Lets talk about "integration on western society"

[Prodromos]

Thats your opinion once again. African-Americans can't be Anglo-Americans nor can Hispanic Americans. The very fact you don't know this says volumes about what you actually know about American culture. The l;ats part of this quote is just another one of your un-sourced claims.

I think I said Irish, Italian, and German, which are all considered Anglo for the purpose of ethnic classification, with few exceptions.

The term is ambiguous and used in several different ways. While it is primarily used to refer to people of English ancestry, it (along with terms like Anglo, Anglic, Anglophone, and Anglophonic) also used to denote all people of British or Northern European ancestry[3] or all people of European ethnic origin who speak English as a mother tongue and their descendants in the New World, regardless of their prior racial or ethnic background, much like Hispanic refers to people of any race.[4][5] Therefore, a person, for example, of Chinese descent who adopts the American or Canadian culture would have English-speaking "Anglo-American", "Anglic", "Anglophone", "Anglo", or "Anglophonic" children (in contrast to Spanish-speaking Chinese descent people living in Hispanic America, who would be "Hispanic"). Thus, Anglo-American, Anglic-American, Anglophone-American, Anglo, or Anglophonic-American can refer to all those whose families who, regardless of race or ethnicity, have become mainstream English-speaking people in the United States, English Canada, English-speaking areas of the Caribbean, Belize, and Guyana, including those of African descent.

Interestingly, most Americans of African ethnicity are relatively culturally similar to white Anglo Americans, and would be considered complete foreigners in Africa. That's also the case for many second- and third-generation "Hispanics", who may have Spanish names and speak Spanish with their grandparents, but are otherwise culturally pretty similar to their "Anglo" peers. Ted Cruz would stick out like a sore thumb in Cuba, for instance.

I'd also appreciate it if you stopped acting so hostile and outraged. This is an informal discussion on an Internet forum for an Etruscan genocide simulator video game, no one is going to waste their time on a discussion that's not going anywhere. How about we try to find common ground, or at least respectfully agree to disagree?

As i said assimilation in America was immigrants adding parts of their own culture to American culture. they never ever completely shed their original. There never has been outright assimilation.

They kept some aspects of their culture, such as the food and the word for grandma, but gave up other aspects.

Oh i do spend time with people's other cultures. immigrants do live in my area and i also live in a popular tourist destination. I see and meet people from all over the world.

Then you should know foreigners can be moral and intelligent too, and that it isn't an unreasonable expectation.

Follow the law. Integrate into American culture. Try to do something with your life. Easy right?

Sounds reasonable to me. But what does integrating into American culture mean exactly? People keep saying that there is no such thing as a distinct American culture, so what is there to integrate into? Even requiring an immigrant to speak the English language is considered bigoted by some, since America has always had French- and Spanish-speaking minorities or whatever.

[Vanoi]

I think I said Irish, Italian, and German, which are all considered Anglo for the purpose of ethnic classification, with few exceptions.

Did you read your full source at all? Especially the section on culture?

The term implies a relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom (specifically England), or the two countries' shared language, English, and/or cultural heritage. In this context the term may refer to an English American, a person from the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England, a person from the United States who speaks English as their first language (see American English, a collective term referring to those countries that have similar legal systems based on common law, relations between the United Kingdom and United States, or Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, a national cataloging code.^[4][6]The term is also used, less frequently, to denote a connection between English people (or the English language) and the Western Hemisphere as a whole. In this context the term can mean a person from the Americas whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in England (see British diaspora), or a person from the Americas who is a White American and speaks English as their first language, a person from the Americas who speaks English as their first language (see English-speaking world and Languages of the Americas), or person from Anglo-America.

Interestingly, most Americans of African ethnicity are relatively culturally similar to white Anglo Americans, and would be considered complete foreigners in Africa. That's also the case for many second- and third-generation "Hispanics", who may have Spanish names and speak Spanish with their grandparents, but are otherwise culturally pretty similar to their "Anglo" peers. Ted Cruz would stick out like a sore thumb in Cuba, for instance.

I'd also appreciate it if you stopped acting so hostile and outraged. This is an informal discussion on an Internet forum for an Etruscan genocide simulator video game, no one is going to waste their time on a discussion that's not going anywhere. How about we try to find common ground, or at least respectfully agree to disagree?

