Frankfurt First German City Where Natives are Minority

[Preacher]

The funny thing here is, let's compare this to US cities.

New York has a 0.6% Native population
Chicago has a 0.5% Native population
LA has a 0.5% Native population

And Frankfurt has 48.8% Native population and somehow this is a problem.

Where do you get those stats from? Am I missing the joke?

It seems that she (he) means those who belong to the Native Americans.
Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

No one said Frigid was smart. 1. Natives would be WHITE PEOPLE since 1. Europeans found America first 2. White people instituted the first government etc in America. Therefore WE are the natives.

Yeah, just go off and attack people.... you might think it makes your argument.

But no, your argument doesn't make much sense.

Europeans "found America first", er... what the fuck? Oh, yeah, you hang out with the Stormfront gang who have spent ages trying to prove that white people were in the Americas before the people who were already there when white people turned up, yeah, go figure.....

Facts make my argument snowflake.I bet you are ANOTHER one that just laughs and ignores the facts because some cultural marxist professor told you his "facts". Google can provide all the facts you want,you don't need to believe me. The scientists agree on the facts that Europeans were here FIRST.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, the Irish, the Germans, the Mexicans, all of these aren't natives, but the blacks are, in the US?

It is hard to say about the US in this context. The US is the state of immigrants from the very beginning. And all nations mentioned by you can be considered as natives, including the blacks (though it is not a nation as far as I am aware).

It's a nation of migrants because the migrants brought the idea of nationhood upon the land, and then decide that it is nationhood that makes someone native. Whereas the native peoples think otherwise.

Now, if you're going to judge that German born Turks aren't natives, then American born Irish, English etc aren't natives in the US>

Here's the problem, people trying to get political capital out of scaring people about Muslims taking over, will present an article showing how shocking it is that Frankfurt is less than 50% "native" and then point out the Turks, at 16%, are the largest minority group, and wham, you have a huge reason to hate Muslims. But then if you go to the US, oh, we have to compartmentalize all of this so the US is different, so it's all about how many WHITE PEOPLE there are in America, because using Natives is different.

The BNP in the UK (and other far right groups as the BNP has splintered and gone to pot), and other far right groups in Europe will talk about the "indigenous populations", and they're real big pals with the far right groups in South Africa and the US who don't talk about "indigenous populations", because they know they can't. Each group will use what is convenient for them, but support groups who are the opposite of what they find convenient.

Europe throughout centuries has been a place where white, overwhelmingly Christian nations live. These nations were creating their states, the form of these states constantly changed. But what were the remarkable points of them? They were white, Christian, with strong nationalistic views. Now the situation is dramatically changing – many Europeans see many people from different cultures which live in their countries, the number of these newcomers is growing, and not all of them want to integrate in European society, moreover – some of them want their habits and customs to be incorporated by this society. Of course, some Europeans don’t want this to happen and want ‘the old good times’ to be returned.

I don’t know what is better – national white European states or diversity in the current form. Yes, no one has harmed the white Christian people more than white Christian people. But I don’t believe in multiculturalism.

I hope I made my point clear.

Yes, you've made your point clear and I'm not sure I totally agree with you.

I'm certainly not against other peoples, but also think that nationals should try and preserve a little of their own identity. The problem is, the biggest killer of identity isn't multiculturalism, it's modernity. Go to a place like England, every village had its own little festival, celebrated in a certain way, and most of these have died out as the villages have become suburbs for the towns nearby. The old houses are for the rich, newer houses have been built, and it doesn't even need a single black or asian person to be nearby.

Rural areas are priceless storehouse of local habits, folklore, and the like. And urbanization wipes off this from the face of earth, yes. But I am not about this. I am talking about the things which have already become an integral part of the Western society – religious freedom, equality of women, secular form of the rule, freedom of speech and the press, and so on. Some ethnic and religious groups want to reverse this because these things contradict their beliefs. They must decide either they accept all of that and integrate or leave the countries. This should be applied even to those who were born in these countries and have their citizenship. I understand that this idea can’t be accomplished overnight and requires a lot of efforts and can have bad consequences in the short term.

