Immigration The Lives of German Turks

[bicicleur 2]

I completely agree.

Europeans don't quite get how quickly that happens here.

It's a function, imo, both of the attitude of the Americans and of the new arrivals.

Already by the second generation, and sometimes even in the new arrivals themselves, a new identity is woven. Someone may go to the Scottish games and don a kilt, as they do every summer at a Highlands Game here, but they're Americans first and foremost.

It's the only way for this to work.

I sincerely hope that isn't changing.

I think it would change a lot if Europe would apply the same immigration policy and the same criteria to allow immigrants in, as in the US.
The European laws and practices were made by stupid people who believe Europe should harbour and save the whole world.
In 2015 this has been proven totally impracticable and impossible, but even before frictions and tensions were already appearant.
Now they make alliances with Erdogan and other even more obscure regimes to hold immigrants out.
This is not sustainable. The laws themselves have to change.

 

[Ailchu]

Actually, the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did precisely because it erased "ethnic" or tribal identification and put "Roman" identity in its place.

First it was the Latin tribes, then Greek southern Italy, then northern Italy, then anyone who obtained citizenship, and finally everyone in the Empire.

In the following thread there's a discussion of how Northern Italians within a generation or two were fighting to be called "Roman" and bragging about their superiority to those unfortunates who were not born on the Italian peninsula, which was seen as the epicenter at that early time.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era

Paul of Tarsus proudly demanded to be tried by Roman law because he was a Roman citizen.

They got some things right.

That's how to convert the conquered: be inconclusive, and treat them equally.

exactly, but now try to somehow replace the ethnic identities of europeans with new ones. it's still far away but we are getting closer. either people just lose interest in ethnicity or migration will make it harder for people to identify with an ethnic group.
that's why i think germany together with western europe is actually far ahead of many other europeans. for many of them the identification is not really ethnic anymore but only cultural so it should be no surprise that many say they are first europeans and then after that they are germans. "european" will be similar to "american" or "roman" without an ethnic but just a cultural meaning.

 

[Ailchu]

I think it would change a lot if Europe would apply the same immigration policy and the same criteria to allow immigrants in, as in the US.
The European laws and practices were made by stupid people who believe Europe should harbour and save the whole world.
In 2015 this has been proven totally impracticable and impossible, but even before frictions and tensions were already appearant.
Now they make alliances with Erdogan and other even more obscure regimes to hold immigrants out.
This is not sustainable. The laws themselves have to change.

but the U.S also have immigration problems. it has the benefit of beeing far away from the problems of africa, asia. but think about it, a popular solution for the migration of people that are living near, like those in south america, is building a wall. and there are also deals with other governements to reduce migration.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49612597
doesn't seem like the U.S have much better solutions. i mean i'm not an american but there certainly are problems if someone like trump manages to get elected and presenting quite "extreme" solutions to those problems was a big part of his campaigns.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Actually, the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did precisely because it erased "ethnic" or tribal identification and put "Roman" identity in its place.
First it was the Latin tribes, then Greek southern Italy, then northern Italy, then anyone who obtained citizenship, and finally everyone in the Empire.
In the following thread there's a discussion of how Northern Italians within a generation or two were fighting to be called "Roman" and bragging about their superiority to those unfortunates who were not born on the Italian peninsula, which was seen as the epicenter at that early time.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Roman-Era?highlight=Northern+Italy+Roman+Era
Paul of Tarsus proudly demanded to be tried by Roman law because he was a Roman citizen.
They got some things right.
That's how to convert the conquered: be inconclusive, and treat them equally.

Roman citizenship was for an elite that was wanting to identify itself with Rome.
Most of them lived and were subjugated already at least a few generations inside the Roman Empire.
And the outer doors to the Empire remained firmly closed. Migrating into the Empire and apply for citizenship was not an option, unless you had something very special to offer.

 

[Angela]

Roman citizenship was for an elite that was wanting to identify itself with Rome.
Most of them lived and were subjugated already at least a few generations inside the Roman Empire.
And the outer doors to the Empire remained firmly closed. Migrating into the Empire and apply for citizenship was not an option, unless you had something very special to offer.

No, it wasn't for only the "elite" in the sense you mean. Paul of Tarsus was a tentmaker for goodness' sakes! You really have to get a better grasp on Roman history if you're going to constantly trash them.

Citizenship did require a certain amount of property. That was still the case in the U.S. until the end of the 19th century. When did Belgium get the vote? Who had it?