Hostile? You claim to know my culture and what Americans want and yet you really don't and aren't even American yourself. If you are wasting your time, stop replying.

Anglo-American is nothing but a broad term that can be anyone who simply speaks English as a first language. You can be an Irish-American and an Anglo-American. You can be German-American and be Anglo-American. Get it? The terms aren't mutually exclusive like you implied them to be. Even Anglo-American culture itself is nothing but a broad term that can encompasses multiple different cultures. If you want to use that term to describe them and their culture, fine, but you are being very vague in doing so and ignoring the vast differences between these cultures.

They kept some aspects of their culture, such as the food and the word for grandma, but gave up other aspects.

Thats a little too simple. They plain out brought non-American holidays that now Americans celebrate like Cinco de Mayo or St. Patricks Day. We have the German-born Levi Strauss to thank for the iconic American clothing: blue jeans which i think denim itself came from Northern Italy. African-Americans helped influence music in America bringing about the blues which helped spawn rock and roll.

Its not just simply food or loan words. I really don't think you understand how much immigrants have influenced and helped make modern day American culture.

Then you should know foreigners can be moral and intelligent too, and that it isn't an unreasonable expectation.

Never said they were moral or intelligent. Some were s.

Sounds reasonable to me. But what does integrating into American culture mean exactly? People keep saying that there is no such thing as a distinct American culture, so what is there to integrate into? Even requiring an immigrant to speak the English language is considered bigoted by some, since America has always had French- and Spanish-speaking minorities or whatever.

Probably the distinct culture of the area. Like moving to the Deep South you'd probably pick up the Southern-tyle American culture. I do want them to speak English for the for the simple fact English is the most spoken language and learning it will enable you to pretty much go or do anything in the US. Learning English along with having your own language puts you at advantage over most Americans who only speak English.

[Aexodus]

I mean, surely people should realise that the biggest bugbears in terms of integration are those who wish to segregate men and women, practice FGM, and have things like separate burial grounds separate from Christians.

[Prodromos]

Did you read your full source at all? Especially the section on culture?

[/FONT][/FONT]

Hostile? You claim to know my culture and what Americans want and yet you really don't and aren't even American yourself. If you are wasting your time, stop replying.

Anglo-American is nothing but a broad term that can be anyone who simply speaks English as a first language. You can be an Irish-American and an Anglo-American. You can be German-American and be Anglo-American. Get it? The terms aren't mutually exclusive like you implied them to be. Even Anglo-American culture itself is nothing but a broad term that can encompasses multiple different cultures. If you want to use that term to describe them and their culture, fine, but you are being very vague in doing so and ignoring the vast differences between these cultures.


Thats a little too simple. They plain out brought non-American holidays that now Americans celebrate like Cinco de Mayo or St. Patricks Day. We have the German-born Levi Strauss to thank for the iconic American clothing: blue jeans which i think denim itself came from Northern Italy. African-Americans helped influence music in America bringing about the blues which helped spawn rock and roll.

Its not just simply food or loan words. I really don't think you understand how much immigrants have influenced and helped make modern day American culture.



Never said they were moral or intelligent. Some were s.



Probably the distinct culture of the area. Like moving to the Deep South you'd probably pick up the Southern-tyle American culture. I do want them to speak English for the for the simple fact English is the most spoken language and learning it will enable you to pretty much go or do anything in the US. Learning English along with having your own language puts you at advantage over most Americans who only speak English.

Calm down. You seem to really be going out of your way to misinterpret my statements and make this personal. You're really taking this too personally, and I can see I'm not going to change your mind.

I think anyone who reads my posts can see that my views on immigration are pretty liberal, almost open borders actually, especially in humanitarian cases, so you're mistaken to try to portray me as a fringe Old World nativist. It seems, in your opinion, anyone who supports even the slightest standard for immigration is some kind of extremist. Maybe you're perfectly cool with thousands of total cultural foreigners moving in next door, but surely you can understand that other people disagree, and that doesn't make them bad people. I think we're all well-intentioned, but obviously I can't in good conscience support something I believe to be wrong, just as you can't, so we'll have to agree to disagree and see which of our ideologies eventually wins out.

[swabian]

Any person (native or not) doing apology for terrorism or selling his daughter would face the law in any of our countries.

Aside from terrorism,
forced marriage within, say, Germany may be illegal but the routine is that they are being arranged outside the country with any given jurisdiction that is supposed to prevent this. It's everyday reality that marriages with forced brides are acknowledged undisturbedly.