Well, the problem in the UK is that there isn't a written Constitution. The Constitution can be changed quite easily. The US is a little more different than that.

HOWEVER, the problem here is that those people who oppose Muslims the most are willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the rule of law in order to defeat the people who you say are threatening those things. And these people are often white.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The funny thing here is, let's compare this to US cities.

New York has a 0.6% Native population
Chicago has a 0.5% Native population
LA has a 0.5% Native population

And Frankfurt has 48.8% Native population and somehow this is a problem.

Where do you get those stats from? Am I missing the joke?

It seems that she (he) means those who belong to the Native Americans.
Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Are Native Americans not the native people of the country?

In Frankfurt there will be lots of German Turks, they were born in the country, their parents were born in the country, but they're not considered native, so how can a white American be considered native in the USA?

Were German-born Turks not considered native in the report? It is in German and the best I can do with that is hope that a translation program doesn't screw up too badly.

The article specifically said that Turks were the largest non-native group at 13%.

In German it merely states that the Turks are the largest group.

"Die größte Gruppe sind weiterhin Türkinnen und Türken."

The biggest group are the Turkish (women and men).

 

[frigidweirdo]

The funny thing here is, let's compare this to US cities.

New York has a 0.6% Native population
Chicago has a 0.5% Native population
LA has a 0.5% Native population

And Frankfurt has 48.8% Native population and somehow this is a problem.

Where do you get those stats from? Am I missing the joke?

It seems that she (he) means those who belong to the Native Americans.
Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

No one said Frigid was smart. 1. Natives would be WHITE PEOPLE since 1. Europeans found America first 2. White people instituted the first government etc in America. Therefore WE are the natives.

And your response is.... to click the funny button. And you said "No one said Frigid was smart." Hmmm

 

[frigidweirdo]

The funny thing here is, let's compare this to US cities.

New York has a 0.6% Native population
Chicago has a 0.5% Native population
LA has a 0.5% Native population

And Frankfurt has 48.8% Native population and somehow this is a problem.

Where do you get those stats from? Am I missing the joke?

It seems that she (he) means those who belong to the Native Americans.
Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

No one said Frigid was smart. 1. Natives would be WHITE PEOPLE since 1. Europeans found America first 2. White people instituted the first government etc in America. Therefore WE are the natives.

Yeah, just go off and attack people.... you might think it makes your argument.

But no, your argument doesn't make much sense.

Europeans "found America first", er... what the fuck? Oh, yeah, you hang out with the Stormfront gang who have spent ages trying to prove that white people were in the Americas before the people who were already there when white people turned up, yeah, go figure.....

Facts make my argument snowflake.I bet you are ANOTHER one that just laughs and ignores the facts because some cultural marxist professor told you his "facts". Google can provide all the facts you want,you don't need to believe me. The scientists agree on the facts that Europeans were here FIRST.

Oh, more insults.....

 

[Montrovant]

The funny thing here is, let's compare this to US cities.

New York has a 0.6% Native population
Chicago has a 0.5% Native population
LA has a 0.5% Native population

And Frankfurt has 48.8% Native population and somehow this is a problem.

Where do you get those stats from? Am I missing the joke?

It seems that she (he) means those who belong to the Native Americans.
Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Are Native Americans not the native people of the country?

In Frankfurt there will be lots of German Turks, they were born in the country, their parents were born in the country, but they're not considered native, so how can a white American be considered native in the USA?

Were German-born Turks not considered native in the report? It is in German and the best I can do with that is hope that a translation program doesn't screw up too badly.

The article specifically said that Turks were the largest non-native group at 13%.

In German it merely states that the Turks are the largest group.

"Die größte Gruppe sind weiterhin Türkinnen und Türken."

The biggest group are the Turkish (women and men).

I think the report may have been about those not born in Germany. The article from the OP, at least, talks about people not born in Germany.

