Why the world is rooted.

[The4thEstate]

Different people from different cultures have different customs. What is surprising about that? Is everybody expected to conform to your views on how they should act, 4th? Hardly seems fair to me. Seems to me you like homogeneity rather than pluralism and diversity...

Not interested in your amateur psychoanalysis, but thanks anyway.

Ah, so you do prefer homogeneity and uniformity, 4th.

*** See previous answer. ***

The last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of Muslim people do actually assimilate quite well. Women don't wear the veil, women shake hands, men look like everybody else. They are law abiding and still manage to be observant of the Qu'ran. A minority cause problems for chauvinists like you it seems. Your inability to cope with them is what at question here, not with their unwillingness to conform to how you perceive your fellow Americans should act.

Even if that happens to be true -- and you've supplied no evidence other than your own unsubstantiated say-so -- we''re not talking about the Muslims who "do actually assimilate quite well."

We're talking about the ones who can't or won't -- otherwise, why would any Western society even bother to suspend a custom as old and inoffensive (to native citizens, anyway) as handshaking? It's a silly, unnecessary concession ... unless, of course, you're the kind of person who thinks a nation that generously takes in members of less successful, more chaotic cultures is somehow obligated to transform its own society into something more like the less successful, more chaotic places the new immigrants left in the first place.

It's a bit ironic, no? The immigrants are basically saying, "My old country sucks. I want my new country to be more like it."

Personally, I think the newcomers should show a sense of gratitude and not feel entitled to make demands ... but y'know, I have this crazy idea that guests with no place to stay should be grateful when they're offered a permanent place in someone else's home. Especially when the homeowner is paying their expenses to boot.

As to why people travel to the US it is generally for a better life. Some are forced to because they don't get along with their fellow countrymen, some do it voluntarily. The same reasons why people migrated from Europe to the New World. Americans have proved in the past the futility of rejecting immigrants (remember the "know nothings"?). Why repeat the same mistakes?

Thank you for proving my point: Migrants travel to the U.S. or elsewhere "for a better life." Which means the places they came from are inferior.

But the reason other countries are inferior is frequently because their governments are corrupt, their leaders are dictators, their streets are controlled by criminal gangs or whatever. I sympathize with these people, but that doesn't entitle them to pour into my country and demand residency, if not citizenship. Fix your own country like we fixed ours when the Brits ran it.

Besides, as with any country in the world, the U.S. is a sovereign nation, not a Third World spillway. We have the right to say who and how many can come in -- and if you think that's a new concept, look up the Immigration Act of 1924. Successful, prosperous nations won't stay that way if they open their borders to every migrant in the world.

[brian ross]

The last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of Muslim people do actually assimilate quite well. Women don't wear the veil, women shake hands, men look like everybody else. They are law abiding and still manage to be observant of the Qu'ran. A minority cause problems for chauvinists like you it seems. Your inability to cope with them is what at question here, not with their unwillingness to conform to how you perceive your fellow Americans should act.

Even if that happens to be true -- and you've supplied no evidence other than your own unsubstantiated say-so -- we''re not talking about the Muslims who "do actually assimilate quite well."

We're talking about the ones who can't or won't -- otherwise, why would any Western society even bother to address a custom as old and inoffensive (to native citizens, anyway) as handshaking? It's a silly, unnecessary concession ... unless, of course, you're the kind of person who thinks a nation that generously takes in members of less successful, more chaotic cultures is somehow obligated to transform its own society into something more like the less successful, more chaotic places the new immigrants left.
[/quote]

As far as I am concerned, I don't see a big deal if I don't shake hands with someone. In fact, it's actually more hygienic if we got rid of the habit. I don't like the idea of sharing germs with other people actually. I've served in the army with/studied with/worked with numerous Muslims, both men and women and never had a problem. The ones who don't shake hands are rare in my experience. You are concentrating a tiny minority of such people IMO. Why bother getting your knickers in a twist over it?

Personally, I think the newcomers should show a sense of gratitude and not feel entitled to make demands ... but y'know, I have this crazy idea that guests with no place to stay should be grateful when they're offered a permanent place in someone else's home. Especially when the homeowner is paying their expenses to boot.