Another example is inciting hatred and contempt towards natives or other groups. Calling Germans "a peoples of dogs" for instance goes unpunished (some Germano-Turkish, loudmouth politician from the social democrats or something). Turks can also go out on the streets demonstrating, chanting 'Jews must die' or something like this. It's not persecuted ever.

To say "integration" is the mere upholding of social peace and justice is naive, reductionist nonsense. We need to be able to persue long term policies, maybe similar to the current political change in Israel.

[Ludicus]

Heh, just realised I completely misread your argument

No problem

----

having a separate culture, ethnicity and linguistic composition of your community, explicitly different from the larger nation's is not integration or assimilation. This is why multiculturalism is so flawed

Not necessarily. I love my country, I'm patriot. Simply put, multiculturalism should not mean isolation and ghettos. Although any nation-state is based on a dominant culture/ethnic group, that's right, in fact almost all countries have a majority of a nation that comprises the base of the country, with some minorities from different ethnic/religious backgrounds, and it is important that they should all be given equal respect, and that means integration- it's not a flattening process of uniformity but cultural diversity, coupled with equal opportunity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance (Roy Jenkins, 1964).
Tolerance and respect.
Let me give you you an example. In my country, there is a recognized Islamic school near Lisbon- 10% of the pupils are non-Muslims. A few years ago, it achieved the status of being the best school in the national ranking of public and private secondary schools.
The country ranks second worldwide on integrating immigrants in the labour market,fighting discrimination and promoting quality.Our asylum law is one of the best in the world securing a high level of protection and human rights for refugees.They are nearly equal to national citizens, except for the voting rights. We need more immigration and we won't tolerate any xenophobic rhetoric.
Our catholic President between immigrants,



On a side note- Rule with the heart,
A photographic comparison of Donald Trump and Portuguese ... - Quartz

----
Quase 80% dos portugueses acham que integração de imigrantes é positiva...according to a recent poll. In fact, we have a (high) positive perception of integration.
For some reason, Portugal's António Vitorino elected head of UN Migration Agency is the second non-US director-general of the IOM since it was founded in 1951. The candidate selected by Trump was the least voted of all candidates.Obviously.

Is it too much to ask that migrants assimilate or integrate into the host nation on a deep level?

I live in a secular democracy. So,loyalty and respect for the country is enough, it's not necessary to enforce the Christian religion.
There's a reason why anti-Muslim ideology hasn't found a home in Portugal
-------
They don't feel left out,unappreciated, forgotten. They need to have a sense of belonging. In fact, social frontiers are incubators of terrorism: the banlieues of Paris, Brussels' Molenbeek neighborhood, etc...

allowing foreign cultures to replace your own that is a problem

Nobody wants that...
But European countries must accept their small share of immigrants.Poland, for example, is little affected by the migrant/refugee crisis and yet the Civic Platform -the party that wants to make Poland great again - don't want immigrants. As they say, sic: "We don't want immigrants here, we don't understand them,we don't like them".

Poland is one of the most homogenous countries in Europe (with 97% ethnic Polish), Portugal comes close behind with 96% ethnic Portuguese, thus the most homogeneous nation in Western Europe. So what's so dangerous about accepting a very small number of immigrants? Zero.
No one likes to be called a racist...but in the eastern countries of Europe-Hungary,Poland,Austria and Czech republic, the xenophobic/racist rhetoric tends to conflate refugees/ terrorism/ Islam into a perceived threat to "white" values...

Edit,
I forgot to mention the honourable example of Spain, EU migrant crisis: Supreme Court orders Spain to take in more ...

[Aexodus]

Poland is one of the most homogenous countries in Europe (with 97% ethnic Polish), Portugal comes close behind with 96% ethnic Portuguese, thus the most homogeneous nation in Western Europe.

That’s the thing, before long it will be 80% and ethic portugese will be a minority in Lisbon and multiple major cities.

[Prodromos]

That’s the thing, before long it will be 80% and ethic portugese will be a minority in Lisbon and multiple major cities.

Remember also that while one crime may be nothing to society, it can be everything to the individual it was committed against. Society can "absorb" it, but can the victim or their family? Not only violent crime is a problem, but also whole cultural transformation (on a neighborhood or city level), and a loss of one's "home." Government then has a duty to minimize, as far as possible, the chance of these kinds of things happening.

