Why choose to stay here?

If you despise the country you have emigrated to so much, why stay?

Why did you come here knowing this is not a country of Islam, Buddishm, Christianity, Atheism?

Why did you not move to a country that shares your beliefs, lives your cultural life?

Why do you choose to stay in a country that is so foreign to you?

These questions baffle everyone in host countries that have angry, resentful immigrants who claim to have chosen your country as a safe haven, but complain violently of the society that hosts them?

If it's so bad and so wrong, why don't you leave?

Why stay?

You appear to be using us.

You appear to be an ungrateful group of people who don't care where they end up, as long as it is rich and has freedom and protects your views.

We hosts see right through that. Do you know how obvious your true intent is revealed?

You are lucky to be accepted into our societies. But you appear ungrateful and even arrogantly antagonsitic when our host society finds your behaviour insulting.

Your reaction to this behaviour is to go full defensive and demand your human rights.

How ironic, considering where you fled from.

You seem upset and vilified by the reaction of your host country, but then you complain when your host country feels the same vilifaction from you.

Well then, why not leave?

If the society you have chosen to emigrate to does not accept you, why stay?

Immigration - The Ugly Truth

Immigration is a force for good.

It's how most of us have ended up where we are in the world.

People of different beliefs, values, customs, ethnicity. race, nationality leaving their countries for some reason and moving to another; to similar ethnicities or not.

It's an ancient practice, but changed in the last 21st century due to unique developments:

- the Internet: global information exchange enabling public platforms for the stupid hitherto never available
- third world civil war and Western intervention
- global economic and natural disaster
- cheap easy travel
- organised crime expansion into trafficking
- political correctness
- Hipsters: the force-multiplied do-gooders
- the return of religion, as a political power
- the sidelining of science and philosophy

The worst reasons possible have supersized immigration from third world countries to modern Western countries.

When the world changes, we must change. We must look at our historically borne but current policies and change them accordingly.

That's not happening.

Old laws and policies are struggling to cope with new developments.

Laws and mind-sets only change when we have a public conversation, a courageous public debate unmolested by censorship and fear. Thus, the following discussion is rarely heard publically:

Immigration is also a force for bad.

It must demand conditions, and conditions set by the occupants to be subject to it; not those who will not be affected by it.

The conditions must include what is generally categorised by terms such as the potential for  "assimilation".

Those immigrating, where the scope of the host sociey's policy is unlimited, being "anyone from anywhere", will cover the range of people harmful or not to the host society.

So the first assumption is, some immigrants are likely to harm the host society.

Is this assumption true?

The assumption derives from an expectation that harm is likely in the forms of the effect on the host society's culture, power, freedom, laws and customs.

This expectation seems to be based on a few foundings: rational, emotional or instinctive or intuitive:

1. empirical
2. emotional: xenophobic, intuitive
3. rationa: logical, deductive

Empirical expectation of harm:

Ask the indigenous Fijians whom accepted Indian immigration how that went.

Inidans now rule Fijians in political power, government and commerce.

Ask the Malaysians and Singaporeans about Chinese immigration.

Chinese began to take over the commercial industries and the government.

Ask Western Europeans about the recent immigration of North African and Sub-Saharan people to their countries.

Ask these people what harm if any was done , is being done, by this immigration.

They will cite examples of ethnic-based societal division, class system and racism, now institutional in those societies.

There are empirical justifications for assuming the harm of some immigration.

Emotional/Xenophobic expectation of harm:

Xenophobia expressed by one host society to an immgrating ethnicity is of two kinds:

Emotional or intuitive:

Some will argue simply that they don't like the particular ethnic groups immigrating. They just don't like them. No reason. Just a strong dislike of people who are so different from them.

Rational:

Some argue that a community is a group of people whom share so much in "common" that they can live together easily without much trouble.

Therefore, how can a society enjoy the community of shared aspects, such as common history, common ethnicity, common language, morals, beliefs, customs and behaviour, live easily with a group that has none of these in common with it.