What a marvellous host you make, 4th. In my society, people are allowed to basically do what they like, as long as it is within the laws of the land. Shaking hands is not a big deal for most Australians. I rather suspect if someone refuses to shake a person's hand it is accepted and acknowledged as a cultural difference. We are all different. We are not homogeneous, we are a multicultural society. We are all Australians.

As to why people travel to the US it is generally for a better life. Some are forced to because they don't get along with their fellow countrymen, some do it voluntarily. The same reasons why people migrated from Europe to the New World. Americans have proved in the past the futility of rejecting immigrants (remember the "know nothings"?). Why repeat the same mistakes?

Thank you for proving my point: Migrants travel to the U.S. or elsewhere "for a better life." Which means the places they came from are less desirable, offering an environment that's inferior.

But the reason other countries offer inferior surroundings isn't generally because of factors beyond their control. It's because their governments are screwed up, perhaps because of powerful and corrupt leadership, criminal gangs or whatever. I sympathize with these people, but that doesn't entitle them to pour into my country and demand residency, if not citizenship.
[/quote]

Yes, so? I think you mean socially inferior when perhaps they are seeking greater political freedom.

They come because they have asked to come, 4th. Your Government has accepted their request. They are immigrants. They are not alien creatures from the planet Zog. They are different. Their attitudes are different when they first arrive but they change after the second or third generation, just as the Europeans attitudes changed and became what is today modern America. You appear to think that they should be barred from entry simply because they are different. This is exactly what the Know Nothings believed and look how well that served them...

Besides, as with any country in the world, the U.S. is a sovereign nation, not a Third World spillway. We have the right to say who and how many can come in -- and if you think that's a new concept, look up the Immigration Act of 1924. Successful, prosperous nations won't stay that way if they open their borders to every migrant in the world.

No one is suggesting that here. The US Government reserves the right to refuse entry to whomever it wishes. It has though, in the past chosen to it in an unfair way. It has barred entry to Jews fleeing the Holocaust, people who had darker skin colour to the whites, people who held differing political viewpoints and so on and so on. Your attitude reflects that sort of view. It is not nice and it is not fair. People should be allowed in who will contribute to your society. People should be allowed in if they are seeking Asylum. You appear to believe that, like Trump, your nation is "full" when it is demonstrably not.

And before you claim otherwise, no I don't believe in open borders with all people being allowed in, without question or reason. However, I believe in fairness in immigration policies, not policies based upon prejudice and hatred.

Personally, having visited the US, you wouldn't get me migrating there in a pink fit.

[The4thEstate]

We''re not talking about the Muslims who "do actually assimilate quite well." We're talking about the ones who can't or won't -- otherwise, why would any Western society even bother to address a custom as old and inoffensive (to native citizens, anyway) as handshaking? It's a silly, unnecessary concession ... unless, of course, you're the kind of person who thinks a nation that generously takes in members of less successful, more chaotic cultures is somehow obligated to transform its own society into something more like the less successful, more chaotic places the new immigrants left.

As far as I am concerned, I don't see a big deal if I don't shake hands with someone. In fact, it's actually more hygienic if we got rid of the habit. I don't like the idea of sharing germs with other people actually. I've served in the army with/studied with/worked with numerous Muslims, both men and women and never had a problem. The ones who don't shake hands are rare in my experience. You are concentrating a tiny minority of such people IMO. Why bother getting your knickers in a twist over it?

Well, of course I'm concentrating on a tiny minority -- because that's the friggin' issue here!

Let's go over this again: Why should a successful society amend its long-held customs just to placate such a tiny minority?

Come on, I thought you contended that most Muslims "assimilate quite well" into Western society. If they can't even handle the innocuous Western custom of handshaking, how exactly are they going to "assimilate quite well" in other areas of the culture?

Personally, I think the newcomers should show a sense of gratitude and not feel entitled to make demands ... but y'know, I have this crazy idea that guests with no place to stay should be grateful when they're offered a permanent place in someone else's home. Especially when the homeowner is paying their expenses to boot.

What a marvellous host you make, 4th. In my society, people are allowed to basically do what they like, as long as it is within the laws of the land.