[95thrifleman]

Remember also that while one crime may be nothing to society, it can be everything to the individual it was committed against. Society can "absorb" it, but can the victim or their family? Not only violent crime is a problem, but also whole cultural transformation (on a neighborhood or city level), and a loss of one's "home." Government then has a duty to minimize, as far as possible, the chance of these kinds of things happening.

So my good doctor, other than the third reich style "inprison or shun low quality natives" and only allowing immigration that matches your concept of "virtue" that you have advocated in this thread. How do you propose to create the nationalist utopia? How do you propose to deal with cultural transformation?

I suppose since you are quite happy with the idea, these are your exact words, of "inprison and shun low quality natives" we could do the same to low quality immigants or perhaps just quietly make them dissapear as do some other nations. I take it you have a list of what defines "low quality" in society, these undesirable elements to be "inprisoned or shunned"? Perhaps we could put your "low quality" people in camps and let work set them free perhaps?

There is only one logical conclusion to nationalist paranoia, the worst example was the 1930's germany that followed our good doctor's very advice in that they "shunned and inprioned" people of "low quality". However we have seen this throughout history to a greater or lesser degree.

The nationalists like to wrap their hate in palatable terms such as "cultural transformation" but it's just a hatred of "low quality" people who do not match their pedefined ideals.

Regarding high assimilation standards for immigrants, I think that's justified. There are obviously a lot of low-quality natives in any country, but you can't really deport them; at most, you could imprison or shun them. When it comes to foreign immigrants, however, you can be selective and choose only the immigrants that would actually make the country better. So yes, I believe immigrants should be better than the natives, with regards to morality, religiosity, patriotism, economic contribution, etc. The ideal immigrant is the ideal native, not an average native, and certainly not a below-average native.

Please, I invite yo to define what a "low quality" person is and why they should be inprisoned....

[sumskilz]

Please, I invite yo to define what a "low quality" person is and why they should be inprisoned....

How about for committing crimes. I can't see there was anything controversial in what he said. Do you avoid spending time around people who are regularly hostile, abusive, or steal from you? If so, you tacitly agree with the shunning part as well.

I also think we should maintain immigration standards which select for people who are above our own average with regard to conscientiousness and other factors which contribute to success and integration. Otherwise, what's the point? We already have enough criminals and losers.

[swabian]

Yes, we have enough people with psychopathic tendencies already here. I can tell.

Here is how it's going to look like:

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...-bis-2050.html

(based on a UN study)

We'll end up with something around ~15% Muslims in Germany by the year 2050, if things cool down in the Near East. In the worst case, it's 20% in Germany and 30% in dear old Sweden.

Muslims have already a lot of space to expand into. Europe doesn't need this Near-Eastern crap.

[Aanker]

Jesus of course not, but I wouldn’t want huge levels of migration that would swamp my own culture.

The magnitude of immigration isn’t really what’s being discussed here. But for the sake of the argument, any policy that compels immigrants to ’swamp’ a country in spite of a lack of jobs, schools and other services for such a significant influx, is probably rooted in the distribution of generous welfare and thus is also destined to fail. Sensible immigration policy lets the market and human desire set the demand for immigration, not the government. One reason Sweden, out of all EU nations, became the target for so many immigrants was its particularly luxurious welfare policies and benefits. A system which of course is unsustainable in the globalised world, Sub-Saharan immigrants or not.

I think it’s reasonable to offer asylum seekers ’establishment support’ of benefits or loans, with incrementally decreasing payouts as the person resides in the country. Citizenship (not necessarily residence) should, in turn, be tied to paying taxes, creating an incitament to find work. These policies would reduce the expenses on costly immigration bureaus.

Therems nothing really wrong with other cultures, but when the parent culture dissipates, I find that a problem.

Again, native culture isn’t good just because it is native. The competition of culture is inevitable, ongoing, and has been happening for the entirety of human civilization. Customs come and go.

I mean, surely people should realise that the biggest bugbears in terms of integration are those who wish to segregate men and women, practice FGM, and have things like separate burial grounds separate from Christians.

Aside from terrorism,
forced marriage within, say, Germany may be illegal but the routine is that they are being arranged outside the country with any given jurisdiction that is supposed to prevent this. It's everyday reality that marriages with forced brides are acknowledged undisturbedly.

