Multiculturalism has failed.

[kairparavel]

Nobody is saying you shouldn't live here. It's the citizenship that's the issue. And without trying to be snarky, it sounds to me like the only "advantage" the U.S. gets is that it gets to let someone vote on this country's future whose primary loyalty is to a difference country altogether. I don't really think that's much of an advantage. Now practically speaking, the U.S. and Australia are unlikely to have many divergent interests, but that's true of a distinct minority of other nations vis a vis the U.S.. At some point, just about everyone else lines up against us at some point. With whom does a person of dual citizenship side then?

Yeah. It's much better to have us immigrate here as non-resident and resident aliens, collect our taxes, benefit from our input to the local economy and utilize our skills and knowledge. But hooboy, don't let us vote.

Naturalization sure will topple this 'mericun house of cards...

[MercenaryChef]

Yeah. It's much better to have us immigrate here as non-resident and resident aliens, collect our taxes, benefit from our input to the local economy and utilize our skills and knowledge. But hooboy, don't let us vote.

Naturalization sure will topple this 'mericun house of cards...

fear not flow.

when this one gets citizenship she will only vote as i tell her to (the proper 'merican way, goddamnit).

and having voted in america as an american for the last 16 years i have never once seen an initiative or candidate that would suddenly have former or dual citizens of (insert nation here) wringing their fucking hands going 'ha, americans! here is our chance to further our motives by using american democracy against them! fuck, yeah!'

you are entertaining though.

[fitheach]

No, not really. Both Francophones and First Nations have issues, but they aren't related to multiculturalism.

Huh, tell that to my husbands family... I think you know not what you speak- despite being Canadian. :smoking:

[Shryke]

Huh, tell that to my husbands family... I think you know not what you speak- despite being Canadian. :smoking:

Uh, yeah, no.

The First Nations are mostly pissed about the whole "stealing their land and massacring their people" thing.

The French are after cultural protectionism, not multiculturalism.

[Bellis]

The French are after cultural protectionism, not multiculturalism.

maybe she's referring to this guy and his troubles with immigrants.

[fitheach]

Uh, yeah, no.

The First Nations are mostly pissed about the whole "stealing their land and massacring their people" thing.

The French are after cultural protectionism, not multiculturalism.

Like I said, you don't know what your talking aboot...

maybe she's referring to this guy and his troubles with immigrants.

This is from 1995, and nobody in Quebec cares about Parti Québécois anymore.

Typically, in my experience, the "multiculturalism problems" arise mostly with the third generation of these immigrants : young guys who were born on a caricatural version of their "home" culture because they cannot feel they belong and raised in the European country their parents/grandparents emigrated to, who fall back in the host country. Why they don't belong is a mix of xenophobia, poverty and failure of the integration policies (ie: they're parked in ghettos), so in turn, being rejected, they reject the host country's culture, even though they are more products of this culture than the most racist populist. When they go "back" to their "home" country, the culture clash is severe (I listened recently to the account of a guy whose father came from Mali, who tried to go "back to his country", it was interesting that he ended acknowledging that it wasn't his country, and sad that he felt he had no real country, even though his culture was on the whole French)

Sadly this could be said of African American men in the U.S., who's families have lived in this country for more generations than most European Americans. Sometimes it's not about not wanting to fit in, but not being allowed to.

[Artas]

Seriously, I'm still waiting to find out what exactly the US would gain from revoking my citizenship due to my horrible swedishness.

This whole issue has become sadly relevant to my country. Last week, the new Dutch government was installed. Two days later, it turned out that one of the secretaries of state was born in Sweden and still has a Swedish passport. The question now is: does she have to give it up?

According to Wilders, the answer is yes. Either that or resign.

I loath this current of xenophobia running wild. Come on, why is this even an issue? Do we really think this woman's "horrible Swedishness" will prompt her to undermine the Dutch government??

Does that even sound sane?

[Horza]

Oh come on - is your Low Country memory so addled by post-marxist cultural revisionism and hash that you have forgotten the terrible burning ambition of Sweden? Do Dutch hearts no long quail at the name Gustav Adolph?

Oh sure, Sweden's been quiet for a couple of hundred years, content to churn out ridiculous technothrillers and Black Metal but lurking within each sky blue and gold blood pumping heart is an unconquerable, protean desire to rule Northern European commerce with an iron fist. The iron fist of a bear. Ironbearfist.

[Artas]

Do Dutch hearts no long quail at the name Gustav Adolph?