What a marvelous guest you make, Brian! Not only do you expect to be taken into somebody's home just because you don't like yours as much -- you also expect to be provided with a check for your basic needs, even though you've done nothing for the hosts who took you in. And you think you have every right to tell them how to run their household.

Yeah, that's my idea of a house guest with integrity!

Shaking hands is not a big deal for most Australians. I rather suspect if someone refuses to shake a person's hand it is accepted and acknowledged as a cultural difference. We are all different. We are not homogeneous, we are a multicultural society. We are all Australians.

Again, the point sailed over your head.

Let's try it again, this time with simpler words: I never said that everybody who comes to a new country is required to do everything the natives do. My point was that immigrants have no right to expect their new country to change its time-honored customs just to accommodate their tastes.

Thank you for proving my point: Migrants travel to the U.S. or elsewhere "for a better life." Which means the places they came from are less desirable, offering an environment that's inferior.

But the reason other countries offer inferior surroundings isn't generally because of factors beyond their control. It's because their governments are screwed up, perhaps because of powerful and corrupt leadership, criminal gangs or whatever. I sympathize with these people, but that doesn't entitle them to pour into my country and demand residency, if not citizenship.

Yes, so? I think you mean socially inferior when perhaps they are seeking greater political freedom.

Hey, I wish rainwater was beer, but it's not.

Just because millions of people wants to leave their country doesn't require my country to take all or any of them in. Maybe they should stay home, band together and work on creating a society that's more like the ones in the U.S. and Australia. Y'know, like Americans and Australians did centuries ago.

They come because they have asked to come, 4th. Your Government has accepted their request.

BZZZT! Wrong -- there are millions of immigrants who have crossed illegally into Europe, America and other places without being invited or accepted by any government.

They are immigrants. They are not alien creatures from the planet Zog. They are different. Their attitudes are different when they first arrive but they change after the second or third generation, just as the Europeans attitudes changed and became what is today modern America. You appear to think that they should be barred from entry simply because they are different. This is exactly what the Know Nothings believed and look how well that served them...

Way to disprove your own argument, old chap!

If immigrants' attitudes "change after the second or third generation," then there's no need for their host country to amend its customs just to accommodate theirs, is there? (Note to immigrants: Know what you're getting into before you move to somebody else's country.)

The US Government reserves the right to refuse entry to whomever it wishes. It has though, in the past chosen to it in an unfair way. It has barred entry to Jews fleeing the Holocaust, people who had darker skin colour to the whites, people who held differing political viewpoints and so on and so on.

And the last time I checked, it was 2019. What's your point?

Your attitude reflects that sort of view. It is not nice and it is not fair.

Because I have this crazy idea that new immigrants shouldn't demand that their host country change its customs to suit their tastes?

Heavens, I feel horribly guilty for expressing such a "not nice," "not fair" point of view. In the future, I'll express your opinion: That successful nations should revise their customs to please the whims of the immigrant minorities they take in.

People should be allowed in who will contribute to your society. People should be allowed in if they are seeking Asylum. You appear to believe that, like Trump, your nation is "full" when it is demonstrably not.

Ha, swing and a miss, Brian! My country already takes in far more immigrants than any other in the world. Read and learn: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-i ... -en#page24

But apparently you believe we should keep taking in poor, sick, elderly and uneducated migrants until there's not a square inch of green space left between the Atlantic and the Pacific ... and our social safety net has been bankrupted by the millions of unskilled foreign nationals.

(Sigh) ... why couldn't you have been elected president instead of that old meanie Trump?

And before you claim otherwise, no I don't believe in open borders with all people being allowed in, without question or reason.

You also haven't defined any limits on the number of asylum seekers that a nation like mine should be required to accept. Y'know, you're great at telling everybody what you don't think is "fair," but you're not very good at stating what you think WOULD be fair.

As the Beatles once sang: "We'd all love to see the plan."

However, I believe in fairness in immigration policies, not policies based upon prejudice and hatred.

I've barely said a word about immigration policies. I simply made the point that new immigrants have no right to demand that their host country change its customs to suit them.

Personally, having visited the US, you wouldn't get me migrating there in a pink fit.

And I promise not to cry myself to sleep tonight at the thought of you not migrating here!