Another example is inciting hatred and contempt towards natives or other groups. Calling Germans "a peoples of dogs" for instance goes unpunished (some Germano-Turkish, loudmouth politician from the social democrats or something). Turks can also go out on the streets demonstrating, chanting 'Jews must die' or something like this. It's not persecuted ever.

To say "integration" is the mere upholding of social peace and justice is naive, reductionist nonsense. We need to be able to persue long term policies, maybe similar to the current political change in Israel.

All the examples mentioned above are, or should be, limited by laws. To say, also, that FGM or forced marriage somehow are legal or even undisturbedly acknowledged by authorities is plain wrong. FGM, when found by hospital services in Sweden, always leads to an investigation of the family, regardless of whether the mutilation occurs in Sweden or elsewhere. Forced marriage is more difficult to prove, and so isn’t as readily pursued by authorities, but rest assured that if a child accused her parents of forcing her into a marriage, social services would be engaged.

What’s naive and reductionist is the assimilationist thought that these practices can somehow be banished by a simple test or immigration screening. People lie. It’s a fact. The 9/11 terrorists probably didn’t say they were engaged in terrorist activities on their Visa/ESTA applications. It’s also grossly immoral to presume a refugee or immigrant from a country where the practice is common, somehow automatically supports it. In fact, opposition to FGM or forced marriage could be the reason they’re immigration in the first place. I’ve had PTSD patients in psychiatry, who were victims of forced marriage, and fled to Sweden because of that. Should we deny them residence too because they are statistically more likely to support the custom?

A simple test won’t catch their perpetrators, after all.

Immigration tests are, essentially, a moderate conservative proposition. They’re not particularly effective, but on the other hand, not so damaging either. I’m not opposed to a test on the democratic institutions and laws of the country, so long as the test is on a level that the average native could readily clear. At the same time, tests (for example PLAB) can often be built upon by far less moderate administrations to create artificial barriers to professional or other immigration, so as to limit competition for some select interest group.

Yes, we have enough people with psychopathic tendencies already here. I can tell.

Ironically, psychopaths are exactly the sort of people a test wouldn’t be able to catch. They make for excellent liars and manipulators and would pass ’virtue tests’ with top scores.

[Prodromos]

Please, I invite yo to define what a "low quality" person is and why they should be inprisoned....

While all people are equal in a spiritual sense, it's safe to say that each person has a different personality and mode of behavior, which can definitely be ugly enough to warrant shunning or imprisonment. For example I probably wouldn't associate with a KKK supporter, and if he were to kill a random black person or something, he could be imprisoned or executed. Since he'd likely be a native-born American citizen, there generally would be no way to expel him from the country. So shunning or imprisonment are the only options.

But when it comes to immigrant applicants who are outside of the country, it's possible to deny them entry. There's already enough KKK supporters in the country, why import more of them? What exactly would it accomplish, besides appealing to some people's misguided wish for "diversity"? It's easy to say "they can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it", but, unfortunately, the majority of cases of assault, etc. either go unreported or rarely result in prosecution/conviction, so how precisely would you enforce that?

This also applies to prospective immigrants who hold other ugly beliefs. For instance immigrants who believe women should be harassed or assaulted, in particular, should be kept as far away from the country as possible. I really couldn't care less whether they pinky promise not to act on it, since I don't have "Complete Imbecile" painted on my forehead.

There's actually surveys showing that many liberals would shun their own friends just for supporting Trump. They'd block them on social media and reject them as roommates and so forth. And we've all seen how Europe routinely imprisons people for "blasphemy" or "hate speech." So my views aren't exactly 'out there' by your standards.

How about for committing crimes. I can't see there was anything controversial in what he said. Do you avoid spending time around people who are regularly hostile, abusive, or steal from you? If so, you tacitly agree with the shunning part as well.

I also think we should maintain immigration standards which select for people who are above our own average with regard to conscientiousness and other factors which contribute to success and integration. Otherwise, what's the point? We already have enough criminals and losers.

Evidently this makes you a non-American who should be deported to Europe, and pretty unwelcome in the multicultural paradise of Myrtle Beach. They lurve them some Nazis and Islamists there, though, since discrimination based on beliefs goes against their values.

As an aside I'm still hoping Vanoi apologize from . A simple "my bad" for the insults would suffice, via PM if necessary.

