Poland's Future Includes Fewer Poles, More Foreigners

well, they should get off them. It is a XXI century;)

PS. every time I am trying to say something smart I get shot down. I guess it goes with the territory:)

Well, who is benefitting, Foreigner 4? You blame other participants of this discussion for being imprecise, but are you better? You didn't answer to important historic contributions. You ask me when and in what contexts you talked about full houses and poverty to give the next provocative question about the topic leading us to believe that you are not a generalist. You know exactly the metaphor of the full house and your comment couldn't be unanswered. Think on the wisdom:

Each beginning of a war is a wrong word. Do you want to say: Freedom is important for all people over the world, but please limit her to those who I or we like. It is nonsense!

Like i stated, i'm more than willing to engage in that debate once you be so kind as to define what you meant by globalization with respect to immigration. you brought the term into the foray not me. so calm down.


Where did i blame anyone? i simply would like you to define the terms as you understand them so i can better recognize your position. calm down.


never said i was, just want you to define the term you've used. calm down.


Read my original post and you'll see i may very well be in complete agreement with you on that one. And it may still be the case today as well but is immigration the one size fits all quick fix for this? Some say "yes" others "no." We can debate this or not but please just answer my original question and for the love of pete, calm down.


No, i asked you that question as you took exception that i'd be using these terms within the framework of the discussion. I merely wanted to illustrate that i had used them as wealth distribution and population figures are related when looking at the effects of immigration within various countries. Now do you still take exception with my using these terms and if so why?

a generalist? *rolls eyes* generally speaking, no.


I gave you 2 yes or no questions, what was so hard about them? one was in reference to the population density of europe, more specifically united europe. The question can be answered quite easily. It can be verified and may help to shed some light on some perspectives. But maybe they weren't phrased properly, let's ask another forum member and if they're unclear then i'll explain and then you can answer them, ok?


How on god's green earth did you draw that conclusion? You must be referring to another member. Besides questioning the effects of ever increasing immigration does not by virtue lead to limiting freedoms for others (seriously wtf did you mean by that?).

And I'm still wondering why you'd be willing to marginalize people's concerns over increasing immigration.

1 straight question. and 1 query
And still no answers.
Well done *begins slow clap*

telefonitka
sorry, i read something into your reply that wasn't there. i thought you were trying to be gib. my bad and thank you to miranda for being the voice of reason.

One can ask with subtle tendencies. Later these people are surprised and ask the question: What have you read in my words? Because they don't answer.

Globalisation is the world's growth, nothing else. Since that movement people have been more aware of what happens on the other side of the world. It has lots of bad side efects, but you cannot turn it back.

Thank you, that's a start but can you explain it in reference to the discussion regarding immigration?

Your comment for reference:

trying to be a what?? in english please lol

ill forgive you .. as im being kind :)

Exactly, at this time, all white nations of Europe need to unite for each other, they have more important things to worry about and worse enemys to deal with. Skinhead nationalist's in Europe are becoming very unitized. They will lead the way.

Im voting you for u.s. president man!

Foreigner4, you do a good job of pointing out that there are many people who can type the word "Globalization;" but far fewer who can define it! "Globalization" is the mantra of the uninformed: "There's nothing anyone can do about it...It's just Globalization!"

Unfortunately the "Globotards" don't know much about politics and economics beyond that single magic-word. What we are talking about here, as Foreigner4 points out, is immigration, which is not the same thing.

I don't pretend to be a great Globotard economist and forecaster of the future, but I do know this: Immigration is not a force of nature. It is not like gravity, General Relativity, or the Law of Conservation of Mass. Neither is it out of our control, like the rain or the weather. There is no monsoon that dumps Somalis, Afghanis, Indians, and Chinese into Europe and we have to accept it because..."It's just Globalization!"

No. Immigration policy is man-made. It is decided by bureaucrats, police, and military whether or not the borders will be enforced. Look at Italy right now: They are proving that immigration is decided by men--politicians--as they decide to crackdown on criminal aliens by forcing them to leave.

I guess angry Italians are one force of nature stronger than "Globalization." So much for "Globalization."

Canadian border patrol.. Keeping out liberal Americans from sneaking into Canada.

Sorry, but globalisation is immigration. What are we talking about? The time of national economic agendas has just gone by...each country needs people who come as a stranger to translate the language webs made by globalisation.

Sorry, I recognised too late that people here still differ between two words of one phenomenon!

Well I'm not convinced that all of us do. I'll go as so far to say one is not the other. You see one did exist before the other, did it not?

I think you can do better. Define how globalization policies (i've included policies as i think it helps define things) affect immigration. I'm not taking the **** I just want to be clear on your logic of the argument you presented.

After that can you explain why you regard those who question recent, current and projected immigration levels in E.U. or western countries as "stupid?"