[Black Orchid]

Well said 4E

[billy the kid]

Well said again 4E...you will find that talking to the resident moron is like talking to a brick wall...he will generalize
til the cows come home...everything he posts is just the same shit...different depth....a typical moron who really knows fuck all...

[brian ross]

As far as I am concerned, I don't see a big deal if I don't shake hands with someone. In fact, it's actually more hygienic if we got rid of the habit. I don't like the idea of sharing germs with other people actually. I've served in the army with/studied with/worked with numerous Muslims, both men and women and never had a problem. The ones who don't shake hands are rare in my experience. You are concentrating a tiny minority of such people IMO. Why bother getting your knickers in a twist over it?

Well, of course I'm concentrating on a tiny minority -- because that's the friggin' issue here!

And yet you want to attack all Muslims because a handful refuse to shake hands, 4th.

First, let us make one thing clear, I am talking about LEGAL migrants, not ILLEGAL migrants. You appear to want to discuss ILLEGAL immigrants, which I don't. Why? 'cause they have entered your country illegally. Legal migrants enter your country, well legally. There is a huge difference to how either is treated compared to the other, you realise? So, let us limit our discussion to LEGAL immigrants (and that BTW, includes Asylum Seekers who are legally allowed to enter and stay in the USA).

Let's go over this again: Why should a successful society amend its long-held customs just to placate such a tiny minority?

Well first up, it is not the whole society that is being asked to amend it's customs, it is individuals who are being asked. I would have suggest that out of common courtesy, when an individual offers a handshake and that is refused, say by a Japanese person (see it's not only Muslims who refuse handshakes), the person requested not to shake hands, does so without complaint. Otherwise, they are just being rude.

Come on, I thought you contended that most Muslims "assimilate quite well" into Western society. If they can't even handle the innocuous Western custom of handshaking, how exactly are they going to "assimilate quite well" in other areas of the culture?

The word "most" means what, 4th? Does it denote all, or does it denote a significant proportion of a group? Time to learn to read English...

What a marvellous host you make, 4th. In my society, people are allowed to basically do what they like, as long as it is within the laws of the land.

What a marvelous guest you make, Brian! Not only do you expect to be taken into somebody's home just because you don't like yours as much -- you also expect to be provided with a check for your basic needs, even though you've done nothing for the hosts who took you in. And you think you have every right to tell them how to run their household.

If I come requesting mercy and I am accepted by a society, I expect that I will be allowed to, within reason, practice my own culture and my own religion. I do not expect to instantly, just add water, become an American. Would you expect to become an Australian overnight if you migrated to Australia or sought Asylum from the harsh el Presidente' Trump's regime?

Yeah, that's my idea of a house guest with integrity!

As a legal migrant or asylum seeker, I am more like a neighbour than a "guest", 4th. As I would intend to become an American citizen ASAP, I would be accorded the same respect and the same rights as any other American citizen. Or are migrants/Asylum Seekers, considered second-class citizens in the USA?

Shaking hands is not a big deal for most Australians. I rather suspect if someone refuses to shake a person's hand it is accepted and acknowledged as a cultural difference. We are all different. We are not homogeneous, we are a multicultural society. We are all Australians.

Again, the point sailed over your head.

Let's try it again, this time with simpler words: I never said that everybody who comes to a new country is required to do everything the natives do. My point was that immigrants have no right to expect their new country to change its time-honored customs just to accommodate their tastes.

The immigrants do not expect that in the slightest. What they expect is their customs to be honoured just as much as the established citizens', 4th. America is made up of many cultures, it is made up of many religions, it is made up of many "races" and ethnicities. America is a compromise between them all. You appear unwilling to compromise about shaking hands. Silly you.

Thank you for proving my point: Migrants travel to the U.S. or elsewhere "for a better life." Which means the places they came from are less desirable, offering an environment that's inferior.

But the reason other countries offer inferior surroundings isn't generally because of factors beyond their control. It's because their governments are screwed up, perhaps because of powerful and corrupt leadership, criminal gangs or whatever. I sympathize with these people, but that doesn't entitle them to pour into my country and demand residency, if not citizenship.

Yes, so? I think you mean socially inferior when perhaps they are seeking greater political freedom.

