[NeoMac]

France: soft on Saddam, but hard assed on homeless Iraqi refugees fleeing his security state. Kicked out of a church sanctuary no less.



I guess they're weren't carrying with them any French oil contracts.

[Spliffdaddy]

France is soft on Saddam because he's a good customer. France is ranked something like 4th or 5th in the world in arms exports (including sales to the Middle East).

[GRAFF]

"SpliffDaddy" only mentions part of the story. The refugee center in Sangatte (near Calais) has become a logistical nightmare for France, as it is situated near the Channel tunnel. Train traffic and Freight/trucking traffic is constantly interrupted or delayed because police have to remove illegal aliens from the tunnel entrance and from trucks waiting to be loaded on the cargo trains.

So saying that "France is soft on Saddam" is meaningless. When was the last time you heard Bush say:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

More like, "If you ain't Amerrrrrican, you must be a nucular terrrist"

[Usama's Carcase]

Europeans are so arrogant with their socialism, yet they're arrogantly elitist when it comes to immigration--they hate immigrants, especially Turks and Africans.

[ollio]

Originally posted by Usama's Carcase:
Europeans are so arrogant with their socialism, yet they're arrogantly elitist when it comes to immigration--they hate immigrants, especially Turks and Africans.

Mostly true but..

Correction:
Turks and North-Africans.

and this mostly because they cause the most problems.
Indians, Mid-South african, russian,... immigrants we like, they tend to work , and keep their children of the streets , and they don't tend to take advantage of the social system(aka , make 10 children , to get the children money from the state , and after that don't give a **** about keeping their children under control --> education, see that they go to school , keep them out of criminality,... those are all for a big part the job of the parents.


edit: I am generalizing too much here of course. and insulting many people of those countries who aren't like that.

[NeoMac]

Originally posted by GRAFF:
When was the last time you heard Bush say:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses ...

First, it's a stupid comment.

Second, from 1990-2000, the U.S. has admitted 10.6 million immigrants. Source:Excel document, Immigration Naturalization Service.

I hope your future comments will be chosen more carefully.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
France is soft on Saddam because he's a good customer. France is ranked something like 4th or 5th in the world in arms exports (including sales to the Middle East).

I wouldn't even dare to ask who's 1st - 3rd.
I know a certain minister of defence who acknowledged a last weapon shipping to Irak the week before these invaded Kuwait...

---
It's an educational thong
you couldn't understand

[maxelson]

Pretty sure South Africa's up there on the arms sales. They're big on that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NeoMac:
First, it's a stupid comment.

Second, from 1990-2000, the U.S. has admitted 10.6 million immigrants. Source:Excel document, Immigration Naturalization Service.

Just for comparison:

According to this, the EU admitted "860,000 a year [...] between 1990 and 1998". These are the *legal* immigrants. That's pretty much the same ballpark as the US, a little lower per capita, a little higher per square kilometer.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Just for comparison:

According to this, the EU admitted "860,000 a year [...] between 1990 and 1998". These are the *legal* immigrants. That's pretty much the same ballpark as the US, a little lower per capita, a little higher per square kilometer.

-s*

Well, let's see. According to this the US admitted 915,900 legally in 1996 and AFAIK, the US population is about 100 million smaller than the EU. So it does seem to be quite a bit larger proportionally. In addition, the INS estimates about 5 million illegal immigrants were living in the US. Most come from Mexico and other poor countries although there are also 120,000 economic refugees from Canada.

I think another interesting statistic is that according to the 1990 census, there were 19,767,316 foreign-born Americans. I doubt that includes illegals and it is almost certainly a larger number today.

I don't know what this really proves except that a lot of immigrants come to the US. But we always knew that anyway.

[NeoMac]

My intent was not to start an 'ours is bigger' comparison of immigration numbers.

I was merely pointing out that GRAFF's comments were poorly chosen. We should strive for quality discussion and not just taking pot shots at each others presidents.