God knows the Roman Empire wasn't perfect; no Empire from 2,000 years ago is going to be. How could it ever even come close to being perfect when they practised slavery? It's not really a complete defense that everyone else did too.

Let's keep things fact based, shall we?

As for your bolded comment, you should be all in favor of their decision. It's no different than what you want to do in terms of refugees from the Middle East. The starving hordes running away from the Huns would have sunk them if they'd have accepted all of them. What could they offer an already weakening empire? Until the invention of stronger plows much of the farmland in the northern regions was unusable. They were illiterate, armed to the teeth, violence prone, as their remains tell us, and had no skills in demand in the empire except for that of killing.

They sunk Rome anyway because Rome stupidly hired some as mercenaries, and they took all they learned and opened the doors to their compatriots.

 

[Angela]

You poor young man, don't you tire of showing everyone how crazy you are?

Is there no one in your life who can intervene and take you to a doctor?

I realize your real name is masked, but look at the disrepute into which you put your country.

 

[[email protected]]

Angela, I’m a bit confused. Who are you addressing in your comment 40 and 46?

 

[Angela]

Angela, I’m a bit confused. Who are you addressing in your comment 40 and 46?

Our troubled Romanian ex-member has posted probably more than twenty times today under various sock accounts. In addition to blocking that sock name, I have deleted the posts for the sake of the remaining members and the reputation of the site.

That's who I was addressing.

I hope he took it to heart.

 

[[email protected]]

Ah, well I was ready to be admonished, though I didn’t know why.

 

[bicicleur 2]

No, it wasn't for only the "elite" in the sense you mean. Paul of Tarsus was a tentmaker for goodness' sakes! You really have to get a better grasp on Roman history if you're going to constantly trash them.
Citizenship did require a certain amount of property. That was still the case in the U.S. until the end of the 19th century. When did Belgium get the vote? Who had it?
God knows the Roman Empire wasn't perfect; no Empire from 2,000 years ago is going to be. How could it ever even come close to being perfect when they practised slavery? It's not really a complete defense that everyone else did too.
Let's keep things fact based, shall we?
As for your bolded comment, you should be all in favor of their decision. It's no different than what you want to do in terms of refugees from the Middle East. The starving hordes running away from the Huns would have sunk them if they'd have accepted all of them. What could they offer an already weakening empire? Until the invention of stronger plows much of the farmland in the northern regions was unusable. They were illiterate, armed to the teeth, violence prone, as their remains tell us, and had no skills in demand in the empire except for that of killing.
They sunk Rome anyway because Rome stupidly hired some as mercenaries, and they took all they learned and opened the doors to their compatriots.

ok, omit the word 'elite'
what is wrong with my statement then? what is not fact based?
present day situation allowed to grow an industry of human trafickers to get migrants across the European borders, and an industry of lawyers and legal advisors to prevent them from expelling them, that is the problem
I don't think you can compare this to granting Roman citizenship

 

[Angela]

Ah, well I was ready to be admonished, though I didn’t know why.

Have you posted rambling, vituperative, deranged posts lately? If not, then you're fine.

 

[Angela]

ok, omit the word 'elite'
what is wrong with my statement then? what is not fact based?
present day situation allowed to grow an industry of human trafickers to get migrants across the European borders, and an industry of lawyers and legal advisors to prevent them from expelling them, that is the problem
I don't think you can compare this to granting Roman citizenship

My comment stands, Bicicleur.

I don't understand how you can fail to see the similarity in the situations.

O.K. the hordes at the walls during the Roman Empire were armed and trying to batter down the walls instead of trying to sneak in.

There is no other difference.

You object to the mass arrival in Europe of illiterate or barely literate, unskilled people with nothing to offer Europe and who will be a drain on already stretched resources, and who are, you claim, all violence prone.

My question was: why do you object then to what the Romans did in refusing entry, for as long as they could, to the Germanic tribespeople trying to batter down their walls.

See:

"As for your bolded comment, you should be all in favor of their decision. It's no different than what you want to do in terms of refugees from the Middle East. The starving hordes running away from the Huns would have sunk them if they'd have accepted all of them. What could they offer an already weakening empire? Until the invention of stronger plows much of the farmland in the northern regions was unusable. They were illiterate, armed to the teeth, violence prone, as their remains tell us, and had no skills in demand in the empire except for that of killing."

I found your objection a bit hypocritical. You should have approved of their decision if you were being consistent.