GareyBusey (best screen name award btw)

I get what you're saying and I think by and large we agree that specificity is required when discussing things (especially in the abstract). I also agree with your sentiments on lazy thinking (alas we all succumb to it from time to time), the kind which chalks up phenomena to a buzz word and fails to really question why things are moving in the direction they are. Last thing, you stated something that I feel (for Franek) bears (bears, get it?teehee) repeating:


I think that's a heavy statement right there (feel free to agree or disagree). Firstly because, I think, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who can argue against that and secondly because of the word in bold.

I.E. Who do bureaucrats work for- I mean do they really work for the people or is there another reality? Do bureaucrats have the average person's interests at heart when they make the policies they do?

The answer I have to those last 2 questions leads me to the conclusion that current immigration policies are not meant to be the tide that lifts all boats and the never were.

*edited addition* When i reread your statement i wonder if it in fact isn't a calculation of sorts, e.g. relativity. Seriously, if there is enough disproportion in the standards of living and accessible wealth it is quite easy to predict the outcomes, especially when we add a very irresponsible/liberal policy of intake from where the accessible wealth lies. food for thought

Franek-that sh*t cracked me up!

Yeah, that's a bit of a head scratcher, I mean I like his movies and he is pretty funny but he's not necessarily known as the most sane individual around. Then again, maybe it's perfect for this place.

You are too kind, Warsaw8. I nominate you for Poland's next Prime Minister. ;)

And regarding THE Gary Busey: He's a fine actor, despite some trouble with the law...

Haha.. Hey man.. Barbarosa is one of my favorites, Point Break too!

Peace

U R sooooooooooo funny. LOL

Question for the board .....why are so many suspended fron this board. Is it a non freedom of speech or a pickayun moderator!!!!!!

Your right about that. Italy voted in a new leader this year, he is considered a right wing facist, the 1st one in office since WW2. Italy has been literaly tossing their non italian immagrents out since early spring this year. Also many americanized things aswell. This was the pattern before WW2, can the rest of Europe follow again? Cmon Germany! We know you got it! SiegHeil

I think the main argument is flawed on on principle. People are now able to afford flights easier, people always can see the problems in their home and people like to travel. The UK has many immigrant workers. In this small town in Scotland I know Polish people, Slovakians, Australians, French Canadians, Kiwis, Scots, Sassenachs and the list goes on. I think the people that complain about these things are just being small minded. The world is getting smaller and more accessible. Last summer I went to New Zealand to work on a whim. Didn't think more than about 5 minutes about it.

I don't think it's a problem in the slightest, infact, if you ignore the bigots, it enhances our society in the world as a whole.

That's just my tuppence.

If one doesn't have a voice in their country of birth then where do they have a voice?

If people are complaining it's important to ask exactly what their complaints are and why. Perhaps they have valid concerns or perhaps they don't. I cannot see the logic in simply dismissing any and all rumblings as "bigoted" before one assesses the actual protest.

Cardno85, you experienced the positive side of immigration, does that mean everyone must have as well?

I feel as there is a bit of a false dichotomy being presented here that we must accept large scale immigration as only completely good or completely bad. Why must it always be either A or Z with so many people and no middle ground? (i'm sure osiol has a pun ready for this)

you sure don't understand a freedom of speech. If you go to another forum this one will be less moderated in comparison to others.

Excellent point, Foreigner4. You hit the nail on the head! People are so lazy and passive they accept the media's false dichotomy at face value: You are either a good person who welcomes an endless flood of 3rd-World refugees, or you are a bad person, a bigot, who does not want to be submerged by a tsunami of immigrants from a potpourri of failed nations.

Not all of us are as glib and carefree as Cardno85. Most of us like living in peaceful, safe, and homogeneous European nations, with a sense of pride and history.

Love the picture Franek, which is exactly why I wouldn't cycle through such areas. Crack out the Chevy, I ain't going through there with 2 wheels

I partly agree with you, but sometimes people make lots of words about nothing, too. So what is your agenda for those who cannot accept immigrants or have problems with them? To listen to them is one point, to solve their problems is another point. I give you my impression of your whole contributions here in this thread:

Step by step you put out the same questions with new words to let them unanswered. Foreigner4, you ask why all must be valued in black or white, yeah? You represent the pseudo-intellectual "as well as" view to make people think about specific points. That is okay. But you never think your points from the end. You like playing with fire like an arsonist. I repeat my position. Globalisation has been immigration from the beginning. There are people who name this long process civilisation. And there are people, foreigner4, whose names are programmes. Is it the record you like or is it the general topic of foreigners you like?

With all due respect, GodandBrown, YOU haven't answered anyones questions. You have simply mumbled: "Globalization...globalization..."


People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


Again, with all due respect, repeating your (incoherent) "position" is pretty much all you seem to do. You haven't answered or contradicted Foreigner4's points with any logic or coherency at all.

Don't take this personally, GodandBrown. Let's continue to discuss these issues.

Why must i have an agenda? Why can't I simply listen to what someone says then choose to either agree or disagree based on the merits of what they say?


because you haven't answerere any of them directly.

GareyBusey summed it up well and stated it more concisely and diplomatically than I would have.

Here’s a summary of my questions and points (if they aren’t thought through then you've no excuse for why it's taking you so long to come out with a coherent answer).