On the other hand, Europe just got exposed. I'm sure they'll gladly ignore it. Coming from the devil's own mouth:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2475925.stm

But lest I be a hypocrite, I favor war with Iraq for economic reasons as much as for political reasons.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NeoMac:
We should strive for quality discussion and not just taking pot shots at each others presidents.

And you're contributing to this quality discussion how exactly?

[Usama's Carcase]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And you're contributing to this quality discussion how exactly?

I don't see anything wrong with his comments in this thread. nothing offensive, no personal attacks, and a nice shot at how the French government, by signing oil deals with the regime, has given political support to a dictator guilty of murdering thousands.

preach about the bad USA all you want, but Europe's hands are bloody as well.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by NeoMac:


First, it's a stupid comment.

Second, from 1990-2000, the U.S. has admitted 10.6 million immigrants. Source:Excel document, Immigration Naturalization Service.

I hope your future comments will be chosen more carefully.

Shall we talk about the Rio Grande border? How many people are actually dying there every year?

Villa

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, let's see. According to this the US admitted 915,900 legally in 1996 and AFAIK, the US population is about 100 million smaller than the EU. So it does seem to be quite a bit larger proportionally. In addition, the INS estimates about 5 million illegal immigrants were living in the US.

The CIA World Fact Book has U.S. population at 263 million, estimated, in 1995. The Euro-Zone has about 300 million, U.K. 58 million, and Sweden 9 million, so that's about right.

Not sure about area though; I'd think the EU is more densely populated.

Originally posted by Usama's Carcase:
I don't see anything wrong with his comments in this thread. nothing offensive, no personal attacks, and a nice shot at how the French government, by signing oil deals with the regime, has given political support to a dictator guilty of murdering thousands.

preach about the bad USA all you want, but Europe's hands are bloody as well.

Not quite. He argued initially that France's "softness on Saddam", or rather, the unwillingness to blindly follow the United States into a questionable war, was somehow exposed as sham. The French government may have made a questionable decision regarding the refugees - I don't know; haven't been following the story. But I don't see how that relates. The two are at entirely different levels.

There was no mention of the oil deals initially. And yes, that does add another side to the French position. However, the French are by no means alone, and there is far more to this.

War is the very last resort of the impotent or desperate.
United States foreign policy appears reflect an unawareness of that.
I'm quite certain that the United States would have a slightly different outlook on war - I shudder to read of war being justified for economic reasons - but look at the ruins of the World Trade Center. The destruction of something familiar, though real estate. Now, the vacuum waiting to be filled by something.

We have entire *cities* that were like that, within remembering distance of a significant section of the population. The cities are still being rebuilt today, over half a century later, and many areas will take as long again to regrow into the organic structures they were before the war - if at all. When I look out of my window, I can see three houses that are old, followed by one that was rebuilt after the war; the house I live in is in a segment of four houses built post-war (bombed out). This neighborhood remained partially intact. Farther downtown was completely levelled.

The USA has *never* experienced "modern" warfare on its own soil. Remember that feeling when the WTC got bombed. Now imagine if it had been Manhattan. And parts of Brooklyn. Or your neighborhood. Or your hometown. Or your nearest shopping mall with a couple of the surrounding streets - or suburbs.

That's part of what "war" means, and it's very real. That's what you're doing to the people when you say "Let's bomb the heck out of them".

Nothing justifies that short of desperation.

And I don't think we're that desperate.

-("soft")spheric*

[villalobos]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Well, let's see. According to this the US admitted 915,900 legally in 1996 and AFAIK, the US population is about 100 million smaller than the EU. So it does seem to be quite a bit larger proportionally. In addition, the INS estimates about 5 million illegal immigrants were living in the US. Most come from Mexico and other poor countries although there are also 120,000 economic refugees from Canada.

I think another interesting statistic is that according to the 1990 census, there were 19,767,316 foreign-born Americans. I doubt that includes illegals and it is almost certainly a larger number today.

