UK Migration Watch is out for lunch. Ghettos are formed due to poverty, lack of incentives (economic opportunities) to interact with rest of the community and absense of secular ideas.

As Jai Singh pointed out earlier in a different thread, reverse racism is serious problem too and that should be dealt with but not in this way.

That is how semi-educated think tanks work - simplistic solution to complex problems. Forced marriage and honor killing should be dealt with but unnecessarily messing with a community's culture and tradition* just adds fuel to the problem of alienation.

Same is the case with Turkish immigrants in Germany.

*Personally, I am not the gate-keeper of any traditions but am opposed to arrogant solutions.

This is a complex issue. As someone who actually lives here in the UK, perhaps I can offer a couple of quick thoughts based on my own highly subjective perspective:

1. Whether marrying spouses from the subcontinent actually encourages a terrorist mindset is going to depend on how conservative the UK-based person's family is, especially his/her parents. If someone has grown up in an environment where they have heard anti-Western/anti-Caucasian sentiments their entire life, along with similar comments about the alleged superiority of their own hereditary culture/religion in comparison with the indigenous Western community, it's common sense that this is going to contribute towards a) an "Us and Them" mentality, b) A feeling of moral superiority over -- and distaste towards -- the rest of the majority population, c) Greater psychological affinity towards people and cultures based thousands of miles away (ie. they'll feel a sense of detachment towards the West and will not really feel a part of it).

2. This will also depend on what kind of person the spouse is and what his/her family is like back in Pakistan (or wherever).

3. It's also going to depend on where in the UK they live and how much they mix with people from other communities in their daily lives, especially local Caucasians.

At present the whole terrorism issue obviously focuses on Muslims, but I think we all know that there are plenty of Indian Hindus and Sikhs from the 1st-Generation who would very strongly prefer their sons to marry someone from "back home" in order to prevent the alleged "dilution of Indian culture, values etc" -- again, it often comes down to notions of moral superiority over the local population and culture and a wish to keep things "pure".

I think Kush took the words out of my keyboard.

>>This sets back integration by a generation.

How does this "think" tank define integration? Does it believe that integration is not possible until we all f@ck each others and become the same color, religion, race?

All such simplistic "solutions" that require people to conform to a set of standards needs to be rejected with the contempt they deserve.

M. Nam

Now nearly half of ethnic Indian and three quarters of ethnic Pakistani and Bangladeshi children aged 0-4 have a mother born in her country of origin

1. Why, statistically, are men marrying more from the subcontient, than women?
------
2. Is this ethnic ghetto thing really a problem in England?? Waiting to get a qualitative opinion from BongBreaker.
------

there are plenty of Indian Hindus and Sikhs from the 1st-Generation who would very strongly prefer their sons to marry someone from "back home" in order to prevent the alleged "dilution of Indian culture, values etc"

Probably very true. If you look at the percentage of Indian men marrying from abroad - 38%, that's pretty high. Not as high as predominantly muslim Bangladeshi (60%) and Pakistan (48), but still pretty surprising.

unnecessarily messing with a community's culture and tradition* just adds fuel to the problem of alienation

ironic isn't it! The reason most right-wing conservatives (does that term mean much anymore!) are against immigration in the first place is their fear that their native culture is being replaced by a dangerous potpourri called multiculturalism.

Abhi: "If you leave your country to make a better life for yourself in another, the statistics shouldn’t so strongly indicate that you are trying to pull your entire old society with you."

Why shouldn't they? Precisely because most immigrants are economic, i.e. most did not and do not emigrate because they have an especial attachemnt to the ideologies underlying the American and British nation-states, this stat makes sense to me. These people have no intention of changing their lifestyles, they just wish to be more prosperous maintaing whatever lifestyle it is that they are maintaining. (In time, the lifestyle of their descendants is likely to be different no matter what they want, as East Asian, Jewish, Irish and other immigrants to the USA learned soon enough).

I have a title for this post: 'friday frivolous bloggig'.