As for Roman citizenship, it was obviously not going to be held by slaves, people with no property, or, alas, women. However, some of those people couldn't get citizenship in our own countries until the 19th/20th century.

You hold people living 2,000 years ago to higher standards than people living 100 years ago.

I could give another example. The European colonial powers took over wide swathes of the undeveloped world, Belgium included, and it lasted for a long time. After 3 generations, did Belgium give Belgian citizenship to all propertied males over 18 in what is now the Congo? Yet, 2,000 years ago, Jews, North Africans, Anatolians, the English, Gauls, Germans, Spaniards, people living in the Balkans and on and on could become Roman citizens.

By contrast, there are some European countries where people who were 'invited' in to work not only don't have the rights of citizenship but neither do their children and grandchildren.

 

[Ailchu]

My comment stands, Bicicleur.

I don't understand how you can fail to see the similarity in the situations.

O.K. the hordes at the walls during the Roman Empire were armed and trying to batter down the walls instead of trying to sneak in.

There is no other difference.

You object to the mass arrival in Europe of illiterate or barely literate, unskilled people with nothing to offer Europe and who will be a drain on already stretched resources, and who are, you claim, all violence prone.

My question was: why do you object then to what the Romans did in refusing entry, for as long as they could, to the Germanic tribespeople trying to batter down their walls.

i think bicicleur sees the situation like you. you both want to compare modern migrations with those back then. is there really no difference between now and then except the barbarians back then used force to get in?

By contrast, there are some European countries where people who were 'invited' in to work not only don't have the rights of citizenship but neither do their children and grandchildren.

some? many european countries have the citizenship by blood, which means you are either born to parents with the citizenship or you have to apply for citizenship and meet certain requirements like living in the country for a certain duration.
the only countries that further don't request a language test and knowledge about the country are sweden, belgium and ireland.

the thing is it's usually not worth the effort to apply for citizenship. in switzerland they made a vote about giving third generation migrants swiss papers easier. it was accepted i think.

 

[bigsnake49]

I have no problem with countries in Europe or even the US not allowing migrants that have nothing to offer or might be a drain on resources or might be disruptive elements. I also don't have a problem with Brexit and I wish that the root cause of Brexit, namely open borders was settled amicably.

But countries in Europe are going to have to decide where the unskilled laborers or farmers are going to come from. My second cousin came back from Greece and told me that our village is deserted. All the young people have moved to the cities so only the old people are left. The land is very fertile and can grow pretty much anything but it needs workers. Who will those people be and where will they come from?

 

[bicicleur 2]

well, Angela, I didn't make the in-depth study as you urged me to, but I stumbled on this, see after 6:15 :

so, before Caracalla, Roman citizinship was for an elite, after it was for all free men in the Empire, is that correct?
and some historians don't think it was a smart move, they say it made Rome dependand on those smelly, illiterate barbaric mercenaries you despise so much
what is your take on that?

 

[Angela]

well, Angela, I didn't make the in-depth study as you urged me to, but I stumbled on this, see after 6:15 :

so, before Caracalla, Roman citizinship was for an elite, after it was for all free men in the Empire, is that correct?
and some historians don't think it was a smart move, they say it made Rome dependand on those smelly, illiterate barbaric mercenaries you despise so much
what is your take on that?

First of all, I don't "despise" the Germanics who tried to enter the empire and ultimately were the coup de grace which brought it down. Just, by the way, as I don't despise the often illiterate, not westernized people trying to enter Europe today. I don't want to be insulting, but please don't project your feelings on to me as to the latter.

If anything I feel sorry for both groups, and wish they weren't in that situation. However, the issue was whether either polity could accept unlimited numbers of such people into their borders. I think the answer is no.

Second of all it would be a bit of self hatred on my part to despise those Germanics. While it may be a minority part of my ancestry, they did have some influence on my genomics.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible about all of it.

Now, do I think it was a "smart" move for Rome to accept the Germanics as mercenaries, in their own mercenary units, answering to their own commanders, and relying on them so heavily for matters of defense? Absolutely not, as I emphasized already in my post upthread. I think it should be an absolute rule, if you will, NEVER to become dependant on mercenaries no matter the country, the ethnicity of the mercenaries, or the era. Think of the Mamalukes of Egypt as one example which pops to mind. The only situation which comes to mind which was pretty successful were the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottomans took the precaution of removing the boys from their families and home countries at a very young age, raising them strictly in dormitories, indoctrinating them in Islam and loyalty to Ottoman rule, and not granting them the right to marry. Even then there was eventually trouble.