Not particularly, no. :P

[Hereward]

Oh sure, Sweden's been quiet for a couple of hundred years, content to churn out ridiculous technothrillers and Black Metal but lurking within each sky blue and gold blood pumping heart is an unconquerable, protean desire to rule Northern European commerce with an iron fist. The iron fist of a bear. Ironbearfist.

Favourite paragraph of the year!

+1

[MinDonner]

If I was a Swede, I would totally make "Ironbearfist" my member title. *nods*

[Spastic Plastic]

I find this whole "I don't agree with dual citizenship" debate ridiculous and nationalistic. People aren't the property of their governments, FLOW.

Oh sure, Sweden's been quiet for a couple of hundred years, content to churn out ridiculous technothrillers and Black Metal but lurking within each sky blue and gold blood pumping heart is an unconquerable, protean desire to rule Northern European commerce with an iron fist. The iron fist of a bear. Ironbearfist.

Don't forget IKEA, drunk tourists and weirdly named dance mixes like "The one who doesn't dance is a rapist".

But, yes. You should beware of the mailed fist of Swedish justice.

[Zoë Sumra]

I think it's interesting that Europe - a continent comprised of many smaller countries with finely tuned and emphasized cultural differences - would strive to accept multiculturalism at all. France is not apologetic in the slightest about it's drive to maintain the "frenchness" of french culture. So why did this even start? If the European Union were really the controlling governmental entity and each country was more like a regional state, or something I can see it, but cultural distinctions are what mostly make the separate European countries separate countries, no?

I'd hazard a guess that it's something to do with wanting to avoid any more of the ethnic cleansing that was rampant in these parts for, oh, a thousand odd years.

[sToNED_CAT]

I loath this current of xenophobia running wild. Come on, why is this even an issue? Do we really think this woman's "horrible Swedishness" will prompt her to undermine the Dutch government??

Of course it is an issue. Person with dual citizenship should never be allowed to be part of goverment. What if there's some disagreement between Netherlands and Sweden? I don't mean some Swedish invasion but some economic issues or something like that. Of course it is unlikely but it might happen. Which side would she choose?

[Artas]

Of course it is an issue. Person with dual citizenship should never be allowed to be part of goverment.

But it was never an issue until the last government, when two secretaries of state turned out to have Maroccan passports (which you can't give up even if you want to, BTW; the Maroccan government does not allow its citizens to renounce their nationality). Then, suddenly, it was a problem. Or, rather, Geert Wilders and his ilk made it into a problem, questioning their loyalty.

That's how this thing started: a populist rightwing attempt to keep the evul muslims from infiltrating our government. The current issue with the Swedish secretary of state is just the fallout; no one would have batted an eye at her having a Swedish passport if we hadn't had the Maroccan government members a few years ago. In fact, nobody cares even now, except for the sake of consistency.

Exactly the same arguments were used against Catholics a hundred years ago: they have to obey the pope, their first loyalty lies with the Church, not with the country, so they cannot be trusted to govern. Now, it's muslims who are painted as the suspects, and the discourse is just as vile.

What if there's some disagreement between Netherlands and Sweden? I don't mean some Swedish invasion but some economic issues or something like that. Of course it is unlikely but it might happen. Which side would she choose?

She would be expected to act in the best interests of the Netherlands, of course, while also upholding the international treaties we signed, since that is what she promised when she was sworn in. Why would an oath not be enough?

Moreover, parliament can vote for a motion of distrust and send her home anytime she is suspected of having dubious motives. There really is no issue here, except prejudice and xenophobia. And unfortunately, we're seeing more and more of those in the Netherlands.

ETA: Strictly speaking, a government member is not obliged to leave her post after she has received a motion of distrust. In practice, though, her position is so damaged that she has little choice.

[TerraPrime]

If I was a Swede, I would totally make "Ironbearfist" my member title. *nods*

But you would never be a Swede, because, who can trust someone like you whose primary loyalty would be to the Richard Rahl?

[Guest Raidne]

Because, AS I SAID, it is the only group with which I have any kind of detailed personal experience. I understand the argument that they may not be representative, and as I also said, it really doesn't matter. The proof is in the economies and social structures that result from those cultures.

For the third or fourth time: it is the only group with which I have any kind of detailed personal experience, which came about during a long trial in Texas. I hesitated even to mention it because my position would be the same regardless of what I learned during that trial. At most, take it as a hypothesis of a possible cultural difference that may or may not be true. As I've said repeatedly, what matters to me are the economies and societies that result from that culture.

You have me at a disadvantage here because I have no idea what your worldview is at all, so I'll toss your own question back at you. Do you think there are any significant cultural differences between Mexican and U.S. culture?