 

[theliq]

For the first time, more than half of Frankfurt residents now have a migrant background, according to official data from the city’s Office of Statistics and Elections.

So there you have it....Turks are the city’s largest non-German minority.


Frankfurt Becomes First German City Where Natives Are Minority

I bet the Native Americans think the same about New York,just sayin...steve

So, do you think that the germans should consider what happened to the Indians?

Na

 

[Correll]

For the first time, more than half of Frankfurt residents now have a migrant background, according to official data from the city’s Office of Statistics and Elections.

So there you have it....Turks are the city’s largest non-German minority.


Frankfurt Becomes First German City Where Natives Are Minority

I bet the Native Americans think the same about New York,just sayin...steve

So, do you think that the germans should consider what happened to the Indians?

Na

Er, so what's your point then?

Are you saying that you support what happened to the Indians?

 

[Challenger]

Oh good grief, another "chicken little- the sky is falling" story from the political right wing Breibart hate site. People Frankfurt am Main is a major financial centre so it's highly likely to attract people from all over the World 28.6% of the inhabitants are not German...wow, that means they're as likely to be French, British, Italian, Polish, etc, etc. and 22.6% are "German inhabitants with a migration background" whoopy do, If they were ALL Muslim immigrants, which they're probably not, they are still German citizens and still a minority of the population. What a stupid, fear-mongering thread.

 

[ESay]

It is hard to say about the US in this context. The US is the state of immigrants from the very beginning. And all nations mentioned by you can be considered as natives, including the blacks (though it is not a nation as far as I am aware).

It's a nation of migrants because the migrants brought the idea of nationhood upon the land, and then decide that it is nationhood that makes someone native. Whereas the native peoples think otherwise.

Now, if you're going to judge that German born Turks aren't natives, then American born Irish, English etc aren't natives in the US>

Here's the problem, people trying to get political capital out of scaring people about Muslims taking over, will present an article showing how shocking it is that Frankfurt is less than 50% "native" and then point out the Turks, at 16%, are the largest minority group, and wham, you have a huge reason to hate Muslims. But then if you go to the US, oh, we have to compartmentalize all of this so the US is different, so it's all about how many WHITE PEOPLE there are in America, because using Natives is different.

The BNP in the UK (and other far right groups as the BNP has splintered and gone to pot), and other far right groups in Europe will talk about the "indigenous populations", and they're real big pals with the far right groups in South Africa and the US who don't talk about "indigenous populations", because they know they can't. Each group will use what is convenient for them, but support groups who are the opposite of what they find convenient.

Europe throughout centuries has been a place where white, overwhelmingly Christian nations live. These nations were creating their states, the form of these states constantly changed. But what were the remarkable points of them? They were white, Christian, with strong nationalistic views. Now the situation is dramatically changing – many Europeans see many people from different cultures which live in their countries, the number of these newcomers is growing, and not all of them want to integrate in European society, moreover – some of them want their habits and customs to be incorporated by this society. Of course, some Europeans don’t want this to happen and want ‘the old good times’ to be returned.

I don’t know what is better – national white European states or diversity in the current form. Yes, no one has harmed the white Christian people more than white Christian people. But I don’t believe in multiculturalism.

I hope I made my point clear.

Yes, you've made your point clear and I'm not sure I totally agree with you.

I'm certainly not against other peoples, but also think that nationals should try and preserve a little of their own identity. The problem is, the biggest killer of identity isn't multiculturalism, it's modernity. Go to a place like England, every village had its own little festival, celebrated in a certain way, and most of these have died out as the villages have become suburbs for the towns nearby. The old houses are for the rich, newer houses have been built, and it doesn't even need a single black or asian person to be nearby.

