[Czech Republic] Demography

[alesmarv]

By the way I dont support opening the flood gates to immigration. It has to be a appropriate level. In Vancouver where I live now it has gone a bit to far in my opinion, 50% of the people are asian now, mostly from China and Hongkong, and most of them are first generation. There are so many that they no longer can integrate properly as there is no need. But then again its all working so far and in another 50 years when im irrelevant others in Vancouver might view things as perfect.

[RyukyuRhymer]

Originally Posted by alesmarv

I agree with Newropean that Czech are still generally looked down upon, no different then say Russians, Turks, Poles, Serbs, Romanians, etc. Usually they are grouped in the same group, immigrants from poorer countries that are taking away A) their jobs, B) their money, C) affecting their culture.

In western Europe the opinions of Czechs are getting better as the old generations have less and less influence and voice. In North America lots of people still think Czech republic is just a part of Czechoslovakia which is some poor country in eastern Europe, although lots more people are generally more neutral, which is good. As far as I know most people I know from Asia and South America dont even have Czech republic on their radar and think of it as more or less a eastern European country that is on their level, which it obviously isnt as Czech republic is a wealthy and industrialized country.
Hell my fiance just knew of Czechoslovakia and thought of war and misery as she knew it was a old eastern block communist country, obviously she was wrong and knows better.

My point is that Newropean has a absolutely valid point that people should be careful about what they say as the other 6.82 billion people might not view Czechs the way you might think or want.

Treat others as you want to be treated your self.

movies like Eurotrip don't particularly help the image of the former Czechoslovakia either

[HiRazor]

I really don't understand AlesMarv's and Newropean's objections against what Tramfreak says.

All he says is that if immigration becomes unsustainable and troubles like immigrant ghetoes, parallel societies of different codes, immigrant unemployment etc start to outweight the benefits of it like brain drain, cheap labor force etc, it's the time for reasonable regulation that reduces the troubles while keeping the benefits before the issue is hijacked by populists and their unreasonable policies wipe out either both problems and benefits or even more likely wipe out solely benefits while keeping the problems or making them even worse.

Tramfreak's POV is reasonable even if he was from the most looked down upon country in the whole univese, presuming he is a well integrated foreigner himself.

BTW I don't really understand what a presumably bad perception of Czech republic somewhere has to do with all this. If it suggests anything it's the ignorance of those having such views and is completely irrelevant to the issue debated here ie sustainability of mass immigration. Who the heck cares what some uneducated yokel thinks about us?

[WladYslaW]

Originally Posted by Jellena85

It is not clear to me why all these countries with low birth rates prefer swiching that problem with a problem of large immigrant population instead of solving the problem by razing the birth rate.

It is obviously why government attract immigrants instead of solving the birth rate, because

1) The population in European countries get older and such countries need manpower right now, not after 20-25 years.

2) It's cheaper. You have got fully able-bodied population. You don't need to pay for their kinder-garden, education etc.

3) Immigrants usually take positions which local would prefer to shy, they work longer hours.

[Newropean]

Originally Posted by HiRazor

I really don't understand AlesMarv's and Newropean's objections against what Tramfreak says.

All he says is that if immigration becomes unsustainable and troubles like immigrant ghetoes, parallel societies of different codes, immigrant unemployment etc start to outweight the benefits of it like brain drain, cheap labor force etc, it's the time for reasonable regulation that reduces the troubles while keeping the benefits before the issue is hijacked by populists and their unreasonable policies wipe out either both problems and benefits or even more likely wipe out solely benefits while keeping the problems or making them even worse.

Look, I can imagine that those who oppose immigration here would feel very uncomfortable in a city where 30, 40 or even 50% of inhabitants are foreigners.
Yet, in my experience, those are the best places! The points that Tramfreak mentioned: too many foreign languages on the bus, for example. I find that awesome!
I lived in a city with 41% of foreign residents (Geneva), and I miss it like hell. Exactly these many foreign languages, different people everywhere..wonderful.
So, instead of a problem, I see a vibrant cityscape.

[HiRazor]

You're completely missing TF's (and mine) point. It doesn't matter how many foreigners live in the country, but whether they are well integrated or not.

Immigration is OK as long as the immigrants integrate well, but when you start to have problems with ghetos full of unemployed immigrants hostile to the values and codes of the host coutry, where different penal code applies resulting in phenomenons like honour killings etc - and it is a case in some countries and places - it's time to re-think the regulation.

But that doesn't mean you can't have wonderful places with 90% foreign residents living in harmony and giving each other the best of their home cultures. Unfortunately there are also places where it's not like this and this is the reason and subject of this discussion - how to make it always the former, never the latter.

[historyworks]

Originally Posted by HiRazor

some uneducated yokel

Do I hear my name mentioned again?