Jai Singh,

notions of moral superiority over the local population and culture and a wish to keep things "pure".

As a first gen immimgrant, I have an addendum to your comment. More than keeping things "pure", not being with the mainstream has do with adjustment/adaptation. Language and cultural barriers, which may be different but not necessarily antagonistic, produces a discomfort in causual environments that one would not feel if they restrict themselves to their own communities.

I, however, agree your "us and them" theory.

Would it be wise to say that we would get similar findings in India? To my knowledge, and experience, many Muslim families live in 'ghettoes' like environment to date. Not to mention seperate civil, judicial and other bodies that run parallel to the government.

Jai Singh,

Very interesting arguments. I totally buy your perspective.

c) Greater psychological affinity towards people and cultures based thousands of miles away (ie. they'll feel a sense of detachment towards the West and will not really feel a part of it).

IMO, this is due to the romanticization of that far away culture, by different parties such as overly conservative parents to preachers etc..

Does eating curry contribute to terrorism?

International curry is a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain. Even in the second generation, a high proportion of immigrants from certain countries eat curry made by spouses from their county of origin. This sets back integration by a generation. Now nearly half of ethnic Indian and three quarters of ethnic Pakistani and Bangladeshi children aged 0-4 eat curry made by a mother born in her country of origin.

2. It is now essential that ...The present regulations should be tightened and a “curry inoculation test” should be introduced, ...Where a UK resident wishes to eat curry from the country in which he or she (or either parent) was born...

M. Nam

I don't geddit.

1. Why are Indians even included in this report? It doesnt seem like their ghettoization (assuming they're as equally ghettoized as Bangladeshis and Pakistanis) has particularly harmed either them or the wider British community. The report quoted disturbing employment statistics only for Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants.

2. Sounds like a case of searching for blame in someone else's backyard...the 7/7 terrorists are British born? - the problem must then lie with their foreign-born mothers! (those sneaky foreign-born types)

Abhi - I found your last paragraph a little unintelligible. What exactly do you find sympathetic about this report?

Here's one very easy way in which Britain could've vastly curtailed the spread of terrorist ideas - lock up mullahs who preach hatred.

Quite true. Most Indians are terrorists. And most Irish are saints. Brilliant job as always Sepia guys.

"Would it be wise to say that we would get similar findings in India? To my knowledge, and experience, many Muslim families live in 'ghettoes' like environment to date. Not to mention seperate civil, judicial and other bodies that run parallel to the government."

It would be relevant to consider economic conditions too-- since wealthy Muslims don't appear to live in ghettos in India. Then there is the issue of safety: news reports suggest that in Ahmedabas some even affluent Muslims are moving to Muslim majority areas because they don't feel safe after the 2002 pogroms.

As for separate "civil, judicial and other" bodies,what are you referring to? If the Muslim Personal Law, is incorporated into the Indian legal system, and is administered by ordinary courts and judges, irrespective of religion (the same judges also interpret and implement cases arising under the Hindu Code, as well as other more limited bodies of law applicable to various communities). Some have argued for legal recognition to Shariah courts (which currently lack such legal sanction, and hardly constitute anything like a large % of civil litigation involving Muslims). What other "civil" or "other" bodies are you talking about?

Many Indian cities feature areas and buildings where (for e.g.) non-vegetarians are unwelcome, or non-[fill in the community] are non welcome. I recall the Shiv Sena in Bombay getting very upset because it felt fish-eating Maharashtrians were being excluded from "Gujarati'-only" buildings; why single Muslims out?

Ang,

2. Is this ethnic ghetto thing really a problem in England?? Waiting to get a qualitative opinion from BongBreaker.

I'll let BongBreaker answer your question himself whenever he gets round to logging on, but the brief answer is Yes. Remember that, unlike the US, South Asians are the biggest non-white ethnic minority group in the UK. Which shouldn't normally be a problem apart from the usual desi culture-clash issues; unfortunately, things get a lot worse if there are enough people who have a mindset sufficiently antagonistic towards the indigenous population and culture, especially if they find enough of an incentive to actually organise themselves and do something about it. Hence 7/7, along with other issues that have arisen.