Rural areas are priceless storehouse of local habits, folklore, and the like. And urbanization wipes off this from the face of earth, yes. But I am not about this. I am talking about the things which have already become an integral part of the Western society – religious freedom, equality of women, secular form of the rule, freedom of speech and the press, and so on. Some ethnic and religious groups want to reverse this because these things contradict their beliefs. They must decide either they accept all of that and integrate or leave the countries. This should be applied even to those who were born in these countries and have their citizenship. I understand that this idea can’t be accomplished overnight and requires a lot of efforts and can have bad consequences in the short term.

Well, the problem in the UK is that there isn't a written Constitution. The Constitution can be changed quite easily. The US is a little more different than that.

HOWEVER, the problem here is that those people who oppose Muslims the most are willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the rule of law in order to defeat the people who you say are threatening those things. And these people are often white.

Yes, you have a point. There needs to be find the golden mean (if it is ever possible). In the first turn, I think that granting permanent residents and citizenship en masse for migrants has been a huge mistake for European countries. And everything you will do to correct this mistake will have negative consequences in the short run.

For me Japan is an example of sound nationalism in this matter.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a nation of migrants because the migrants brought the idea of nationhood upon the land, and then decide that it is nationhood that makes someone native. Whereas the native peoples think otherwise.

Now, if you're going to judge that German born Turks aren't natives, then American born Irish, English etc aren't natives in the US>

Here's the problem, people trying to get political capital out of scaring people about Muslims taking over, will present an article showing how shocking it is that Frankfurt is less than 50% "native" and then point out the Turks, at 16%, are the largest minority group, and wham, you have a huge reason to hate Muslims. But then if you go to the US, oh, we have to compartmentalize all of this so the US is different, so it's all about how many WHITE PEOPLE there are in America, because using Natives is different.

The BNP in the UK (and other far right groups as the BNP has splintered and gone to pot), and other far right groups in Europe will talk about the "indigenous populations", and they're real big pals with the far right groups in South Africa and the US who don't talk about "indigenous populations", because they know they can't. Each group will use what is convenient for them, but support groups who are the opposite of what they find convenient.

Europe throughout centuries has been a place where white, overwhelmingly Christian nations live. These nations were creating their states, the form of these states constantly changed. But what were the remarkable points of them? They were white, Christian, with strong nationalistic views. Now the situation is dramatically changing – many Europeans see many people from different cultures which live in their countries, the number of these newcomers is growing, and not all of them want to integrate in European society, moreover – some of them want their habits and customs to be incorporated by this society. Of course, some Europeans don’t want this to happen and want ‘the old good times’ to be returned.

I don’t know what is better – national white European states or diversity in the current form. Yes, no one has harmed the white Christian people more than white Christian people. But I don’t believe in multiculturalism.

I hope I made my point clear.

Yes, you've made your point clear and I'm not sure I totally agree with you.

I'm certainly not against other peoples, but also think that nationals should try and preserve a little of their own identity. The problem is, the biggest killer of identity isn't multiculturalism, it's modernity. Go to a place like England, every village had its own little festival, celebrated in a certain way, and most of these have died out as the villages have become suburbs for the towns nearby. The old houses are for the rich, newer houses have been built, and it doesn't even need a single black or asian person to be nearby.

Rural areas are priceless storehouse of local habits, folklore, and the like. And urbanization wipes off this from the face of earth, yes. But I am not about this. I am talking about the things which have already become an integral part of the Western society – religious freedom, equality of women, secular form of the rule, freedom of speech and the press, and so on. Some ethnic and religious groups want to reverse this because these things contradict their beliefs. They must decide either they accept all of that and integrate or leave the countries. This should be applied even to those who were born in these countries and have their citizenship. I understand that this idea can’t be accomplished overnight and requires a lot of efforts and can have bad consequences in the short term.

Well, the problem in the UK is that there isn't a written Constitution. The Constitution can be changed quite easily. The US is a little more different than that.

HOWEVER, the problem here is that those people who oppose Muslims the most are willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the rule of law in order to defeat the people who you say are threatening those things. And these people are often white.