I don't know what this really proves except that a lot of immigrants come to the US. But we always knew that anyway.

No, populations are roughly the same. The other thing is admitting an immigrant in the US just gives him the right to be in the country. Admitting an immigrant in most coutries in Europe means access to ALL social benefits, because they are and cannot be any discrimination. The burden on countries in Europe is way higher.
The other thing is the population density is probably 6-8 times higher in Europe. That is also a contributing factor. Maybe the US would not accept so many imigrants if they were close to 2 billions people here already.

Different countries different reasons. Finally, these immigrants were expelled from a church that they had been squatting for sometime now (i would like to see that happen in the commercial churches in the US) and were REQUESTING an access to the Red Cross-supported refugee camp in Sangatte. That camp in Northern France has been closed to new arrivants at the request of the UK government, because most of the immigrants in this camp were trying to reach the UK.

Villa

[suprz]

from a country that the usa had to save it's ass from the nazi's in WW2, and from a country that started the vietnam war and then high tailed it out of there...you would expect something more?

dont get me wrong the french have contributed to the world with the "croissant" and the ultimate definition of the word "snob"

but in the immortal words of Al Bundy........... i can't be the only one that hates the french"

[Spheric Harlot]

I realize that suprz was just trolling, but...

Originally posted by suprz:
from a country that the usa had to save it's ass from the nazi's in WW2, and from a country that started the vietnam war and then high tailed it out of there...you would expect something more?

a) Can't really fault the French (much less France of today) for getting run over by the Nazis.
b) what exactly did the US achieve by meddling in Vietnam other than the exact same results with a whole lot more bloodshed? Methinks the French were not so wrong in pulling out ten years earlier.

dont get me wrong the french have contributed to the world with the "croissant" and the ultimate definition of the word "snob"

but in the immortal words of Al Bundy........... i can't be the only one that hates the french"

No, I think we have *you* to thank for an interesting twist on the definition of the word "snob".

Thank you for showing us.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by villalobos:
No, populations are roughly the same. The other thing is admitting an immigrant in the US just gives him the right to be in the country. Admitting an immigrant in most coutries in Europe means access to ALL social benefits, because they are and cannot be any discrimination.

Broadly speaking, that's the same in the US. US states aren't allowed to discriminate against legal residents under the 14th Amendment. (I've been studying this issue in Con Law II). Alienage is a category that gets heightened (actually intermediate) judicial scrutiny, which essentially ties the hands of the states. Some benefits can't even be denied to illegal aliens. The big one is K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens. Texas tried to cut them off, but the law got struck down.

Obviously, the benefits granted are less than those granted in most of Western Europe, but that's just the fact that US benefits are less generous. It's not because of discrimination against aliens.

About population, according to Eurostat, the poulation of the European Union in 2002 is 379 million. According to the CIA fact book, the population of the United States is approximately 280 million. As I said earlier, the population of the European Union is about 100 million higher than the United States.

[suprz]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

No, I think we have *you* to thank for an interesting twist on the definition of the word "snob".

Thank you for showing us.

-s*

dont know how you figure that i'm a snob for just stating facts. but if it makes you feels better....
oooh....ouch!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by suprz:

dont know how you figure that i'm a snob for just stating facts. but if it makes you feels better....
oooh....ouch!

I wasn't talking about the part of your post where you were stating facts. I responded to that about five lines above your attention span horizon.

-s*

[villalobos]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Broadly speaking, that's the same in the US. US states aren't allowed to discriminate against legal residents under the 14th Amendment. (I've been studying this issue in Con Law II). Alienage is a category that gets heightened (actually intermediate) judicial scrutiny, which essentially ties the hands of the states. Some benefits can't even be denied to illegal aliens. The big one is K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens. Texas tried to cut them off, but the law got struck down.

Obviously, the benefits granted are less than those granted in most of Western Europe, but that's just the fact that US benefits are less generous. It's not because of discrimination against aliens.