2. Is this ethnic ghetto thing really a problem in England??

It sort of is but also it sort of is not. Since non-Muslims are completely unlikely to commit acts of terrorism, if they live in their own ethnic ghettoes it is not going to result in acts of terrorism. But on the other hand, we can't be sure about the Muslims who live in ghettoes...

Abhi said: "Perhaps the time has come for harsher steps through tougher immigration policy."

Tougher immigration policy? Are you saying you are, or are tending towards anti-immigration? That’s quite a statement to be made by a 2nd generation immigrant who probably has most of his family in the US. It’s like ' I crossed the line, let’s close the gate, screw the rest of em behind me'.

Maybe this is not what you implied, in which case its a fairly irresponsible statement to make especially in a time where immigration policy is a very sensitive issue and can potentially affect the lives of millions.

Incredible! The report spouts all these numbers and stats at you, and has such a simplistic view of the real problem.
Marrying someone from one's homeland doesn't set back integration. Psssh!!
This would depend largely on the people involved, opportunities that are made available to them, discrimination in it's many forms etc.
As Kush said in his comments there are a lot of economic reasons invloved here.
I agree,The UK migration watch is probably out for lunch and should stay out.

The lifeline of US/ UK's progress is constant, fresh immigration- be it cab drivers, hotel owners, short-order cooks, construction workers, doctors, and engineers.

The moment US/ UK goes for tougher immigration policy they will become like "Old Europe" (as Rummy calls it) - Demand for all the benefits but little effort for earnings. Come to think of it, even Old Europe has quite a bit of immigration.

I oppose forced cultural/ personal policing in any society.

??!! You must be kidding. What would you suggest next? Maybe only muslims from the subcontinents should be forced to marry someone from "indigenous Western community".

Umair Muhajir,

I certainly am not referring to "all Muslims" when I mentioned 'ghetto'.

"fish-eating Maharashtrians were being excluded from "Gujarati'-only"".

As a strict vegetarian (not Gujju), I can tell you that I would also prefer to live in a "veggie" community. Gujjus will do the same to other non-veg communities also, as you said. Why should Muslims or other communities take it offensively?

"Other" secluded Muslim bodies are Madraasa (they number in thousands across India) and political parties like Muslim league. Muslims also remain very secluded and dont go mainstream (I dont know why in India - again not every Muslim).

some even affluent Muslims are moving to Muslim majority areas

2nd generation immigrant

Just a side note BUT,there is no such thing as a 2nd generation immigrant. I thought only caucasians mistakenly assumed if you aren't white you must be an immigrant, but apparently desi's have the same perception. Aaargh!!!

I was born in the country, where I am residing, so I am NOT an immigrant. I also happen to be 2nd generation. Having never born or lived elsewhere, it's silly to suggest that I am an immigrant. I could write a book about why this is important, but it would be too much of a tangent to current discussion. You may continue now.....

-----

I can't condone such anti-immigration policies - It doesn't solve the real problems behind terrorism AT ALL.

Sikhs and Hindus seem to be fitting in well to British society without too much difficulty and they are certainly not antagonistic towards it In fact they are integrating well, contributing to the economy and society. It is the Pakistani and Bangladeshi Mulsim community from which hate filled suicide bombing extremists emerge. Look towards the extremist Islam being preached and look towards the marriages to first cousins in Mirpur and Sylhet - that is where the problem comes from.

""Other" secluded Muslim bodies are Madraasa (they number in thousands across India) and political parties like Muslim league. Muslims also remain very secluded and dont go mainstream (I dont know why in India - again not every Muslim)."

A madrassa is a religious school, and is thus no different from a seminary or a school pertaining to any other religion; by definition a Muslim religious school would only feature Muslims I would assume. Unless you are arguing for their being no religious institutions in India, I don't see how one can avoid a situation where only Muslims go to mosques, only Sikhs to gurdwaras, only Hindus to mandirs, and only Christians to churches.