Yes, you have a point. There needs to be find the golden mean (if it is ever possible). In the first turn, I think that granting permanent residents and citizenship en masse for migrants has been a huge mistake for European countries. And everything you will do to correct this mistake will have negative consequences in the short run.

For me Japan is an example of sound nationalism in this matter.

But there won't be a golden mean. Why? Because compartmentalization is one of the tactics used by people who want to present things with their own bias added on to it. It's about manipulating the people.

Yes, mass immigration isn't the best of ideas, the problem is you get people on all sides of the political spectrum who don't really understand reality. They give themselves an "-ism" and then can't see past their own "-ism". Or people who are looking at screwing others over to advance themselves.

 

[ESay]

Europe throughout centuries has been a place where white, overwhelmingly Christian nations live. These nations were creating their states, the form of these states constantly changed. But what were the remarkable points of them? They were white, Christian, with strong nationalistic views. Now the situation is dramatically changing – many Europeans see many people from different cultures which live in their countries, the number of these newcomers is growing, and not all of them want to integrate in European society, moreover – some of them want their habits and customs to be incorporated by this society. Of course, some Europeans don’t want this to happen and want ‘the old good times’ to be returned.

I don’t know what is better – national white European states or diversity in the current form. Yes, no one has harmed the white Christian people more than white Christian people. But I don’t believe in multiculturalism.

I hope I made my point clear.

Yes, you've made your point clear and I'm not sure I totally agree with you.

I'm certainly not against other peoples, but also think that nationals should try and preserve a little of their own identity. The problem is, the biggest killer of identity isn't multiculturalism, it's modernity. Go to a place like England, every village had its own little festival, celebrated in a certain way, and most of these have died out as the villages have become suburbs for the towns nearby. The old houses are for the rich, newer houses have been built, and it doesn't even need a single black or asian person to be nearby.

Rural areas are priceless storehouse of local habits, folklore, and the like. And urbanization wipes off this from the face of earth, yes. But I am not about this. I am talking about the things which have already become an integral part of the Western society – religious freedom, equality of women, secular form of the rule, freedom of speech and the press, and so on. Some ethnic and religious groups want to reverse this because these things contradict their beliefs. They must decide either they accept all of that and integrate or leave the countries. This should be applied even to those who were born in these countries and have their citizenship. I understand that this idea can’t be accomplished overnight and requires a lot of efforts and can have bad consequences in the short term.

Well, the problem in the UK is that there isn't a written Constitution. The Constitution can be changed quite easily. The US is a little more different than that.

HOWEVER, the problem here is that those people who oppose Muslims the most are willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the rule of law in order to defeat the people who you say are threatening those things. And these people are often white.

Yes, you have a point. There needs to be find the golden mean (if it is ever possible). In the first turn, I think that granting permanent residents and citizenship en masse for migrants has been a huge mistake for European countries. And everything you will do to correct this mistake will have negative consequences in the short run.

For me Japan is an example of sound nationalism in this matter.

But there won't be a golden mean. Why? Because compartmentalization is one of the tactics used by people who want to present things with their own bias added on to it. It's about manipulating the people.

Yes, mass immigration isn't the best of ideas, the problem is you get people on all sides of the political spectrum who don't really understand reality. They give themselves an "-ism" and then can't see past their own "-ism". Or people who are looking at screwing others over to advance themselves.

Okay, what can be done in this case? Imagine that you a prime minister of the UK, for example. What would you do to resolve the immigrant issue?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, you've made your point clear and I'm not sure I totally agree with you.

I'm certainly not against other peoples, but also think that nationals should try and preserve a little of their own identity. The problem is, the biggest killer of identity isn't multiculturalism, it's modernity. Go to a place like England, every village had its own little festival, celebrated in a certain way, and most of these have died out as the villages have become suburbs for the towns nearby. The old houses are for the rich, newer houses have been built, and it doesn't even need a single black or asian person to be nearby.

