I honestly think this is a great idea.

[Dinner]

The government of the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has instituted new "discussion guidelines" which immigration officials should discuse with all perspective immigrants and asylum seekers. The idea is to determine if perspective immigrants are compatible with German society and to determine if they would be a good fit with western culture. Examples of questions include"

# How do you view the statement that a woman should obey her husband, and that he can beat her if she doesn't?

# You learn that people from your neighbourhood or from among friends or acquaintances have carried out or are planning a terrorist attack - what do you do?

# Some people hold the Jews responsible for all the evil in the world, and even claim they were behind the attacks of 11 September 2001 in New York. What is your view of this claim?

# Imagine that your son comes to you and declares that he's a homosexual and would like to live with another man. How do you react?

The new measure is the brainchild of the Baden-Wuerttemberg Interior Minister, Heribert Rech.

"When there are doubts about an applicant's values, the easiest thing is for an official to have a talk with him - but not a talk about the weather or about football," he says.

"It needs to be about his view of our constitution, of tolerance, of sexual equality, or of the state's monopoly on the use of violence. Only with these questions can we come close to finding the answers we need."

Supposedly 76% of Germans agree that this is a good idea and this strikes me as the type of common sense approach which will help nations weed out the bad apples. If your values are so alien to western society then you should have to get in the back of the line and people whose values more readily match western values should get priority to enter western nations. I'm sure some people will claim this is racism or such nonsense but really this is about matching values and determining if people have beliefs which will cause them to disrupt society or to integrate with society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4655240.stm

[:) Smiley]

The question if this will work can already be determined: has the recent controversy led to a decrease in the number of immigration applicants from Islamic nations to Europe?

[Pekka]

I think that's a great idea but I would think about revising the questions. First of all, if they are too blatant, anyone can lie easy, 'are you human and if you were a whale, would you cry?'.

It's like you can predict and know what the wrong answer is. I think there shouldn't be .. a wrong answer, to really get something out of hte respondent. So idea Good, but better questions please.

[Spiffor]

The sample questions are probably false ones, just to give an idea to the reader.

In absolute terms, I consider this interview as a good idea. However, you have to put it in the general European context wrt immigration: The EU as a whole is trying to reduce immigration as much as possible, and this decision adds up to already existing restrictive policies. It is unlikely this idea will lead Baden-Württemberg to welcoming as many people (which are more adapted to German culture), but that it's just an extra layer of screening to have fewer immigrants..

[Az]

The EU as a whole is trying to reduce immigration as much as possible, and this decision adds up to already existing restrictive policies.

If it did, it would simply ban it. It's completely within your power.

[Fake Boris]

I honestly think these questions are stupid. It's like the Canadian immigration forms that ask you if you were involved in war crimes.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
If it did, it would simply ban it. It's completely within your power.

Yes, but our governments aren't reactionary enough yet to completely ban it. S they're just talking about "reducing" it. Oh, and they give orders to shoot down aspiring illegal migrants. Though we outsource most of the killing to other countries.

[Jaguar]

The "right" answers might seem obvious to us, but I'm betting that won't be true for a lot of people. This is pretty sensible IMO.

[Az]

I really don't get your limp wrist on this one. I think that not wanting a bunch of people who live in countries where insane social values prevail is somehow "reactionary". If you try to simply ban their entrance you're reactionary, if you want to fix their society you're imperialist - is the only progressive way is to let people who think that wifebeating is a sport in?

I am not saying that they all are, of course - that's why everyone who passes comprehensive testing should be welcomed. However saying that this is just a conspiracy for the EU to not let "those" people in is either bogus or trivial, depending on what you mean by "those" people.

If you mean screening based on ethnicity, this is bull - I am certain 100% that they'll let people in if they fit the criteria, and if they don't that doesn't mean you have to scrap the whole system. If you claim that the tests are "culturally biased" - well that's the whole point, innit? Maybe in country X it's ok to kill your syster because she sleeps around, or kick your wife because you feel like it - it's not the case here.

As to the hope that the people who immigrate will assimilate on the spot, we've all seen how well it has worked in Saint Denis (?).

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I honestly think these questions are stupid. It's like the Canadian immigration forms that ask you if you were involved in war crimes.

UK asks you that as well

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Jaguar
The "right" answers might seem obvious to us, but I'm betting that won't be true for a lot of people. This is pretty sensible IMO.

What you say is very true, but hmmm... not sure what to think in principle you will get the worst of the worst in. Esp such "homosexual" question.

The true terrorists will lie at all of them, it is only "honest muslims" or honest religious folks who deem it to be below their honor to lie to change their life and material situation who will be rejected. Those are in my opinion very unlikely to be terrorists or similar either, so in essence the true scum(1%) and those without devout beliefs will still get in (98%), while we will reject the people whose principle to not lie is so strong they are willing to reject material goods for it (another 1%). Such folk is huge minority and would be a great net benefit to our societies, ie those people can make great businessmen etc...

So overall the idea is good at the core, but IMO very very hard (almost impossible) to implement.

As for "they won't know" well perhaps fist 100 will not know but after them everyone will know, as this is valuable information which people will be happy to spread for free.

[Az]

The true terrorists will lie at all of them, it is only "honest muslims" or honest religious folks who deem it to be below their honor to lie to change their life and material situation who will be rejected.

Isn't that a good thing? If he's an honest wife-beater, he's still a wife-beater.

[StarLightDeath]

I agree with Pekka. It's a really good idea, but it seems really easy to lie on it. Muslims aren't stupid, they're going to realize what the questions are for.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I honestly think these questions are stupid. It's like the Canadian immigration forms that ask you if you were involved in war crimes.

When asking things like that I think it is more there so that its easier to deport a person who was found to lie on their application for entry to the country, than to actually prove the associated criminality asked about by the queston.

[Datajack Franit]

Muslim fundies have no problem in appearing on tv and declare that jews, homos and christians are pigs going to rot in hell. If this test keeps even one fundamentalist out of my country, it's a great idea