[Aexodus]

A system which of course is unsustainable in the globalised world, Sub-Saharan immigrants or not.

Your system was working fine until you opened your borders.

All the examples mentioned above are, or should be, limited by laws. To say, also, that FGM or forced marriage somehow are legal or even undisturbedly acknowledged by authorities is plain wrong. FGM, when found by hospital services in Sweden, always leads to an investigation of the family, regardless of whether the mutilation occurs in Sweden or elsewhere. Forced marriage is more difficult to prove, and so isn’t as readily pursued by authorities, but rest assured that if a child accused her parents of forcing her into a marriage, social services would be engaged.

I’m not sure you understand me. We didn’t even have to think about this before. This is the culture I don’t want Aanker, yet you just say ‘customs come and go’.

Sorry but this is the biggest mass migration since the Neolithic period, and all you have to say is ‘oh customs come and go, culture isn’t worth protecting, the globalised world and abolition of nations is inevitable’

[Muizer]

You're misreading the grammar. He means people in europe already, acting as a shepard. So it means people coming in, being sheparded as they arrive. I think that's the context Aexodus?

That would make for an interesting take on "The dogs shepherded the sheep into the pens". I think you'd be better question his use of the phrase rather than my understanding of it.

[Copperknickers II]

How about for committing crimes. I can't see there was anything controversial in what he said. Do you avoid spending time around people who are regularly hostile, abusive, or steal from you? If so, you tacitly agree with the shunning part as well.

I also think we should maintain immigration standards which select for people who are above our own average with regard to conscientiousness and other factors which contribute to success and integration. Otherwise, what's the point? We already have enough criminals and losers.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure most countries already deport immigrants who commit crimes. We certainly do in the UK, subject to certain caveats. Secondly, you're making a host of bizarre assumptions there which I don't buy:

1. Criminals and 'losers' are not necessarily worse people than non-criminals and non-'losers'. Often crime and other social problems are driven by socioeconomic deprivation, and also by genetic and environmental factors. But the same factors which lead to these problems can in fact be positives in the right circumstances. So I must call that out for what it is: a snobbish and baseless value judgment.

2. Crime is much lower among people from higher social class - partly for the reasons mentioned above and partly because they enjoy priveleges of various kinds that mean they are less likely to be caught for the crimes they do commit. If we ban people from your arbitrarily defined group of undesirables, then we are likely to be banning people who are from a social class that is less likely to be competing with our own citizens, given that we are service economies with high rates of college education compared to third world countries. The UK and US, for instance, don't need more university-educated middle class people. We need more unskilled agricultural workers.

3. Immigration does not exist in a vacuum within the political sphere. By only accepting nice, educated liberal migrants, we are going to receive mostly first world and very well-educated third world migrants. This means we are contributing to a major brain drain, which over time will lead to social and political consequences in those countries. The Muslim world, for instance, is not going to get any more progressive if we are stealing all their progressive people. And so if we feel it's in our interests for this area to get more progressive (for instance, because it makes conflict with them less likely and saves us a lot of time and money that would otherwise have been spent on the disastrous and expensive forays into the Middle East) we shouldn't be cherrypicking the cream of the crop. We should be doing the opposite - taking in people en masse and taking the strain away from them, leaving them with a more manageable number.

[sumskilz]

Secondly, you're making a host of bizarre assumptions there which I don't buy

I said we should "select for people who are above our own average with regard to conscientiousness and other factors which contribute to success and integration". Who's making assumptions now?

That said, I would support a program which encouraged the relocation of criminals and losers from my country to yours entirely based on my snobbish value judgements. In exchange, I'm willing to take any of your unemployed philosophy majors in order to fill unskilled positions.

[Phier]

I said we should "select for people who are above our own average with regard to conscientiousness and other factors which contribute to success and integration". Who's making assumptions now?

That said, I would support a program which encouraged the relocation of criminals and losers from my country to yours entirely based on my snobbish value judgements. In exchange, I'm willing to take any of your unemployed philosophy majors in order to fill unskilled positions.

Next thing you will be talking about their g factor

[Aexodus]

That would make for an interesting take on "The dogs shepherded the sheep into the pens". I think you'd be better question his use of the phrase rather than my understanding of it.

When you are giving economic migrants free money, you are shepherding them in. See Merkel, or Sweden.