Rural areas are priceless storehouse of local habits, folklore, and the like. And urbanization wipes off this from the face of earth, yes. But I am not about this. I am talking about the things which have already become an integral part of the Western society – religious freedom, equality of women, secular form of the rule, freedom of speech and the press, and so on. Some ethnic and religious groups want to reverse this because these things contradict their beliefs. They must decide either they accept all of that and integrate or leave the countries. This should be applied even to those who were born in these countries and have their citizenship. I understand that this idea can’t be accomplished overnight and requires a lot of efforts and can have bad consequences in the short term.

Well, the problem in the UK is that there isn't a written Constitution. The Constitution can be changed quite easily. The US is a little more different than that.

HOWEVER, the problem here is that those people who oppose Muslims the most are willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the rule of law in order to defeat the people who you say are threatening those things. And these people are often white.

Yes, you have a point. There needs to be find the golden mean (if it is ever possible). In the first turn, I think that granting permanent residents and citizenship en masse for migrants has been a huge mistake for European countries. And everything you will do to correct this mistake will have negative consequences in the short run.

For me Japan is an example of sound nationalism in this matter.

But there won't be a golden mean. Why? Because compartmentalization is one of the tactics used by people who want to present things with their own bias added on to it. It's about manipulating the people.

Yes, mass immigration isn't the best of ideas, the problem is you get people on all sides of the political spectrum who don't really understand reality. They give themselves an "-ism" and then can't see past their own "-ism". Or people who are looking at screwing others over to advance themselves.

Okay, what can be done in this case? Imagine that you a prime minister of the UK, for example. What would you do to resolve the immigrant issue?

Firstly make permanent immigration to the UK beneficial for the UK. What does the UK need and want? Skilled worked. Okay, so, for permanent immigration you have to show that you have something the UK needs.
For temporary immigration, it has to be based around having a visa which is connected to having a job. You can have one bank account which will be frozen the minute your visa runs out, companies will have to cancel visas within a certain period of time after their employee has left employment. To get the visa in the first place they have to show that they need this worker and that realistically they aren't going to get a British person to do it.

Welfare payments will not be made to anyone who hasn't worked in the system for five years. That includes kids who have just left school, unless of course they're willing to partake in further education to get themselves skills, and they have to meet all the requirements and any crime committed by them will see them lose everything they get.

Things like that.

 

[ESay]

Rural areas are priceless storehouse of local habits, folklore, and the like. And urbanization wipes off this from the face of earth, yes. But I am not about this. I am talking about the things which have already become an integral part of the Western society – religious freedom, equality of women, secular form of the rule, freedom of speech and the press, and so on. Some ethnic and religious groups want to reverse this because these things contradict their beliefs. They must decide either they accept all of that and integrate or leave the countries. This should be applied even to those who were born in these countries and have their citizenship. I understand that this idea can’t be accomplished overnight and requires a lot of efforts and can have bad consequences in the short term.

Well, the problem in the UK is that there isn't a written Constitution. The Constitution can be changed quite easily. The US is a little more different than that.

HOWEVER, the problem here is that those people who oppose Muslims the most are willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the rule of law in order to defeat the people who you say are threatening those things. And these people are often white.

Yes, you have a point. There needs to be find the golden mean (if it is ever possible). In the first turn, I think that granting permanent residents and citizenship en masse for migrants has been a huge mistake for European countries. And everything you will do to correct this mistake will have negative consequences in the short run.

For me Japan is an example of sound nationalism in this matter.

But there won't be a golden mean. Why? Because compartmentalization is one of the tactics used by people who want to present things with their own bias added on to it. It's about manipulating the people.

Yes, mass immigration isn't the best of ideas, the problem is you get people on all sides of the political spectrum who don't really understand reality. They give themselves an "-ism" and then can't see past their own "-ism". Or people who are looking at screwing others over to advance themselves.

Okay, what can be done in this case? Imagine that you a prime minister of the UK, for example. What would you do to resolve the immigrant issue?