Hey, I wish rainwater was beer, but it's not.

Just because millions of people wants to leave their country doesn't require my country to take all or any of them in. Maybe they should stay home, band together and work on creating a society that's more like the ones in the U.S. and Australia. Y'know, like Americans and Australians did centuries ago.
[/quote]

As I have pointed out, I am not suggesting you do. However, you should at least allow some in, 4th and those you allow in should not have to conform to what you, as an individual, believe how Americans should act.

They come because they have asked to come, 4th. Your Government has accepted their request.

BZZZT! Wrong -- there are millions of immigrants who have crossed illegally into Europe, America and other places without being invited or accepted by any government.

As I have pointed out, we are not discussing illegal immigrants, 4th. We are discussing legal immigrants so let us confine our discussion to those people, alright?

They are immigrants. They are not alien creatures from the planet Zog. They are different. Their attitudes are different when they first arrive but they change after the second or third generation, just as the Europeans attitudes changed and became what is today modern America. You appear to think that they should be barred from entry simply because they are different. This is exactly what the Know Nothings believed and look how well that served them...

Way to disprove your own argument, old chap!

If immigrants' attitudes "change after the second or third generation," then there's no need for their host country to amend its customs just to accommodate theirs, is there? (Note to immigrants: Know what you're getting into before you move to somebody else's country.)

No one is asking the entire country to amend it's customs. Individuals are asking individuals to tolerate their new customs, 4th. There is a world of difference, you realise?

The US Government reserves the right to refuse entry to whomever it wishes. It has though, in the past chosen to it in an unfair way. It has barred entry to Jews fleeing the Holocaust, people who had darker skin colour to the whites, people who held differing political viewpoints and so on and so on.

And the last time I checked, it was 2019. What's your point?

You are basically wanting to return to the unfair practices of the past by your attitude towards migrants or asylum seekers who don't wish to shake hands. Are you proud of that?

Your attitude reflects that sort of view. It is not nice and it is not fair.

Because I have this crazy idea that new immigrants shouldn't demand that their host country change its customs to suit their tastes?

Again, I point out, they are not asking the entire country to change, just the individuals with whom they interact and common courtesy would suggest that it is a good idea to comply, rather than be rude and force them to change their attitudes. Indians (from India) BTW, also don't shake hands. So, there we have three groups which don't shake hands - Indians, Japanese and some Muslim women - are they all to be banned from America?

Heavens, I feel horribly guilty for expressing such a "not nice," "not fair" point of view. In the future, I'll express your opinion: That successful nations should revise their customs to please the whims of the immigrant minorities they take in.

Again, I point out, they are not asking the entire country to change, just the individuals with whom they interact and common courtesy would suggest that it is a good idea to comply, rather than be rude and force them to change their attitudes.

People should be allowed in who will contribute to your society. People should be allowed in if they are seeking Asylum. You appear to believe that, like Trump, your nation is "full" when it is demonstrably not.

Ha, swing and a miss, Brian! My country already takes in far more immigrants than any other in the world. Read and learn: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-i ... -en#page24.

Immaterial. Your country is still not "full", 4th. You really need to learn to read, don't you? There are hundreds of thousands of square miles of unoccupied land in the USA. Cities are emptying in some places. You don't think it would be a good idea to actually allow in citizens who want to settle there?

But apparently you believe we should keep taking in poor, sick, elderly and uneducated migrants until there's not a square inch of green space left between the Atlantic and the Pacific ... and our social safety net has been bankrupted by the millions of unskilled foreign nationals.

No, Again you need to learn to read, 4th. Please do so, before replying again.

(Sigh) ... why couldn't you have been elected president instead of that old meanie Trump?

Because I was not born in the USA and I am not a US citizen, 4th. I am sure I could do a better job than el Presidente' Trump. I suspect anybody could, if they wanted to...

And before you claim otherwise, no I don't believe in open borders with all people being allowed in, without question or reason.

You also haven't defined any limits on the number of asylum seekers that a nation like mine should be required to accept. Y'know, you're great at telling everybody what you don't think is "fair," but you're not very good at stating what you think WOULD be fair.