About population, according to Eurostat, the poulation of the European Union in 2002 is 379 million. According to the CIA fact book, the population of the United States is approximately 280 million. As I said earlier, the population of the European Union is about 100 million higher than the United States.

My bad, I thought the poppulation in the US was around 350 millions.
The fact remains that the burden of immigrants on the society is much higher in Europe, given the welfare system.
An immigrant who comes to Europe and does not have any means of supporting himself and his familiy will receive unemployment money, free healthcare and the like. The same immigrant in the US, without a job will not receive much of anything will he?
This said immigration is an essential part of a country evolution. France allowed lots of North Africa immigrants in the 60's when the jobs were plenty, and their contribution helped the country at the time. There wasn't much of an effort of integrate them though : for instance most don't have the French citizenship although they have been living there for 30 years. This for instance prohibits them from voting, from taking part in the democratic debate and system.

Anyhow, yeah the French are hypocritical, big freaking deal. Once again, the whole Sangatte fiasco was due to the UK request. And I heard about that town in the Northeast Us which is also having second thought about welcoming immigrants from Erythrea (or Somalia, can't remember). So I guess the Yankees are hypocrotical and pretty much everybody else on this earth.

But go ahead, keep flaming the French, it amuses me.

Villa

[suprz]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I wasn't talking about the part of your post where you were stating facts. I responded to that about five lines above your attention span horizon.

-s*

ooh ouch..got me again!!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by villalobos:
The fact remains that the burden of immigrants on the society is much higher in Europe, given the welfare system.
An immigrant who comes to Europe and does not have any means of supporting himself and his familiy will receive unemployment money, free healthcare and the like. The same immigrant in the US, without a job will not receive much of anything will he?

Well, I think it is fair to make the generalization that people emigrate to the US in order to work, not to collect unemployment. And given that the US has a far lower rate of unemployment, that's quite realistic. So I don't think it's correct to say that immigrants here don't get anything, they just get less from the public trough. And because they are more likely to be employed and productive, they in turn return more to society here creating a net gain, not a drain. I think that probably has a lot to do with the differing attitudes to immigration here in the States from Europe.

This said immigration is an essential part of a country evolution. France allowed lots of North Africa immigrants in the 60's when the jobs were plenty, and their contribution helped the country at the time. There wasn't much of an effort of integrate them though : for instance most don't have the French citizenship although they have been living there for 30 years. This for instance prohibits them from voting, from taking part in the democratic debate and system.

Right. And this would be unthinkable in the US. I didn't post that particular statistic, but if you go back to the link I provided earlier from the INS, you can see that the US naturalizes roughly a million people a year. Or to put it another way, roughly 1 in 280 Americans wasn't born with US citizenship. That's a lot.

But go ahead, keep flaming the French, it amuses me.

I haven't flamed the French. At least, not in this thread.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, I think it is fair to make the generalization that people emigrate to the US in order to work, not to collect unemployment.

Let's put it that way, a legal immigrant is gonna be accepted in the US only if he has a job. It's another way to take care of the problem. Regarding the illegal immigrants, well they are employed undeclared hence they are a boon to the unscrupulous employers.

Right. And this would be unthinkable in the US. I didn't post that particular statistic, but if you go back to the link I provided earlier from the INS, you can see that the US naturalizes roughly a million people a year. Or to put it another way, roughly 1 in 280 Americans wasn't born with US citizenship. That's a lot.

the population of foreign born people is much higher than that in the US. the 1 in 280 is just the number of people who receive the US citizenship per year. It's probably closer to 1 in 10. It's about that in France too. The difference being that people are not enticed to become French citizens, just permanent residents in a foreign country. And a fringe of the population in France who still cares about patriotism does not appreciate that (think JM LePen voters). Fortunately, patriotism is slowly being relegated to the relics of the 20th century.

Villa

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Let's put it that way, a legal immigrant is gonna be accepted in the US only if he has a job.