Firstly make permanent immigration to the UK beneficial for the UK. What does the UK need and want? Skilled worked. Okay, so, for permanent immigration you have to show that you have something the UK needs.
For temporary immigration, it has to be based around having a visa which is connected to having a job. You can have one bank account which will be frozen the minute your visa runs out, companies will have to cancel visas within a certain period of time after their employee has left employment. To get the visa in the first place they have to show that they need this worker and that realistically they aren't going to get a British person to do it.

Welfare payments will not be made to anyone who hasn't worked in the system for five years. That includes kids who have just left school, unless of course they're willing to partake in further education to get themselves skills, and they have to meet all the requirements and any crime committed by them will see them lose everything they get.

Things like that.

I agree with you on everything you wrote. But it seems I didn’t correctly ask what I wanted to hear. I meant what you would do with those who already are in the UK and have its citizenship. Those who don’t want to leave, have different cultural background, and don’t want to integrate.

BTW, if I am not mistaken in one of the threads you once wrote that you had been in many countries during you lifetime. Have you ever been to South Africa? And if yes how many times and when?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem in the UK is that there isn't a written Constitution. The Constitution can be changed quite easily. The US is a little more different than that.

HOWEVER, the problem here is that those people who oppose Muslims the most are willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the rule of law in order to defeat the people who you say are threatening those things. And these people are often white.

Yes, you have a point. There needs to be find the golden mean (if it is ever possible). In the first turn, I think that granting permanent residents and citizenship en masse for migrants has been a huge mistake for European countries. And everything you will do to correct this mistake will have negative consequences in the short run.

For me Japan is an example of sound nationalism in this matter.

But there won't be a golden mean. Why? Because compartmentalization is one of the tactics used by people who want to present things with their own bias added on to it. It's about manipulating the people.

Yes, mass immigration isn't the best of ideas, the problem is you get people on all sides of the political spectrum who don't really understand reality. They give themselves an "-ism" and then can't see past their own "-ism". Or people who are looking at screwing others over to advance themselves.

Okay, what can be done in this case? Imagine that you a prime minister of the UK, for example. What would you do to resolve the immigrant issue?

Firstly make permanent immigration to the UK beneficial for the UK. What does the UK need and want? Skilled worked. Okay, so, for permanent immigration you have to show that you have something the UK needs.
For temporary immigration, it has to be based around having a visa which is connected to having a job. You can have one bank account which will be frozen the minute your visa runs out, companies will have to cancel visas within a certain period of time after their employee has left employment. To get the visa in the first place they have to show that they need this worker and that realistically they aren't going to get a British person to do it.

Welfare payments will not be made to anyone who hasn't worked in the system for five years. That includes kids who have just left school, unless of course they're willing to partake in further education to get themselves skills, and they have to meet all the requirements and any crime committed by them will see them lose everything they get.

Things like that.

I agree with you on everything you wrote. But it seems I didn’t correctly ask what I wanted to hear. I meant what you would do with those who already are in the UK and have its citizenship. Those who don’t want to leave, have different cultural background, and don’t want to integrate.

BTW, if I am not mistaken in one of the threads you once wrote that you had been in many countries during you lifetime. Have you ever been to South Africa? And if yes how many times and when?

Nothing. If they don't break the law, then they're fine to carry on as they wish. If they break the law then you lock them up. Integration isn't so much of an issue here. The kids will probably end up integrating. 50% of Muslims in the UK never go to a Mosque. Just as most people who might consider themselves as Christians never go to Church unless they're forced to.

Yes, I've been to South Africa. The number of times is quite a few, however that's because I was in and out of South Africa quite a bit.

 

[theHawk]

For the first time, more than half of Frankfurt residents now have a migrant background, according to official data from the city’s Office of Statistics and Elections.

So there you have it....Turks are the city’s largest non-German minority.


Frankfurt Becomes First German City Where Natives Are Minority

Doesn't surprise me, Frankfurt is the birthplace of Marxism and the de facto capital of the Euro Zone and globalism. You should see the anti-capitalist protest/riots they have here.