As for the Muslim League, personally I think such a party has no place in a secular polity. But given that this party has a meaningful existence only in Kerala, it's a little unfair to use this to cite to general Muslim "separateness". By that logic, one could use the Bajrang Dal and the VHP as examples of organizations that I doubt feature too many Muslims.

And for the record, I don't take offense to being excluded from veg-only communities; that was a response to your comment about Muslims; my point was that many many Indians (and not just Muslims) feel more comfortable living around people "like" them, so why single Muslims out?

And this goes to a wider point too: in India one has Dalit organizations, Christian organizations, Sikh organizations, Brahmin organizations, Thakur organizations, Rajput organizations, Sunni Muslim organizations, and Shiite Muslim organizations, and many many others. It isn't principled to only single the Muslims out.

"I assume you considered that the 'move' happened other way around also."

Yes, of course-- but I wasn't the one saying Hindus had a separateness problem vis-a-vis Muslims, it was you saying that the converse was true of Muslims.

Abhi, while I hate to admit it, Moornam has a point here :) The conclusions that the Times draws are a classic case of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. As Steven Levitt might tell you, the higher ratio in arranged marriages might merely be correlated to higher risk of breeding terrorism. But, correlation does not imply causality. I believe that second gen. UK South Asians who are more fundamentalist in their religious beliefs are likely to both marry from 'the motherland' (possibly out of hatred for their skirt wearing second-gen peers who might talk back to them and violate their modesty by exposing ankles) and be sympathetic to the Jehadi cause. This would an instance where two correlated events depend causally on the third and hence falsely appear to have a cause-effect relationship between themselves.

Moornam's satirical curry correlation is a similar example of PHEPH.

How about the legal-eagles on SM? Maisnon?

Umair said:

Why shouldn't they? Precisely because most immigrants are economic, i.e. most did not and do not emigrate because they have an especial attachemnt to the ideologies underlying the American and British nation-states, this stat makes sense to me. These people have no intention of changing their lifestyles, they just wish to be more prosperous maintaing whatever lifestyle it is that they are maintaining.

Yes but as a citizen of a country I have the right to want to discourage people with that philosophy from entering my country, no?

SMR said:

Abhi - I found your last paragraph a little unintelligible. What exactly do you find sympathetic about this report?

What was unitelligible? I thought it was quite clear. I reject most conservative immigration policy briefs but their were some elements in this one that made me think, "ok, I can see that point.

OBBB said:

Tougher immigration policy? Are you saying you are, or are tending towards anti-immigration?...It’s like ' I crossed the line, let’s close the gate, screw the rest of em behind me'.

Whoa, that's quite a leap isn't it? I often feel that SM readers sometimes love to play "let's pile on the ABCD" since the poor guy is confused and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Look, bottom line is I am always hearing from Punjabi Boy, and Jai Singh, and sometimes BB that things are messed up in England and that people are burying their heads in the sand instead of facing the problem. I wrote this post, which I knew would be controversial, in order to start exploring one of the issues. I often play devil's advocate on purpose to see where it may lead.

Judas

The problem in the UK is most urgently a Muslim one though - because Sikhs and Hindus and Dalits are not blowing themselves up on trains and buses. Whatever problems Sikhs and Hindus and African immigrant communities are being contested and changing and need attention - but they are not of the order, magnitude, seriousness and deadly nature of the extremism and terrorist violence being directed by Muslims against commuters on buses and trains in London - Muslim men who were born and raised in England.

Unless we get to grips with that or avoid the issue for fear of singling out one group we will never get anywahere. Muslims are the only group in England who are literally murdering people because of their hatred for the society. No other religious or ethnic group is doing that. Until we face up to this fact nothing gets solved.

"Muslims also remain very secluded and dont go mainstream"

What is "mainstream" in a country like India? This sort of argument used to be made about Brahmins by the Dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu, and I reject that too. The idea there was similar, as the Dravidianist ideologues claimed that Brahmins maintained themselves apart from the society around them, etc. If the point is that Muslims should become "like" everyone else (defined statistically) and have no visible markers of religious difference, then that would implicate Sikhs too. And who is the everyone that one is to be like?