Originally Posted by HiRazor

You're completely missing TF's (and mine) point. It doesn't matter how many foreigners live in the country, but whether they are well integrated or not.

Immigration is OK as long as the immigrants integrate well, but when you start to have problems with ghetos full of unemployed immigrants hostile to the values and codes of the host coutry, where different penal code applies resulting in phenomenons like honour killings etc - and it is a case in some countries and places - it's time to re-think the regulation.

But that doesn't mean you can't have wonderful places with 90% foreign residents living in harmony and giving each other the best of their home cultures. Unfortunately there are also places where it's not like this and this is the reason and subject of this discussion - how to make it always the former, never the latter.

This is true but it is a difficult issue. Immigrants subtly alter a host culture over the years and this is often positive. The problem is when an immigrant culture wants the host society to alter to accommodate it. Only recently have we seen this problem for the first time.

Australia is a culture that is made up of immigrants so it will always evolve dynamically from a fairly weak original culture (diluted British). Czechs have something different to think about - you have a distinctive strong culture and poor replacement rate to sustain it. I read some time ago that on present rate in 300 years there will be only 30,000 Czechs left. But then what will be the definition of a Czech by then with so much immigration to fill the empty space?

My children recently finally have Czech citizenship but what can I do with my small contribution against such a trend?

[alesmarv]

Originally Posted by historyworks

Do I hear my name mentioned again?


This is true but it is a difficult issue. Immigrants subtly alter a host culture over the years and this is often positive. The problem is when an immigrant culture wants the host society to alter to accommodate it. Only recently have we seen this problem for the first time.

Australia is a culture that is made up of immigrants so it will always evolve dynamically from a fairly weak original culture (diluted British). Czechs have something different to think about - you have a distinctive strong culture and poor replacement rate to sustain it. I read some time ago that on present rate in 300 years there will be only 30,000 Czechs left. But then what will be the definition of a Czech by then with so much immigration to fill the empty space?

My children recently finally have Czech citizenship but what can I do with my small contribution against such a trend?

And if all works out like planed my kids could be 25% Japanese, 25%Italian with Brazillian background and 50% Czech with a Canadian background. They will have Czech citizenship so long as there arent changes made in the way its issued.

As you can see what a Czech is or will be is not black and white.

And I already have a kid, whos mother is native, if he moves to Czech republic and takes up citizenship will he be a Czech?

[alesmarv]

Originally Posted by RyukyuRhymer

movies like Eurotrip don't particularly help the image of the former Czechoslovakia either

The views arent bad, everybody loves Prague and thinks its a beautiful city, its one of the most well known and loved cities in the WORLD. But they also think of Czechs as a poor people and in western Europe and NA their not totally wrong with that stereotype as Czechs most definitely arent on the same wealth level. Though the gap has closed significantly and keeps closing. The point though is that overall the blanket stereotype still is of Czechs is negative, infact very similiar to Czechs stereotype of Ukrainians.

If you would like to know I think as far as Europe is concerned Czech republic will be better off then most other western European countries in most of our lifetimes. Anytime you stress a country in terms of growth, and change, it will rise up, Czech republic is going up and western Europe is slowing down, eventually Czech republic will surpass it and then level off and slow down its self and over time level out with the rest of Europe.

[alesmarv]

Originally Posted by HiRazor

You're completely missing TF's (and mine) point. It doesn't matter how many foreigners live in the country, but whether they are well integrated or not.

Immigration is OK as long as the immigrants integrate well, but when you start to have problems with ghetos full of unemployed immigrants hostile to the values and codes of the host coutry, where different penal code applies resulting in phenomenons like honour killings etc - and it is a case in some countries and places - it's time to re-think the regulation.

But that doesn't mean you can't have wonderful places with 90% foreign residents living in harmony and giving each other the best of their home cultures. Unfortunately there are also places where it's not like this and this is the reason and subject of this discussion - how to make it always the former, never the latter.

The problem with integration is that it is like I said usually not the immigrants fault.

Its kind of like a immigrant walking and tripping over something, as he is falling a local steps out of the way and to the side and lets him fall down a flank of stairs. The local then raises his hand and sais I didnt do anything, its his fault he fell down the stairs.
Well that would be I suppose ok, if the local would have stepped out of the way instead of stopping another local in the same situation.

This in a broader context is exactly what causes immigrants to not integrate, to fail and to have then tensions rise.

Its not easy to immigrate to a new country and a new culture, trust me, if the locals dont activly help and offer support then the person will fail and not integrate. Its in the best interest of the locals to offer all the support they can, if they do the immigrants will integrate seamlessly every time. Guaranteed.