That depends on the type of visa you are talking about. I'm not an expert on this but I believe some require employer sponsorship, others don't. A lot of immigrants simply follow family members and gain residency that way. Others come here for educations and then change status after being a student here. Maybe you have to have a job first in Europe, but that's not the only way to legal immigration here. I'm not even sure it is the majority route since employer-sponsorship seems to be mostly associated with higher-bracket immigration, whereas most immigrants to the US come from lower social strata.

Regarding the illegal immigrants, well they are employed undeclared hence they are a boon to the unscrupulous employers.

True. But what can we realistically do? We have two long, and almost undefended borders. Some level of illegal immigration is inevitable. And in the long run, most illegals either return home, naturalize in amnesties, or have kids who are Americans from birth. So in a sense it is a self-limiting problem.

Fortunately, patriotism is slowly being relegated to the relics of the 20th century.

Well, I'm happy to say that is not the case here. Far from it. And incidentally, among the most patriotic Americans you will ever meet are recent immigrants.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, I'm happy to say that is not the case here. Far from it. And incidentally, among the most patriotic Americans you will ever meet are recent immigrants.

I think there are two very different things being talked about. One is the prevalent European concept of nationality, which tends to be blood- rather than land-based. You are not French simply because you were born there. This is similar to when Americans talk about their ethnic heritage. This is a legacy of former centuries, and should be, at most, of passing interest.

The other is a patriotism based on the country, with the country being defined as everyone who lives there. It seems pretty obvious, though, that many American "patriots" mix the two concepts freely. The brain gets switched off, and generalization and discrimination based on exclusion take over. This can occasionally be seen on these boards.

In the end, what it means is that, since WWII, it's only little yellow people or little brown people that get "liberated" (bombed).

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The other is a patriotism based on the country, with the country being defined as everyone who lives there. It seems pretty obvious, though, that many American "patriots" mix the two concepts freely.

That's one possibility. Another is that many people (and apparently especially Europeans) mistake patriotism (love of and pride in country) for that type of narrow minded and often racist nationalism that lead to World War II.

That's not a new confusion. It dates as least as far back as the aphorism about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel. Nevertheless, it isn't how most Americans seem to see it. Here, patriotism isn't usually seen as a negative, it's usually seen as either neutral, or positive. It's a thing that binds an otherwise diverse country of strangers from around the world.

The interesting thing is the difference in attitude created by the different perception of patriotism. In my experience, Americans aren't offended by expressions of patriotism by citizens of other countries. An expression of French patriotism (to take one example) doesn't threaten an American's sense of patriotism. In contrast, many non-Americans(particularly in Europe) seem personally offended when an American expresses a patriotic sentiment, as if an American's love of his own country is somehow a slight to theirs.

That's always struck me as highly odd. It's like saying that you eating a slice of pie makes my slice of pie taste less good. That's really absurd when nobody is stopping anybody from eating the pie that they like. And if your pie is different from my pie, so what?

[Speckledstone]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
In the end, what it means is that, since WWII, it's only little yellow people or little brown people that get "liberated" (bombed).

I don't mean to offend, but I don't understand that comment or how it fits into this conversation.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by NeoMac:
France: soft on Saddam, but hard assed on homeless Iraqi refugees fleeing his security state. Kicked out of a church sanctuary no less.



I guess they're weren't carrying with them any French oil contracts.

All the refugees in the church where offered asylum in France but they threw it back (riping up the forms on TV news) saying this isn't what they want, they want to go the the Red Cross place at sangette (SP?), with the eventual destination being the UK. These people arn't intrested in being given asylum anywhere else but the UK.

[fat mac moron]

Originally posted by suprz:
from a country that the usa had to save it's ass from the nazi's in WW2, and from a country that started the vietnam war and then high tailed it out of there...you would expect something more?

dont get me wrong the french have contributed to the world with the "croissant" and the ultimate definition of the word "snob"

but in the immortal words of Al Bundy........... i can't be the only one that hates the french"

You better be careful, they might surrender.