Numbers? Oh, it all boils down to numbers does it, 4th? How many are allowed in now? How many want to enter the US? Answer those questions and I will provide an answer to yours.

As the Beatles once sang: "We'd all love to see the plan."

A plan requires knowledge and it is not knowledge I have, 4th. before any plan is produced, preparation must occur. If you answer those and other questions, I might be able to answer yours.

However, I believe in fairness in immigration policies, not policies based upon prejudice and hatred.

I've barely said a word about immigration policies. I simply made the point that new immigrants have no right to demand that their host country change its customs to suit them.

Ah, so, what you're actually complaining about is settlement policies? You don't like the idea that you, personally, might be asked to be polite? Interesting, 4th.

Personally, having visited the US, you wouldn't get me migrating there in a pink fit.

And I promise not to cry myself to sleep tonight at the thought of you not migrating here!

Oh, good. I would be upset if you were upset, 4th. I really would.

[The4thEstate]

Well said again 4E...you will find that talking to the resident moron is like talking to a brick wall...he will generalize
til the cows come home...everything he posts is just the same shit...different depth....a typical moron who really knows fuck all...

Thanks, Billy. I'm well acquainted with our little friend Brian here -- in fact, we go way back. Don't worry, I'm not expecting a breakthrough with our patient!

[The4thEstate]

And yet you want to attack all Muslims because a handful refuse to shake hands, 4th.

How do you know how many Muslims refuse to shake hands and how many don't? You assert that it's "a handful" yet provide no credible data that backs up your assertion. Speculation is worthless.

Besides, my criticism is for (1) immigrants who expect their new country to change its customs to suit their own, and (2) nations that cave to such demands by amending their own long-held customs.

First, let us make one thing clear, I am talking about LEGAL migrants, not ILLEGAL migrants. You appear to want to discuss ILLEGAL immigrants, which I don't. Why? 'cause they have entered your country illegally. Legal migrants enter your country, well legally. There is a huge difference to how either is treated compared to the other, you realise? So, let us limit our discussion to LEGAL immigrants (and that BTW, includes Asylum Seekers who are legally allowed to enter and stay in the USA).

Why should I suddenly allow you to change the subject to legal migrants when the OP clearly referred to "Europe's escalating migrant crisis" and made the point that "European countries are being swamped by immigrants/refugees/economic wanderers/asylum seekers" and "just look at the problem on the US southern border"?

Sorry, no goal post moving in the middle of the football game! https://247sports.com/Image/8472578/?View=Detailed

Well first up, it is not the whole society that is being asked to amend it's customs, it is individuals who are being asked. I would have suggest that out of common courtesy, when an individual offers a handshake and that is refused, say by a Japanese person (see it's not only Muslims who refuse handshakes), the person requested not to shake hands, does so without complaint. Otherwise, they are just being rude.

Now you're wandering off the trail. The subject isn't individuals being asked to change their customs; it's governments conforming to the customs of immigrant minorities.

Again, the OP referred to the Totaljobs website and the possibility of handshake customs in the UK changing to suit Muslims. And lo and behold, what should I find on the Totaljobs website? Why, this story about a "Swedish Muslim woman [who] has won compensation after her job interview with a translation company was swiftly ended when she declined to shake hands with a male interviewer." https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/job-interview/

As the story reads: "Earlier this week a Swedish labour court ruled that Semantix should pay her 40,000 krona (£3,420) in compensation ... The court heard that Alhajeh 'adheres to an interpretation of Islam that prohibits handshaking with the opposite sex unless it is a close member of the family.'”

Bingo ... a classic example of what the OP and I were talking about: A government court rules against the time-honored customs of a company (and nation) and in favor of the customs of an immigrant minority.

And by the way, if you're going to take Black Orchid to task for using the wrong word, be prepared to get similarly admonished when you use "it's customs" in an sentence that clearly requires the word "its." The sentence calls for a possessive in this case, not a contraction.

If I come requesting mercy and I am accepted by a society, I expect that I will be allowed to, within reason, practice my own culture and my own religion. I do not expect to instantly, just add water, become an American. Would you expect to become an Australian overnight if you migrated to Australia or sought Asylum from the harsh el Presidente' Trump's regime?

