Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
This is motivated purely by hatred. French immigration policy has been a mess and has left hundreds of thousands of people in the country as social outcasts. Why should we follow a country where people who have lived within its borders for generations are still called immigrants? The French government is so out of touch with it's own immigrants that it has made reference to them as "scum." Discrimination against those who are different (not French) is widespread. Is that really what you want America's immigration policy to be based on? Do we really want to regulate our immigrants to second-class status? As a democracy that supposedly puts human rights as a high priority, how can we even entertain ideas that this kind of a policy is a good idea?
This is not a humanitarian policy, France is nto a country that we should let take the lead in forming immigration policy.
The people you are talking about (those Sarkozy called scum) are not immigrants.
In what sense? Many were not off-the-boat immigrants, but most were the sons or grandsons of people who immigrated to France. Hence, many still bore / bear the immigrant moniker.
The grandson of an immigrant is not an immigrant.
They shouldn't be treated that way, but they are in France. it's similar in Germany as well. People who have lived in the country for generations are still called immigrants, still shunned from society, and still hated by the general population.
I wouldn't say they are hated, but some of them are shunned, they are called immigrants, and they cannot become citizens for the most part. The immigration policy in Western Europe is an experiment that seems to be backfiring. They still have plenty of immigrants, but by not encouraging them to mix and assimilate they've created a group of pissed off residents without loyalty to the country they live in.