 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
Maybe the last 25 or so years of experience with turkish immigration has an impact. These years has shown that they have a tendency to make Little Turkey societies instead of integrate with the rest of the society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yeah they form their own things because they are ostracized. |
Yes, by themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
apparently not enough fear to exclude them.why? because they were white and judeo-christian. so in other words it has nothing to do with "masses of poor moving into Seine St- Denis" and more to do that they are dirty muslims. |
that they are muslims does play a part to some countries and some people, culturally speaking. but that that's the only reason there are reservations is totally wrong. if Albania (3 million and largly muslim) was to join you'd see a much more relaxed attitude than to an 80 million turkey.
the "easternerns" weren't excluded but they'll probably be some of the last to enter too. they're "one turkey" by themselves. EU is not up to two "Turkeys".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:23
|
|
That's why you need to control the immigration, because it helps with the integration that is vital. For immigrants and locals.
In here, Turks are not looked that much down upon when talking about immigration and racism. Turks have put up more food joints in here than any other ethnic group, you can go to Turkish owned and run place in here everywhere. AND they got the best prices. I can't afford to go to even fast food joints most of the times because they are too expensive, but the Turks keep their prices reasonable, thus they enjoy great popularity... They are known as hard working, service providing people who keep their prices low even though no one else does that. So..  Then again we don't have lots of Turks.. if we had 40 000 immigrated here in the last year, there would be problems because it's just too big of a batch for us to handle fast. We take little by little.. works better.. granted, we could take more, but I think we are now in control of the flow, and it helps (or forces, which ever you like) the immigrants to integrate.
But in general, folks are still pretty suspicious about immigrants.. well not so much for immigrants but refugees.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
hell nah, just go to Paris. they dont like the poor Maghrebins because they steal and they dont like the rich ones because they drive up costs. |
Haven't ever been to Paris, so I can't tell. Just referring local experince.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I think that the European Union will make Europe stronger as a group than they could be apart. Instead of trying to keep muslims out, European countries should instead be trying to integrate this potential workforce into their society. It may not be a racial bias but a religous bias is just as bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
In here, Turks are not looked that much down upon when talking about immigration and racism. Turks have put up more food joints in here than any other ethnic group, you can go to Turkish owned and run place in here everywhere. AND they got the best prices. I can't afford to go to even fast food joints most of the times because they are too expensive, but the Turks keep their prices reasonable, thus they enjoy great popularity... They are known as hard working, service providing people who keep their prices low even though no one else does that. So.. Then again we don't have lots of Turks.. if we had 40 000 immigrated here in the last year, there would be problems because it's just too big of a batch for us to handle fast. We take little by little.. works better.. granted, we could take more, but I think we are now in control of the flow, and it helps (or forces, which ever you like) the immigrants to integrate. |
sure, but Finns dont like the Sinti and Roma because they dont work, they steal, and they mooch off of your social security system. its the same thing, just with a different group.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Funny, I always thought the Gypsies were Christian. And white also |
no, they come out of india.
quote:
Depends. We don't like Russians either. They are white and christians. Sure, racism is the same thing no matter who the group targeted is, but since this was about turks, I said turks in here are not looked down upon, so you had to reply that roma people are. I thought this was turning into Turkey in EU, not racism in Europe. So no, it's not the same. |
yeah i know we dont like russians or the swedes, but we dont like them because of history, not because they are russian.
but yeah, i was talking about racism in europe in general.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
? what? in that link you provided, 35% of those who voted no voted so because it would prevent turkey fromt joining. |
Yup. 65% of the Non voters didn't take Turkey into account at all. You'll actually find many (though not most) people in the Non who favor Turkey's membership (they're from the left), and a large majority of Oui voters that oppose it (they're from the Parliamentary right).
Remember that the item you're quoting lets people pick whatever statements they want. Unlike a question where the total is 100%, that question helps determine who weighted a factor in their decision, and who didn't weight it at all. 65% of the Non didn't weight it at all.
This, despite the fact that a large majority of French people oppose Turkey's membership.
quote:
Le cumul de ces facteurs explique l'ampleur et la constance du refus de l'entrée de la Turquie dans l'Union européenne. Un tiers seulement de la population en âge de voter y est favorable contre 55% opposé en novembre 2002, 37% contre 50% en décembre 2004, 28% contre 57% en février 2005 (sondages CSA). Et l'opposition est nettement plus forte à droite, où la peur de l'Islam et le rejet des immigrés et des "autres" sont plus prononcés qu'a gauche. En décembre dernier si 56% des personnes interrogées se disaient "plutôt"ou "tout a fait" opposées au principe de l'adhésion de la Turquie (Canal Ipsos/Le Figaro) la proportion varie de 34-35% à l'extrême gauche et chez les Verts, 39% au PC, 55% chez les proches du PS, à 63% chez les proches de l'UMP, et 72% chez ceux de l'UDF, attachés à la défense de l'identité chrétienne de l'Europe, proportion presque aussi élevée que chez les proches du FN et du MNR (74%).
La question turque n'est pas le seul enjeu sur lequel se prononceront les électeurs le 29 mai, et les positions sur la Turquie et sur le traité ne se recoupent pas nécessairement. Ainsi les proches de l'extrême gauche et du PC sont à la fois les plus favorables à l'adhésion de la Turquie et les plus décidés à voter Non, presque autant que les proches du FN qui sont les plus hostiles à la Turquie. Mais l'enjeu divise profondément l'électorat de la droite modérée, écartelé entre son soutien au gouvernement, son attachement à l'Europe, et son rejet majoritaire de la Turquie. Selon un récent sondage (CSA / Marianne réalisé par téléphone le 23 mars 2005), l'entrée de la Turquie arrivait en tête des motifs invoqués pour le "non" (31% des personnes interrogées), et cette proportion atteint un niveau record de 55% chez les électeurs et électrices proches de la droite. |
http://referendum2005.tns-sofres.co...DM4Mg==,00.html
(Nonna Mayer is a specialist of the French far-right)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
The most significant stats in the link you provided, Spiffor, is that the votes were mostly split along education/revenues: The most educated/wealthy the most French voted yes, and the poorest/less educated voted no.
I guess this shows, too, that ecnomics reasons were the most important ones. People are afraid of losing their job (or welfare) to other countries.
I think the main problem with the treaty was it was so big and full of useless stuff. I read all of it except part 3, which I only partially read. I stopped at page 125 when the text explained what would happen until 1998. They really should never have put a text like that to the vote, where it was impossible to make out easily what was new and what was old.
As for Villepin, isn't that the man who advised Chirac his first dissolution of the Assemblee Nationale, meaning 5 years of Jospin as prime minister? Let's hope he'll avoid making such smart moves when he's in office.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2005 23:49
(Either Chirac won in 1997 and became the undisputed ruler for 1997-2002, or he won in 2002 and became the undisputed ruler during that term. Besides, with the 5-year term, France's political system is now firmly presidential).
|