You're making my point for me. I would never expect Australia or its companies to change their customs to suit my preferences, no. So i wouldn't immediately expect the government to compensate me for the lack of American rules football games available to attend.

As a legal migrant or asylum seeker, I am more like a neighbour than a "guest", 4th. As I would intend to become an American citizen ASAP, I would be accorded the same respect and the same rights as any other American citizen. Or are migrants/Asylum Seekers, considered second-class citizens in the USA?

What do you mean, "any OTHER American citizen"? Illegal migrants/asylum seekers are not citizens at all, so they don't even deserve to be considered second-class citizens. Do you not understand that a person who sneaks across a border does not automatically become a citizen of the country he sets foot in?

My point was that immigrants have no right to expect their new country to change its time-honored customs just to accommodate their tastes.

The immigrants do not expect that in the slightest. What they expect is their customs to be honoured just as much as the established citizens', 4th. America is made up of many cultures, it is made up of many religions, it is made up of many "races" and ethnicities. America is a compromise between them all. You appear unwilling to compromise about shaking hands. Silly you.

I call B.S. -- as the story from Sweden demonstrates, some immigrants not only expect their new nation to conform to their customs; they expect to be compensated financially when a company in their new nation fails to do so. Silly YOU.

Immaterial. Your country is still not "full", 4th. You really need to learn to read, don't you? There are hundreds of thousands of square miles of unoccupied land in the USA. Cities are emptying in some places. You don't think it would be a good idea to actually allow in citizens who want to settle there?

Speaking of learning to read, where did you get the idea that migrants/asylum seekers were citizens?

I couldn't care less how much open space there is in America. We already accept more than a million legal immigrants a year; the last thing we should feel obligated to do is take in more of them, especially when they're a financial burden to the citizens who actually live here.

I am sure I could do a better job than el Presidente' Trump. I suspect anybody could, if they wanted to...

Sure, let me know the next time you demonstrate an aptitude for implementing policies that raise America's GDP from the anemic 1.8 percent left by Obama to the robust 3.2 percent just measured in the first quarter of 2019.

Numbers? Oh, it all boils down to numbers does it, 4th? How many are allowed in now? How many want to enter the US? Answer those questions and I will provide an answer to yours.

"How many want to enter the U.S.?"
Millions, maybe billions.

"How many are allowed in now?"
Good grief, do you not know how to follow a simple link? I gave you one that shows how many immigrants were allowed into the U.S. per year. Here's the link again; if you still can't figure out what to do with it, see if your local zoo has a chimp who's not too busy to show you.
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-i ... -en#page24

[billy the kid]

And yet you want to attack all Muslims because a handful refuse to shake hands, 4th.

How do you know how many Muslims refuse to shake hands and how many don't? You assert that it's "a handful" yet provide no credible data that backs up your assertion. Speculation is worthless.

Besides, my criticism is for (1) immigrants who expect their new country to change its customs to suit their own, and (2) nations that cave to such demands by amending their own long-held customs.

First, let us make one thing clear, I am talking about LEGAL migrants, not ILLEGAL migrants. You appear to want to discuss ILLEGAL immigrants, which I don't. Why? 'cause they have entered your country illegally. Legal migrants enter your country, well legally. There is a huge difference to how either is treated compared to the other, you realise? So, let us limit our discussion to LEGAL immigrants (and that BTW, includes Asylum Seekers who are legally allowed to enter and stay in the USA).

Why should I suddenly allow you to change the subject to legal migrants when the OP clearly referred to "Europe's escalating migrant crisis" and made the point that "European countries are being swamped by immigrants/refugees/economic wanderers/asylum seekers" and "just look at the problem on the US southern border"?

Sorry, no goal post moving in the middle of the football game! https://247sports.com/Image/8472578/?View=Detailed

Well first up, it is not the whole society that is being asked to amend it's customs, it is individuals who are being asked. I would have suggest that out of common courtesy, when an individual offers a handshake and that is refused, say by a Japanese person (see it's not only Muslims who refuse handshakes), the person requested not to shake hands, does so without complaint. Otherwise, they are just being rude.

Now you're wandering off the trail. The subject isn't individuals being asked to change their customs; it's governments conforming to the customs of immigrant minorities.