[alesmarv]

Originally Posted by HiRazor

You're completely missing TF's (and mine) point. It doesn't matter how many foreigners live in the country, but whether they are well integrated or not.

Immigration is OK as long as the immigrants integrate well, but when you start to have problems with ghetos full of unemployed immigrants hostile to the values and codes of the host coutry, where different penal code applies resulting in phenomenons like honour killings etc - and it is a case in some countries and places - it's time to re-think the regulation.

But that doesn't mean you can't have wonderful places with 90% foreign residents living in harmony and giving each other the best of their home cultures. Unfortunately there are also places where it's not like this and this is the reason and subject of this discussion - how to make it always the former, never the latter.

The problem with integration is that it is like I said usually not the immigrants fault.

Its kind of like a immigrant walking and tripping over something, as he is falling a local steps out of the way and to the side and lets him fall down a flank of stairs. The local then raises his hand and sais I didnt do anything, its his fault he fell down the stairs.
Well that would be I suppose ok, if the local would have stepped out of the way instead of stopping another local in the same situation.

This in a broader context is exactly what causes immigrants to not integrate, to fail and to have then tensions rise.

Its not easy to immigrate to a new country and a new culture, trust me, if the locals dont activly help and offer support then the person will fail and not integrate. Its in the best interest of the locals to offer all the support they can, if they do the immigrants will integrate seamlessly every time. Guaranteed.

[Jellena85]

Originally Posted by WladYslaW

It is obviously why government attract immigrants instead of solving the birth rate, because

1) The population in European countries get older and such countries need manpower right now, not after 20-25 years.

2) It's cheaper. You have got fully able-bodied population. You don't need to pay for their kinder-garden, education etc.

3) Immigrants usually take positions which local would prefer to shy, they work longer hours.

The first two points represent a wrong way to solve these problems:

1) Yes ,but if the government had started solving the problem 20-25 years ago now it would be inexistent ,and the fact that it haven't done so isn't the reason it doesn't start now.

2) I imagine that the French have taught so when they started importing millions of Africans couple of decades ago and haven't taught that almost all of these "cheap" people would not integrate, that they will burn cars in the streets of Paris and they will do all kinds of criminal activities. Seams that the "cheapness" of these imports is largely overshadowed by the damage they have caused and the cost of the attempts of integrating them. For many reasons , it is much better that Czech republic invests in its future generations than in solving new problems caused by massive immigration.

3)That's true. I support "smart" immigration which means that a country should import only those people who have the skills that the country lacks and preferably from those cultures that are similar to the host so the integration could be easiest possible.

[historyworks]

Originally Posted by alesmarv

And if all works out like planed my kids could be 25% Japanese, 25%Italian with Brazillian background and 50% Czech with a Canadian background. They will have Czech citizenship so long as there arent changes made in the way its issued.

As you can see what a Czech is or will be is not black and white.

And I already have a kid, whos mother is native, if he moves to Czech republic and takes up citizenship will he be a Czech?

My ancestors were in Czech Republic before the Czechs (indeed they gave their name to Bohemia), but even though they were stupid enough to move onto the cold wilderness of Scotland and Wales rather than staying in the nice Vltava valley I think I can claim a tenuous link to Czech descent. Thus over centuries is nationality changed and redefined. I'm just "renewing" my inheritance.

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by historyworks

Do I hear my name mentioned again?


This is true but it is a difficult issue. Immigrants subtly alter a host culture over the years and this is often positive. The problem is when an immigrant culture wants the host society to alter to accommodate it. Only recently have we seen this problem for the first time.

Australia is a culture that is made up of immigrants so it will always evolve dynamically from a fairly weak original culture (diluted British). Czechs have something different to think about - you have a distinctive strong culture and poor replacement rate to sustain it. I read some time ago that on present rate in 300 years there will be only 30,000 Czechs left. But then what will be the definition of a Czech by then with so much immigration to fill the empty space?

My children recently finally have Czech citizenship but what can I do with my small contribution against such a trend?

What is certain is that ,if that scenario becomes true, Czech culture will disappear while blending into the dull and uniform globalized culture. Globalization is often presented to us like something positive in a way that massive mixing of cultures, races and religions is encouraged ... all that with a pretext of creating some artificial deversety within the community. But althow it does create it in the short term ,in the long term it destroys it because all these cultures ,races and religions including the hosts one will mix together and disappear. The same goes with other regions in the world. In the end , in entire world we will have one race, one culture, one language etc. That kind of a world would be a very sad place to live in. Imagine if you went like a tourist in per example China ,and there you find exactly the same things as in Czech republic: no different culture, no different race, no different language, no different customs etc. Modern architecture is already globalised ... everywhere it is the same.

Thats why globalisation is a very destructive process.

