As for the U.S., the key difference with Germany is that our fertility rate is 1.89 (over 2.1 during the boom). Theirs is 1.36 (under 1.4 since 1990).
As for the U.S., the key difference with Germany is that our fertility rate is 1.89 (over 2.1 during the boom). Theirs is 1.36 (under 1.4 since 1990).
You're right that masses of low-skill immigrants is a problem, especially when they are not integrating with society. It seems Germany has this problem too ("And many Germans still call the lack of assimilation among Turkish immigrants a leading national problem.").
Your score is bouncing quite heavily, indicating that this is a controversial comment. You're not wrong though. The question I still have after reading the article is, how is Germany dealing with the low-skill immigration (or how effective is their vocation training and welfare system)? Can the US or UK implement similar plans with any success?
Many of the current Turkish residents came during the 1960s as part of a guest-worker program [1], or are descended from those who did. The expectation was that they would be temporary workers (no path to citizenship) and eventually go home again. The program was closed in 1973, and the government spent much of the late '70s and '80s trying to encourage them to leave, more than encouraging them to integrate. There are many kids who've grown up 100% in Germany (some grandkids too) who aren't German citizens, and until very recently, were not encouraged to become citizens. (Germany does not have jus soli citizenship, and before a reform in 1999, it was also very difficult for someone not of German descent to naturalize.)
The fact that many Turks in Germany come from poor and highly conservative regions of Turkey (generally not Istanbul) doesn't help assimilation, of course. But it also doesn't help that the message for decades was that they aren't German and can't become German. And non-integration is complex, too. When Americans think of unintegrated Mexican immigrants, for example, they think first and foremost of Spanish speakers who can't speak English. But almost all the Turks considered unintegrated do speak German. Some (especially younger generations) don't even speak Turkish fluently (or at all), but only German.
Lots of these aren't German-specific problems, though. Since at least the late 19th century, European counties have been based on the ethnic nation-state, and transitioning to some idea that people can change nationalities, or even have more than one (and what that means) is slow and produces opposition.
Imagine inviting a guest to your house for dinner, and them liking your house a lot and deciding to just move in permanently. Are you then expected to encourage them to put their name on the lease (i.e. become a citizen)? I don't think so.
I don't think I support the concept of a long-term "guest" with no rights, so I don't think it's wrong that such rights exist. That's what countries like Kuwait or Dubai do, with long-term "guest workers" who don't have legal rights. If someone has lived and worked here (Denmark) for 5 or 8 or 10 years or whatever, I think they should have legal rights on that basis. Much more so if they were born in Denmark; and doubly that if their parents were born in Denmark too, so that it's been two generations since they were immigrants. What is the alternative in that case, deport someone who was born and raised in Denmark to a country only their grandparents were actually from, and whose language they don't even speak?
Here's how it went down. First, Germany slaughtered and exterminated millions of people, invaded tons of countries, destroyed their infrastructure, commited heinous crimes, etc. What we know as World War II.
After the end of the war, West Germany, as a valueable ally of the West against USSR, got all kinds of help and special treatment to rebuilt its economy. And they started a program for bringing in workers from places they invaded and decimated, like Greece. Those workers, like the involuntary "arbeit mach frei" workers before, were brought to serve as cheap immigrant labor, under exploitative conditions, to assist the very people that had unprovoked invaded their countries and killed their relatives and fellow citizens a decade or so ago. The guest-workers, besides being exploited with lesser wages than Germans and fewer opportunities for advancment (like b-rate citizens) they were also treated with extreme racism and prejudice.
Now, the problem of the Germans (the "they overstayed their welcome") was that these people didn't just disperse when they were done with them, but instead felt that those hard working years in Germany gave them a right to stay and be integrated as full citizens.
Such nerve, huh?
If I burn down your house (and kill your cousin and your Jew neighbors), and you or your kid, starving, accepts to come work for my company, and I treat you like shit on top, that doesn't make it OK in my book.
What does that mean?
Turks aren't that much of a problem anymore. These days, the massive influx of refugees (unanticipated by our stupid politicians) are the biggest problem. We lock 'em in overcrowded camps, prohibit them from working for 9 months and then wonder why trouble arises.
Fuck our politicians. The way the entire EU treats refugees is disgusting.
...how sure are you about the whole "unanticipated" thing?
http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/dead-souls-the-den...
Brave New World.
Affraid of Low skilled ppl ? No! Affraid of difference, definetly yes! But again this is France. Don't know about Germany, but Canada is way more warm hearted than France.
Please, when online (but also offline) do not use "ours" or "theirs". What is "ours" in this case? Germany or US? It is not clear from the context.
Also, if a person born in Germany goes to the US, what is "ours", what is "theirs" to s/he?
The titles come from culturally distinct regions.
If it helps, you can think of "American" as shorthand for "American of the United States". If that doesn't help, I suggest you just get over it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/despite-what-uki...
NB Personally I regard the right to live and work anywhere in the EU as a wonderful thing.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/muslim-scare-st...
On closer inspection, it is clear sharia courts only have jurisdiction on civil matters and everyone must opt in to a sharia court. They only have an advisory capacity and address mainly property and financial matters, and rulings are then only enforceable by civil courts. In many cases, they are understaffed affairs, where one official settles petty disputes and draws up rudimentary documents.
So just like any other kind of alternative dispute resolution - mediation, adjudication, expert-determination, arbitration etc.
Edit - I'm actually over-stating this last bit, "sharia" law isn't nearly as strong as these formal ADR mechanisms.
Opting out of these courts may not be an option for women pressured by their families and communities.
I'm not trying to say that there won't be problems with these kinds of mechanisms, but if UK citizens want to get together and try and work through a dispute based on some religious principles and all parties agree then I don't think we should be trying to stop it.