Again, the OP referred to the Totaljobs website and the possibility of handshake customs in the UK changing to suit Muslims. And lo and behold, what should I find on the Totaljobs website? Why, this story about a "Swedish Muslim woman [who] has won compensation after her job interview with a translation company was swiftly ended when she declined to shake hands with a male interviewer." https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/job-interview/

As the story reads: "Earlier this week a Swedish labour court ruled that Semantix should pay her 40,000 krona (£3,420) in compensation ... The court heard that Alhajeh 'adheres to an interpretation of Islam that prohibits handshaking with the opposite sex unless it is a close member of the family.'”

Bingo ... a classic example of what the OP and I were talking about: A government court rules against the time-honored customs of a company (and nation) and in favor of the customs of an immigrant minority.

And by the way, if you're going to take Black Orchid to task for using the wrong word, be prepared to get similarly admonished when you use "it's customs" in an sentence that clearly requires the word "its." The sentence calls for a possessive in this case, not a contraction.

If I come requesting mercy and I am accepted by a society, I expect that I will be allowed to, within reason, practice my own culture and my own religion. I do not expect to instantly, just add water, become an American. Would you expect to become an Australian overnight if you migrated to Australia or sought Asylum from the harsh el Presidente' Trump's regime?

You're making my point for me. I would never expect Australia or its companies to change their customs to suit my preferences, no. So i wouldn't immediately expect the government to compensate me for the lack of American rules football games available to attend.

As a legal migrant or asylum seeker, I am more like a neighbour than a "guest", 4th. As I would intend to become an American citizen ASAP, I would be accorded the same respect and the same rights as any other American citizen. Or are migrants/Asylum Seekers, considered second-class citizens in the USA?

What do you mean, "any OTHER American citizen"? Illegal migrants/asylum seekers are not citizens at all, so they don't even deserve to be considered second-class citizens. Do you not understand that a person who sneaks across a border does not automatically become a citizen of the country he sets foot in?

My point was that immigrants have no right to expect their new country to change its time-honored customs just to accommodate their tastes.

The immigrants do not expect that in the slightest. What they expect is their customs to be honoured just as much as the established citizens', 4th. America is made up of many cultures, it is made up of many religions, it is made up of many "races" and ethnicities. America is a compromise between them all. You appear unwilling to compromise about shaking hands. Silly you.

I call B.S. -- as the story from Sweden demonstrates, some immigrants not only expect their new nation to conform to their customs; they expect to be compensated financially when a company in their new nation fails to do so. Silly YOU.

Immaterial. Your country is still not "full", 4th. You really need to learn to read, don't you? There are hundreds of thousands of square miles of unoccupied land in the USA. Cities are emptying in some places. You don't think it would be a good idea to actually allow in citizens who want to settle there?

Speaking of learning to read, where did you get the idea that migrants/asylum seekers were citizens?

I couldn't care less how much open space there is in America. We already accept more than a million legal immigrants a year; the last thing we should feel obligated to do is take in more of them, especially when they're a financial burden to the citizens who actually live here.

I am sure I could do a better job than el Presidente' Trump. I suspect anybody could, if they wanted to...

Sure, let me know the next time you demonstrate an aptitude for implementing policies that raise America's GDP from the anemic 1.8 percent left by Obama to the robust 3.2 percent just measured in the first quarter of 2019.

Numbers? Oh, it all boils down to numbers does it, 4th? How many are allowed in now? How many want to enter the US? Answer those questions and I will provide an answer to yours.

"How many want to enter the U.S.?"
Millions, maybe billions.

"How many are allowed in now?"
Good grief, do you not know how to follow a simple link? I gave you one that shows how many immigrants were allowed into the U.S. per year. Here's the link again; if you still can't figure out what to do with it, see if your local zoo has a chimp who's not too busy to show you.
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-i ... -en#page24

This post is gold....its the classic example of an extremely intelligent man (4th Estate) debating the arse off a moronic
imbecile who has the stupidity to call himself "the voice of reason"
The classic example of how to put a moron in his place....

[The4thEstate]

Thanks, Billy. This is your thread (and an interesting one at that); I'm simply trying to be true to its original topic.