Hacker News Reader

Comment by dixie_land | Hacker News Reader

IMO immigration would focus on merits AND integration more than length of residency. In the past by physically traveling and being in another country is a testament of the financial means and the willingness to adopt the new culture.

Nowadays traveling is much easier and many immigrants are simply, put it harshly, colonizing the foreign country instead of adopting it.

View on HN

The description of people migrating from developing countries (that to a large extent are still reeling from the West's previous colonization efforts and current neo-colonialist control) as "colonizing" the foreign country angers me on so many levels I can't even explain it in words.

I hope one day humanity will surpass its empathic barrier of societies. It might be too much to hope for, I suppose.

as long as inequality exists most people will dehumanize other humans for attempting to achieve equality. And then these same people will cry hoarse about Jeff bezos and Zuckerberg and bill gates etc.

"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

There is still a silver lining though. EU (and specifically Germany) ruined any optimistic future of theirs by severing energy with Russia and allowing US to bomb the nordstream pipeline.

The effects of de-industrialization due to higher energy costs along with reduced usage of Euro in international usage is not going to paint a pretty picture for EU in the long term future.

This allows third world countries to equalize quickly and hopefully in a generation from now we have less dehumanizing language for people trying to seek a better life for their families.

That’s exactly what is happening though, regardless of how much it is angering you. Millions of people moving to another country is colonization no matter how you want to spin it.

Not exactly, people moving without trying to take control is just settling, when they try to overtake control instead of assimilating into the culture they immigrated to then I think it can be considered some form of colonisation.

In The Prince, Machiavelli describes the use of settlers to exert indirect control over an area. One benefit of this approach is that the values and attitudes of the settlers will spread to or exert influence over the locals. At the very least, it destabilizes the existing order.

If a group doesn't assimilate, it looks like a ghetto or a "colony". Settling, on the other hand, is inherently about control.

How is settling different from colonization? Seems to be synonyms to me

Settling doesn't imply control, it's just people moving to a place and settling on it; colonisation is the act of taking control of an area, which settling can help to achieve.

They are not synonyms.

What adjective would you use to refer as the colony of Moroccans that are next to my neighborhood that sit on public spaces threatening everyone (thus preventing people form using them), being the primary source of crime in the area and displaying their hate towards Spain over and over?

Is it because they were colonized by the french and we had a war many decades ago I have to take a punch in the stomach, or how does this work exactly?

A discussion of your feelings does not belong on HN.

You're right. As much as I'd like to give a well-thought-out argument to the horribleness of this kind of thinking, I think my time will be more useful for people doing other more productive things than convincing bigots of the meaning of caring for others.

What could they possibly be reeling from? By your logic, that wasn't "colonization", but rather White Europeans enriching Africa with our vibrant culture and great food.

So what if the indigenous people are displaced, demoralised, dispossessed, marginalised, denigrated, etc? Nobody seems to give a damn for what indigenous Europeans are currently experiencing.

Please don't ask us to be empathetic to your dislike of a particular term considering the very real danger and harm being imposed on our entire race.

That's sort of built-in already. To stay in Germany for the requisite five years, you're likely going to need a sponsored visa or some other kind of job-based visa (e.g. their freelance visa).

Or you apply for asylum and stay forever regardless of the outcome.

How does applying for asylum grant the ability to "stay forever regardless of the outcome"?

Because once you're inside the country you will never get kicked out, unless you actively cooperate with the authorities.

depends, at first the right to stay is time limited

To those interested in the actual data: On June 2023 roughly 280k failed asylum seekers were met with a a yearly deportation volume of around 16k or 6%.

Note that "failed asylum seekers" does, for the most part, not mean people actually resisting deportation in any illegal/violent way, but mostly consists of people who are being granted a sort of amnesty ("Duldung") for various reasons in line with german law.

This only leaves 54k people that would actually be candidate for deportation in June 2023, which increases the deportation rate to roughly 30%. At this pace deportation for the average failed asylum seeker that is actually traget of deportation shrinks to 3 years.

* https://www.dw.com/en/germany-migrant-deportations-rise-shar....

I imagine that that's a relatively small percent of immigration, and should follow its own separate rules based more on humanitarian needs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com