Welfare states and immigrant rights by Diane Sainsbury

Immigration rights? How relevant is that in modern Europe, the Continent with no borders.

I was reading it about a year ago when I was to make a comparison between Great Britain and Sweden - our different welfare regimes and how it might be connected to the number of asylum seekers, which varied much between the two nations.

....and does it cause as much trouble in Sweden as it does in Britain?

The "trouble" is how the incorporation regime might (not) work - which affects how immigrants get included or excluded in society. It's the norms and rules that control how difficult or easy it is to become a citizen of the country, but also how allowed they are to be involved in the economic, political and cultural life of the community. These rules and standards relates to what is required for citizenship, housing and work permits, family reunion, reception or introduction programs, anti-discrimination law and breadth of participation rights in society for non-citizens. It's not the immigrants who are the problem, it's how they're (not) being taken care of in a welcoming sense.

1400 girls raped and sexually abused by Pakistanis in Rotherham, England.

" unwilling to confront the fact that the abusers were of Pakistani heritage. Proper investigation, it is said, was obstructed by political correctness ".

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/multiculturalism-and-rape-in-rotherham.html?_r=0

What would the lefty Diane Sainsbury say about this? She'd say nothing because PC people don't comment on reality. We don't call them politically correct anymore, we call them nazi liberals and it'll be the main reason that The UK pulls out of the EU, me and 60 million other Brits cant wait. We'll leave all the dumbed down PC European dildos to talk shit to eachother whilst we get on with real life.

Smile

You're slightly off topic? unless you're trying to suggest the reason why these men committed their crime. Why even mention that they're from Pakistan? To put the lights on the real problem - it doesn't really matter if it was an Englishman or a Pakistanian - unless we see it as a proof/connection that the incorporation process doesn't work well in England, or at least didn't include these men enough to keep them from doing something like that. Unless theres a direct connection to their crime and them being Pakistanis (for ex the circumstances: traumas, not having been guided in any way etc) Id say it'd be discrimination to actually make a difference to them and any other Englishman.

After actually having read the link you posted, I can only add that it's bringing up the incorporation regime itself:

"Britain’s Pakistani community often seems frozen in time; it has progressed little and remains strikingly impoverished. The unemployment rate for the least educated young Muslims is close to 40 percent, and more than two-thirds of Pakistani households are below the poverty line. (...) and elsewhere in Britain, has not followed the usual immigrant narrative arc of intermarriage and integration." Segregation, discrimination...

And of course, if it was unclear for anyone...
"The grim fact of child sex abuse is that it is not limited to any country, community or creed — witness the cases of leading white television stars who have been convicted of the crime in Britain, and the experience of the Catholic Church in Ireland and America. Most Pakistani men, in Rotherham or elsewhere, do not, of course, turn to criminality or become child abusers. But Rotherham’s abusers found that their ethnicity protected them because they belonged to a community few wished to challenge.

What may seem like a story about race and religion, however, is as much one about power, class and gender"

RockRosen wrote:: You're slightly off topic?

If you say so.

Smile

it wasnt a rhethorical question, maybe I missed something. Smile