Kenya, Nigeria & Hong Kong, has arguably benefited the UK.

Some of those families have been responsible for the steady growth of local 'convenience store' shopping, for example.

Sadly I'm old enough to remember a time when such shops opening past 5pm were a rarity in the week & Sundays you were lucky if the newsagent stayed open longer than was necessary to get the papers delivered.

The establishment of the 'ethnic minority' run shop changed all that - i.e. not all immigrants came here for the handouts ?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35110583)

I agree ,most immigrants have and do benefit this country ,and sadly i too am old enough to remember british corner shops that shut a 5 and halfday on Wednesday ;) .
I think it's only been in recent years that the perception of immigrants and asylum seekers being a drain on society has been an issue ,fueled by the media because they are an easy target , more so i think since the russian empire crumbled

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35110459)

Immigrants do feel the need to "Stay with their own", hence the groups of people who live in the same area, & its fine to continue with their own cultures etc, but any immigrant should learn the language of his or her adopted country.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35110199)

I did read that as well, but I still believe that if anyone is going to live in a country they should make every effort to learn the language of that country. As much for the practical purpose of dealing with the local population as any need to fit in with their customs. After all, wherever you live, you need to buy food..

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110474)

"Benefits" come in many guises - not least natural resources.

As an ex squaddie you'll be only too well aware that England, together with other countries such as France & Germany, in the past saw no harm in seeking to take / taking over countries, exploiting their "benefits" and forcing the natural indigenous inhabitants to conform to their ideals, language and cultural quirks.

What is happing now is merely an extrapolation of that very same process although now that the shoe is on the other foot, for want of a better euphemism, some people are getting overly upset.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35110673)

It's quite simple,

Immigration does work. Multiculturilism doesn't.

The UK population is happy to embrace change as long as it not dropped on them like a bomb.

The flood needs to be a trickle ans it needs to be from now on.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35110673)

It's quite simple,

Immigration does work. Multiculturilism doesn't.

Muslims and Eastern Europeans are quite simply the latest in a long line of fairly recent immigration spikes into this country.

They follow the Irish, Afro-Caribbeans, and Indian immigrants that all have comeinto the country in the couple of hundred years, the last two in the latter half of the 20th Century.

However, those immigrations were nothing on the scale of the recent immigration influx. There is no way the recent immigration influx could assimilate into the UK.

And they I'm not talking about about assimilating facelessly into the UK population. The immigration masses should still be able to retain their identity but be accepted and eventually become part of, and add to, the fabric of the country.

e.g one of the most famous Rugby clubs in the South is London Irish, Curry is our national dish etc.

The UK population is happy to embrace change as long as it not dropped on them like a bomb.

The last governments open door policy is what has caused the problem and is one of the reasons for such tensions between communities.

The flood needs to be a trickle ans it needs to be from now on.

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35110736)

My point regarding benefits are simple, if someone in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, is in danger & seeks asylum, why travel through several "safe" european countries, just to get here? The obvious answer is, Britain is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110803)

Yes, and in its simplicity it overlooks the fact that it's a bit foolish to market and export British democracy to foreign countries and then act all surprised when they take you up on the offer.

Pierre is right in that the flow needs to be better managed but the fact still remains, as outlined earlier, that successive British governments have historically welcomed immigrants for their skillsets. This didn't happen overnight and certainly isn't simply the fault of the last Government.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110803)

... it's a bit foolish to market and export British democracy to foreign countries and then act all surprised when they take you up on the offer...

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35110968)

:D

And long may it continue! This makes the point that instead of concentrating on the negative, a few forum members might like to think about the positive benefits of immigration.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110803)

Yes, and in its simplicity it overlooks the fact that it's a bit foolish to market and export British democracy to foreign countries and then act all surprised when they take you up on the offer.

Pierre is right in that the flow needs to be better managed but the fact still remains, as outlined earlier, that successive British governments have historically welcomed immigrants for their skillsets. This didn't happen overnight and certainly isn't simply the fault of the last Government.

Originally Posted by Unedited Government Document

1) The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

2) Indeed, over the medium to longer term, migration pressures will intensify in Europe as a result of demographic changes. But this should not be viewed as a negative - to the extent that migration is driven by market forces, it is likely to be economically beneficial. On the other hand, trying to halt of reverse market-driven migration will be very difficult (perhaps impossible) and economically damaging.

3) Chapter 4, focusing on the Government's aim to regulate migration to the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth, argues that it is clearly correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy.

4) The more general social impact of migration is very difficult to assess. Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. These in turn feed into wider economic benefits.

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, and there are a number of areas where policy could further enhance migrants' economic and social contribution in line with the Government's overall objectives.

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35110978)

Indeed not, though they are the only Government to have intentionally opened up the country to mass immigration as a form of social engineering. Immigration has long been an economic tool, the last Government is the first that I'm aware of to have used it as a social one.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35110978)

...It's kinda odd, the implication in the above post appears to be that people aren't allowed to think anything negative about immigration and should be concentrating on the positive. ...

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110986)

That being the case you'll find this, and the associated historical documentation - particulary the British Nationality Act - to be of interest.

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35111010)

Not at all, but many posters seem to start with the view "immigration is bad" and try to push the discussion downhill. A bit of balance would be welcome.

BTW, I was not referring to you when I wrote that. :angel:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35111033)

Yes - I do like this bit from the very first sentence on that page:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35111033)

Economy, economy, economy, as obviously our economy was a mess after the world war and we were in desperate need of bodies to help us rebuild a shattered nation and shattered economy. Nothing to do with the needs of society so I don't get your point there, I specifically referred to social engineering your link doesn't appear to do anything to counteract this so thank you for demonstrating my point.