As to the nature of Roman citizenship in the Empire, you really shouldn't rely on youtube videos.

It's a complicated issue because its nature depended on the precise time and place being discussed. There were areas which had what amounts to "universal" male citizenship long before Caracalla. I would remind you that universal male citizenship in the modern world wasn't granted in a lot of places until the 20th century. Your standards for Rome are almost absurdly high.

However, in many, many areas and situations, it was indeed not limited to the "elite" in the sense you mean. I'll just provide a few examples:

Slaves of Roman citizens who were legally manumitted were automatically citizens. Does that sound like giving citizenship only to the elite to you?

The treatment of conquered territories depended on who was in power in Rome and the political situation at the time. In the early years on the Italian peninsula some areas were incorporated directed into Rome, and all inhabitants became Roman citizens. In others they were considered allies, and the acquisition of Roman citizenship depended on services to Rome. Eventually, local magistrates could confer that citizenship, for example to a tax collector or necessary merchant of tradesman. Even well before the time of Augustus, all of Italy was granted citizenship.

Cisalpine Gaul received the "Latin right" in 89 BC, and in 49 BC Giulio Cesare granted citizenship to all inhabitants.

Then there were the hit and miss situations. When the taboo against settling veterans outside Italy was lifted, and colonies were established all over the Roman world, citizenship was often granted to locals who were associated with or came to live in those colonies.

During the Empire, the practice also began of granting citizenship to tribal groups which chose to ally with Rome, and service as auxiliary troops in the Roman army also resulted in a grant of Roman citizenship. Claudius institutionalized it, and thereafter anyone serving in the Roman military received citizenship.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.

No, citizenship was not something granted only to "elites".

 

[[email protected]]

But countries in Europe are going to have to decide where the unskilled laborers or farmers are going to come from. My second cousin came back from Greece and told me that our village is deserted. All the young people have moved to the cities so only the old people are left. The land is very fertile and can grow pretty much anything but it needs workers. Who will those people be and where will they come from?

There are an interesting number of news articles recently in the US about a supposed return of the Millennial generation to small rural towns (or at least they are not leaving). The impetus seems to be a general disillusionment with the stresses of big cities (high cost, crime, filth). This trend, if it's true, could eventually hit Europe as well.

As to your more specific comment about agriculture, I can't see any return to small farms (the work is too hard). I think the answer will be robotics, as it already is in the baby-bust Japan. It makes more sense to make tractors and harvesters autonomous than it does cars (and there are no human interface safety issues). It's not that hard to imagine giant farms, worked entirely by autonomous machines, with no human interface outside of mechanics. Of course I'm thinking of straight-forward crops, like wheat, not olives or grapes.

[If this comment to too far off subject, I apologize, but we seem to have wandered pretty far off subject all ready]

 

[bicicleur 2]

First of all, I don't "despise" the Germanics who tried to enter the empire and ultimately were the coup de grace which brought it down. Just, by the way, as I don't despise the often illiterate, not westernized people trying to enter Europe today. I don't want to be insulting, but please don't project your feelings on to me as to the latter.
If anything I feel sorry for both groups, and wish they weren't in that situation. However, the issue was whether either polity could accept unlimited numbers of such people into their borders. I think the answer is no.
Second of all it would be a bit of self hatred on my part to despise those Germanics. While it may be a minority part of my ancestry, they did have some influence on my genomics.
I'm trying to be as objective as possible about all of it.
Now, do I think it was a "smart" move for Rome to accept the Germanics as mercenaries, in their own mercenary units, answering to their own commanders, and relying on them so heavily for matters of defense? Absolutely not, as I emphasized already in my post upthread. I think it should be an absolute rule, if you will, NEVER to become dependant on mercenaries no matter the country, the ethnicity of the mercenaries, or the era. Think of the Mamalukes of Egypt as one example which pops to mind. The only situation which comes to mind which was pretty successful were the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottomans took the precaution of removing the boys from their families and home countries at a very young age, raising them strictly in dormitories, indoctrinating them in Islam and loyalty to Ottoman rule, and not granting them the right to marry. Even then there was eventually trouble.
As to the nature of Roman citizenship in the Empire, you really shouldn't rely on youtube videos.
It's a complicated issue because its nature depended on the precise time and place being discussed. There were areas which had what amounts to "universal" male citizenship long before Caracalla. I would remind you that universal male citizenship in the modern world wasn't granted in a lot of places until the 20th century. Your standards for Rome are almost absurdly high.
However, in many, many areas and situations, it was indeed not limited to the "elite" in the sense you mean. I'll just provide a few examples:
Slaves of Roman citizens who were legally manumitted were automatically citizens. Does that sound like giving citizenship only to the elite to you?
The treatment of conquered territories depended on who was in power in Rome and the political situation at the time. In the early years on the Italian peninsula some areas were incorporated directed into Rome, and all inhabitants became Roman citizens. In others they were considered allies, and the acquisition of Roman citizenship depended on services to Rome. Eventually, local magistrates could confer that citizenship, for example to a tax collector or necessary merchant of tradesman. Even well before the time of Augustus, all of Italy was granted citizenship.
Cisalpine Gaul received the "Latin right" in 89 BC, and in 49 BC Giulio Cesare granted citizenship to all inhabitants.
Then there were the hit and miss situations. When the taboo against settling veterans outside Italy was lifted, and colonies were established all over the Roman world, citizenship was often granted to locals who were associated with or came to live in those colonies.
During the Empire, the practice also began of granting citizenship to tribal groups which chose to ally with Rome, and service as auxiliary troops in the Roman army also resulted in a grant of Roman citizenship. Claudius institutionalized it, and thereafter anyone serving in the Roman military received citizenship.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.
No, citizenship was not something granted only to "elites".