Are these assumptions that expect harm to their society true or at least understandable?

If they are, then conditions of immigration must be obtained and applied.

Assimilation or its potential must be a condition.

So what would we expect to be assimilation?

Firstly, the conservation of the host society's lore and conformity to its fundamentals.

Is that too much to ask?

Is there such a thing as an "incompatible ethnicity" unable to assimilate or be harmless to the host society?

It depends upon the numbers.

A minority of such groups is harmless, but a non-minority is not.

In Western democracies, there will inevitably be a move to have the immigrating group achieve political power, governmental representation and this will and must lead to laws that include aspects of the immigrating groups into the host society's culture, customs, behaviours and therefore the essence of that society.

It is reasonable then to conclude that such a non-minority's effect on the host society is harmful, in the sense of changing the essence of that host society. They will no longer be conserved within their own society, but will have changed to produce a merger of two societies.

Immigration has a potential to convert the host society to become no longer that society, but an unfamiliar combination.

Surely such a society would include contradictions, such as occurred between Muslims and majority Hindus in India following the end of the British Raj in 1946.

The country was split into three: India, Pakistan and Bangaldesh,

Is that split of the country a good thing for the majority society?

How reconcilable to our Western countries is arranged marriage, genital mutilation, slitting the throats of animals for food and ceremony, the respect of death in war by killing opposers, suicide bombing, the covering of woman, the relegation of woman to the kitchen, the marriage and sex of under-aged children by old men, the killing of critics of Islam?

How good is it for a society to accept these legislated and protected, promoted changes to their society? To accept the stoning of adulterous women, the amputation by sword of thieves?

In conclusion, if a society accepts immigration without condition, it should expect to become merely a partner in its own country and its laws and customs subject to radical and foreign change,

In India, cows are sacred to Hindus and have their throats slit for food and ceremony by Muslims.

Some aspects of each society will be self-contradictory, irreconsilable.

For those who expect this and work against it, We have your full support.

"...it begs the question...."

Another widely misunderstood and misused phrase, and subordinate clause, offended by general public and learned alike, is the phrase "It begs the question."

Begging the question is NOT to say, "The issue at hand demands we ask the following question..."

Begging the question is an accusation that someone has made a kind of logical fallacy in presenting an argument.

Someone makes a proposition and is asked to justify the reason or logic behind it, that lead to the conclusion.

The proposer then gives their reason or logic, but this is found to be a mere repitition of their proposal and NOT the logic that lead to the proposition.

Thus the proposer has "begged the question".

In other words, after hearing their reasoning and their logic, the question demanding their logic still stands.

Their explanation demands the question still needs to be answered, "what was your logic?"

Their explanation begs the original question; it is yet to be answered.

People please, get it right.

Without Further Adue...

The phrase, the oft used subordinate clause "Without further ado..." is malaproposed.

The general public and even academics have erroneously malaproposed the phrase to "Without futher adue..."

The concept is "fuss" or "trouble" and its linguistic symbol is commonly expressed as the term "ado".

Example, from Shakespaere's play "Much ado about nothing."

We don't know what the term "adue" means. It seems to confuse the concept of "due".

So, the purpose of the clause is, "let's fuss no futher and get on with the discussion, the issue."

So, "Without further fuss." is synonmous.

In symbolic language, there is no correct use or wrong use of words; there is only consistency with common usage.

In order to achieve communication, the shared understanding between speaker and listener, it is essential to have a database of commonly used terminology.

If one person uses a word differently from another, then communication should not be expected.

It is commonly held that the phrase is "Without further ado...", not "Without further adue."

It is the responsibilty of all whom seek communication, shared understanding, to stick to terms that are commonly used.

If this unwritten agreement is not adhered to in one instance, there is no reason to adhere in any instance.

So, We encourage All to keep the standards of their laguage use to the highest level, that we may All benefit from the world in which communciation is not made even harder to achieve than it already is.