Pretty simple questions here:
Your statement-


My response-


You haven’t done this and that was my 2nd question, we're still waiting for something intelligible on the first one.

Pretty simple statements here:




Still waiting for you to give two "yes" or "no" answers, however you're right, i should not have written "immigrants" but should have written "3rd world immigrants." I guess i didn't think that one through, you had your chance to seize on that...


Why yes, yes I do, and you keep not answering them despite making the claim that aroused the question in the first place.
Case in point:


Once


Twice


3 times

I've only disagreed with you on one thing (your attempted definition of the "g" word), the rest have been questions.
*resumes slow clap*

I do admit mine is a slight knee jerk reaction to the tabloids here which is a constant flood of "Oh No, More Immigrants!"

I probably should have been more clear. I feel happy to welcome in people of all nationalities that are over to work, travel and enhance their lives and our countries. However obviously this is not everyone and I should really have clarified that.

I know personally I have lived all over the world either with my parents as a child and, as an adult I just generally dissapear off to countries as soon as I have saved enough for flights and visas. I feel the majority of immigration is a good thing. However a minority of people that don't want to work and think they can come to another country and not embrace their culture or contribute in any way to society ruin it for the majority because it creates the stories that tabloid's love and breeds racism and unacceptance.

That's what I think anyway.

If you all had to live in a country where are less chances, you would also search for better chances abroad. That was past,that is present, that will be future. Globalisation has always been there. There have always been people who could not cope with immigration as well as people who integrated strange people successfully. I do not marginalize people's concerns over increasing immigration, but I say clearly, you cannot profit from globalisation on the one hand, and close your country doors on the other hand. We have an interdependent world with interdependent partners. If you have any doubts of global profits, so go out, leave Britain and you will have new chances and better money. If you are not interested, stay at home.

You cannot realize an equal world. You can work for it, but there will always be differences. Along historic perspectives I say directly that Europe should not cry about too many strangers after having made so much money from imperialism.

Classic post, Foreigner4. You have performed just about THE most thorough, rational, and formal dissection-of-argument I have ever seen on this site!

You have far more patience than I do...;-)


Uh...no.


Really? Tell that to the Japanese, who are the world's #1 net-exporter. They have the most successful trade-economy in the world, and yet they let in the fewest immigrants of practically ANY nation on earth.


Uh...yeah, that's exactly our point. You CAN'T realize an equal world, which is why there will be an INFINITE flow of 3rd-World detritus to Europe's shores UNLESS we close our borders and enforce the law. We can still trade, enjoying all of the benefits of "Globalization," but without the cost of sacrificing our nations, our culture, and our quality-of-life.


Poland never colonized anyone. We don't owe non-Europeans a cent; not a job, a passport, an apartment, or a wife. Sorry.

Interesting and partly wrong. Look back at the 16th century. So Gary Busey you are Polish? Do you live in England? And what about you foreigner4?

Kind words Mr. Busey, thank you and I'm glad you appreciated it (at least someone did). If you notice, he hasn't answered the original questions and I feel he really has nothing to contribute until he does so.


That's a fair observation based on personal experience and I appreciate your diplomacy. I will make this observation: You are not a 3rd world immigrant and I feel you are able to approach being an immigrant with far more leverage than one who has no real alternatives, keep in mind you can work for a fair wage (presumably) than someone from eg Sudan.

What i saw in London was a lot of people living in squalid conditions and reaping absolute minimul pay before having a large share of it shystered out of them by various "organizations" providing "services and facilities."

These people were without leverage or representation because (my observations) business owners or company policy dictated a "you are very replaceable" attitude to them. Yes it was better than what they could reap financially at home but that is precisely the problem. Businesses know this and this gives them leverage.

The side effect of that is that indigenous workers then have to compete with that, (businesses know this too) so they too have become more replaceable. Not everyone in a given society is going to have specialized skills, that's a reality.

Another problem is accountabilty. What percentage of eg.UK is even able to vote federally, regionally or municipally? What percentage can't vote due to language barriers (like it or not many do not learn the language because it's easy not to and still get by) or legal status?

Bureacrates are becoming less accountable to a growing number of people within countries which have higher amounts of 3rd and developing world immigrants- that is not a healthy democratic situation.


false dichotomy.

I feel the exploitation of poorer countries' work force, labour laws and general lack of leverage would do more to alleviate inequalities than massive westward immigration.


You obviously did and i'm not sure why you're denying as much when the opposite is plain to see.



Excellent points!


Ahh nice attempt at a deflection and parry but to no avail:
I venture that neither of us are 3rd world or developing world immigrants i.e. we are anomallies, not the norm. I'd also say that, personally speaking, there are fewer immigrants coming from Canada to Poland than vice versa so I am not in anyway contributing to an imbalanced economy here. See how I answered your question. Yours will go unanswered until you do me the courtesy of answering mine.

Because less than 70 years ago you murdered around 6 million Jews, Poles, hungarians etc, etc..

Really, thats a no brainer sausage boy.