so, what was the motivation then to hire barbaric mercenaires?
couldn't they find the right people within the Empire to defend it?

it makes me think of the to royal social security system in Europe overprotecting unambitious, unskilled and even sometimes downright lazy people
and the argumentation that we need immigrants to fill in certain jobs no one wants to do here any more

and what was the motivation to grant citizenship?
I think the move of Julius Ceasar is very sarcstic
first he kills hundreds of thousands of them, he is even proud of it, and then he grants citizenship to the survivors

no I don't think you can compare to todays situations
WW II ended just 74 years ago
the UN rules for refugees were written then
it didn't anticipate todays situation with global communication and human trafickers
that's how fast things change

well, you always can compare with situations in the past,
but that will always be subjective, because situations may be similar, but never the same

 

[Ailchu]

it makes me think of the to royal social security system in Europe overprotecting unambitious, unskilled and even sometimes downright lazy people
and the argumentation that we need immigrants to fill in certain jobs no one wants to do here any more

are you practicing such a job yourself? noone does these jobs because they are simply not worth it anymore and if you can manage to evade them you do so. you can't force some unlucky bastards, who actually meet the requirements for better jobs, to do it without giving them a compensation. so, people will have to come from elsewhere to keep the economy running.

 

[Angela]

so, what was the motivation then to hire barbaric mercenaires?
couldn't they find the right people within the Empire to defend it?

it makes me think of the to royal social security system in Europe overprotecting unambitious, unskilled and even sometimes downright lazy people
and the argumentation that we need immigrants to fill in certain jobs no one wants to do here any more

and what was the motivation to grant citizenship?
I think the move of Julius Ceasar is very sarcstic
first he kills hundreds of thousands of them, he is even proud of it, and then he grants citizenship to the survivors

no I don't think you can compare to todays situations
WW II ended just 74 years ago
the UN rules for refugees were written then
it didn't anticipate todays situation with global communication and human trafickers
that's how fast things change

well, you always can compare with situations in the past,
but that will always be subjective, because situations may be similar, but never the same

I'm sorry, Bicicleur, but this is not the thread for an explanation of the whole history and culture of the Roman world. Nor could I do it justice in posts on a forum anyways. There are excellent books on the subject, many of which I've mentioned.

Just briefly, you may not understand how it worked, but work it did. Within a generation the people of most conquered areas were fighting to be considered "true" Romans. I wrote a whole thread about it. There are conquerors and conquerors. How much did the Germans hate the Americans who bombed Dresden? Maybe some, for a generation. And then? What about the Japanese, even after something like Hiroshima? Yet, to this day, how do the Poles feel about being taken over by the Russians? War is war, and especially in that day and age they accepted the consequences of it. After the first generation it's all about how the conquered are treated, and the inclusivity of the system.

As for the similarity between refugee Germanic tribesmen and refugee Middle easterners or Africans trying to enter more prosperous places, the only difference I can see is that you sympathize with the former and you don't like the latter.