I think it's interesting that Europe - a continent comprised of many smaller countries with finely tuned and emphasized cultural differences - would strive to accept multiculturalism at all. France is not apologetic in the slightest about it's drive to maintain the "frenchness" of french culture. So why did this even start? If the European Union were really the controlling governmental entity and each country was more like a regional state, or something I can see it, but cultural distinctions are what mostly make the separate European countries separate countries, no?

But really there is just an inherent conflict between tolerance and striving to maintain the same cultural values, because sometimes the imported values will conflict.

Oh, bullshit. I'm not being wishy-washy. I'm just not going to be pigeonholed into an overly-specific position that isn't relevant to my position. I don't need to be able to describe each and every sub-flavor I taste in a dish to know I don't like it. What I have stated is that I believe that countries are primarily a product of their culture, that when I look south of the border I see a country that is dysfunctional in many ways compared to the U.S.. The political system, crime, the economy...I much prefer what we have to what they have. Therefore, I do not want the culture that produced that society to gain a significant foothold in this country. Why is there a need to get more specific than that, other than you want to create an argument?

If you want more specifics, there are plenty of articles out there about cultural differences between the U.S. and Mexico, particularly in the business world, written by people from both sides of the border.

Could you go back two pages and correct your quotes here so I don't have to observe the perversity of Eloisa responding to my thoughts as if they were yours? Also, Eloisa, can you please elaborate? I'm aware of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, religious "cleansing" in Western Europe, anti-Semitism, and anti-Arab sentiment during the reconquista, etc., but that's about it.

Thanks.

In other news, you are just begging the question. To say that you mentioned migrant laborers because they are the only Mexicans you have any experience with ( :wacko: were you really in Texas? You may just have not noticed that the people not dressed like day laborers are also of Mexican heritage...) answers nothing.

Let me try again: Why did you put forth an opinion at all when you only have experience with one small subset of people from Mexico, specifically those who probably have no interest in becoming U.S. citizens, in order to add your thoughts to a debate on what citizens of Mexican heritage bring to American culture?

There is no good answer, really. It was a mistake to do so, it's totally not relevant at all in any rational way, and you should say as much. If you don't have any real experience with Mexican nationals seeking U.S. citizenship or Mexican-American citizens, then why don't you just shut up about what their culture is supposedly like? Wouldn't that be the rational thing to do?

Also, I stated the reason for specifying cultural differences. It is the one thing I said that you did not quote. For my part, here are the cultural similarities and differences between the United States and Mexico:

Differences:

Langauge (Spanish + 60+ native languages)

National holidays

Catholicism (syncretic) vs. Protestantism (exclusive)

Family unit (extended vs. nuclear)

Strong ancient heritage (ties to ancient civilization/world class ancient architecture vs. total break with any civilization native to the land)

Similarities:

Tolerance for large income disparity/controlling upper class

Capitalist

Separation of church and state

Tradition of art as political speech

Heavy European influence in the arts and philosophy

Fusion cuisines

Cinema (some of the best-loved directors in Hollywood are Mexican)

Also you are aware that you are saying "I don't need to be able to describe each and every sub-flavor I taste in a dish to know I don't like it" where "dish" equals the entire culture of a group of human beings living in another country, right? :ack:

[Lummel]

I find this whole "I don't agree with dual citizenship" debate ridiculous and nationalistic. People aren't the property of their governments, FLOW.

Don't forget IKEA, drunk tourists and weirdly named dance mixes like "The one who doesn't dance is a rapist".

But, yes. You should beware of the mailed fist of Swedish justice.

So IKEA is Sweden's attempt to sweep away the multi-cultural diversity of Europe, no the world, and replace it with the protestant self denying spirit of flat pack furniture? So all those demi-swedish dual passport holders are sleeper agents working to win planning permission to allow the construction of new IKEA stores whereever the eye can see? Are they activited by the smell of swedish meatballs or faintist whisper of ABBA?

It all makes some disturbing kind of sense.

[Galactus]

Oh come on - is your Low Country memory so addled by post-marxist cultural revisionism and hash that you have forgotten the terrible burning ambition of Sweden? Do Dutch hearts no long quail at the name Gustav Adolph?

Why would the dutch fear him?

They PAID him. We swedes, however, has not forgotten the betrayal of our paymasters! *shakes fist at the perfidious dutch*

[Lord O' Bones]

It has/will fail; it has/will succeed. And in every way in between.

As always, a matter of time, specific cultures, policy, and random factors.

What a strange thread.