[historyworks]

Very well put BEOGRAD but even before the term 'globalisation" was invented this process was occurring throughout history. Cultures have come and gone. We can't stop it, but now we have more the means and knowledge to control it in a positive way - if the political will is there (big question).

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by historyworks

Very well put BEOGRAD but even before the term 'globalisation" was invented this process was occurring throughout history. Cultures have come and gone. We can't stop it, but now we have more the means and knowledge to control it in a positive way - if the political will is there (big question).

I knew you'll say something like this but you're wrong. This process we have now has never been occurring in the past. There were some local, limited migrations and mixing but that cannot be compared to what is happening now on the world scale. Previous migrations and culture changes could never resulted with a completely uniform world culture because they were occasional and limited. The present massive and continuous migrations and culture changes clearly lead to uniform world ... and therefore it is no coincidence that the term "globalisation" was invented just recently.

Lets just remember how the present day diversity in the world was created: Homo-Sapiens appeared in Africa and they looked all the same until some communities started to migrate and isolate them selves from other communities and evolve differently according to local environment. So we had some people in Africa which had a lot of sun there and therefore had darker skin and some others who lived in Europe with much less sun and got lighter skin. Because they were isolated from each other their cultures and languages also evolved differently. If what you claim was true, that present day kind of mixing was occurring in the past , we wouldn't have this diversity. I'm not saying that anyone today should isolate himself from anyone ,but there should be some mechanisms provided by the states to prevent globalisation. Limiting immigration is one of them but I agree with Jellena85 that razing birth rates of the Czechs would be the main part of the solution.

If Czechs want their culture to really exist in 200 years time , they will have to make different policies than most western countries are doing now.

[Newropean]

Czech culture (whatever that means or represents) was dominated by Austria/German-speakers for centuries. Yet it still reappeared, so to speak, after all this time to evolve into a quite thriving modern culture, with music, films, authors etcetc. What you seem to forget is that cultures that evolved into their own nation-state have far higher chances of survival than all the others. The small, indigenous cultures that live as minorities in another state, that's what should worry us. These small languages are dying in terribly quickly pace. Do you cry after any of them?
There are about 5000 languages, but only circa 200 states. And the Czech Republic is one of them (a quite rich one too, I might add).

And large-scale migrations never happened like they do now?
Do you really mean that? Compared to past migrations, today's some few economic migrants seem like nothing.
Nearly the whole American continent was settled by people that came from somewhere else (Europe and Africa), and the local population is near-extinguished in most places.
Other examples are Australia and New Zealand.
Germanic and Slav, Avars, Huns and Turks peoples migrated to Europe, pushing back the original Celtic culture (I know, Norkey won't agree). And these were migrations, not just conquests. The whole people came with them. There are more examples if you want.
So, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

[alesmarv]

If Czechs want their culture to really exist in 200 years time , they will have to make different policies than most western countries are doing now.

Culture always changes, in 200 years time everyone will be long dead, including you, your children, and grand children and great grand children. You cannot pass on your culture as you perceive it to your children as your influence on them is one of many. On top of that nature has a simple way of mixing things up and keeping life fresh and adaptable, its called death and with it your culture, your ways, and your ideas go also and new cultures, new ideas and new ways of doing things emerge.

[alesmarv]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

What is certain is that ,if that scenario becomes true, Czech culture will disappear while blending into the dull and uniform globalized culture. Globalization is often presented to us like something positive in a way that massive mixing of cultures, races and religions is encouraged ... all that with a pretext of creating some artificial deversety within the community. But althow it does create it in the short term ,in the long term it destroys it because all these cultures ,races and religions including the hosts one will mix together and disappear. The same goes with other regions in the world. In the end , in entire world we will have one race, one culture, one language etc. That kind of a world would be a very sad place to live in. Imagine if you went like a tourist in per example China ,and there you find exactly the same things as in Czech republic: no different culture, no different race, no different language, no different customs etc. Modern architecture is already globalised ... everywhere it is the same.

Thats why globalisation is a very destructive process.

You will never get pure globalization, a one world government, a one world currency a one world culture etc. Its is absolutely impossible, there is no chance of it ever happening, zero. Once you begin getting close to these scenarios you also increase your risk of complete failure as you begin to increasingly rely on only one way of doing things. Eventually a event will happen that cant be handled and everything collapses and fragments. Sure the world is heading towards that direction, its only natural, but there are also events that reverse that trend, all the time. In any case nothing last for ever and when it ends its because it was unable to adapt, and something cant adapt when it isnt diversified enough.

In any case to the point, Czech culture will die, all cultures die, even Czech culture of a 100 years ago is almost all but dead and only in the history books.

[Norkey]

Culture cannot die, it can only evolve.. that's why strong celtic and germanic spirit can be still seen in czech 'slavic' society..