At bottom, I think there is a difference in the conception of Indian nationshood between the two of us: I see your view as the one adopted by (for e.g.) France or Turkey, where assimilation to a single ideal is accepted as the norm. That is not, as I see it, the view prevalent in India, whether the question is of religion or language. By your argument one could just as easily say that Tamilians are secluded from the national mainstream, and so are Bengalis, etc.

Ang,

"Just a side note BUT,there is no such thing as a 2nd generation immigrant. I thought only caucasians mistakenly assumed if you aren't white you must be an immigrant, but apparently desi's have the same perception. Aaargh!!!"

I can vouch even European-Americans or East Asian-Americans calling themselves as 2nd generation or 3rd or Mayflower generation American. Commonly, one does hear somebody telling that their grandfather and grandmother came off the boat from Slovakia or their Slovak grandfather married a quaker girl from Oklahoma.

Please, nobody is questioning or doubting or undermining your origins - However, modern North America was formed through immigration and does get called on from time to time .

My last post was directed to Umair Muhajir

Abhi: Yes you do have that right, though one might also consider that it implies a certain view of nationality and assimilation (see the last paar of my comment no. 28).

Ang:
Just one of the millions of documents out there using the words '2nd generation immigrant'

Judas: Neither are Indian Muslims. My comments were all in response to hammer and sickel's comment linking the UK phenomenon to Indian Muslims. I fail to see why Indians who happen to be Muslim maintaining their traditional habits and practices has anything to do with the sort of Islamist fascists the UK and other European countries seem to produce in large numbers. I think SMR's point on this was elegant in its simplicity.

Conservative??

Migration watch are a bunch of fuckwits (apologies for my french) dressed up in suits under the banner of a 'think-tank'. They are the thinking man's BNP IMHO.

I hate them so much I'm setting up an organisation specifically to tackle these monkeys.

They basically emply a demographer to go through migration and other Office of National Statiscs (ONS) data and derive it in a way to present their hypothesis that migration is bad.

Infact their whole reason in life (I'm prone to exaggeration) is to hammer home the point that immigration is bad.

as you can probably tell, I really really don't like them :)

Tomorrow I'm gonna post something that is supposedly embargoed by the Conservative party, long the target audience by Migration watch, that will hopefully overhaul the whole tory party policy on immigration. The convervative policy pushed the anti-immigration agenda as much as they could during the election earlier this year and failed. Now they will change direction and hopefully Migrationwatch will be ignored more.

Disclaimer: I make little sense when I've had a few beers and am about to go out to party... but I hope the above contributed to the debate.

Yes but as a citizen of a country I have the right to want to discourage people with that philosophy from entering my country, no?

Just one of the millions of documents out there using the words '2nd generation immigrant'

I can't believeyou just tried to make a point by referring to quantity of citatings rather than quality. Do you ever question the correctness of the documents you read, or do you take them as fact? I'm not sorry, but the number of documents citing 2nd generation immigrants are not correct. I am not an immigrant in any sense of the word, regardless of what Katie Richardson, presumably a caucasian, writes.

Here is the definition:

pronunciation
n.

1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.

adj.

Of or relating to immigrants or the act of immigrating.

Ignorant people may refer to you as an immigrant even if you were born in the same country, to exclude you from the rights they have, or to simply single you out. Don't fall into that trap. And don't try to defend the definition any further. I have enough uncle ji's to argue over dumb shit with. Linguistically, it has negative implications - it is wrong and we should rightfully correct it. Don't give me any more b.s. examples or studies: I know what's right with my own heart, soul, and mind. END.

------

That being said, I do feel strongly for immigrant rights and am against policing of any kind.

Aaargh,
Here's the definition again:

im·mi·grant (ĭm'ĭ-grənt) pronunciation
n.

1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
2. A plant or animal that establishes itself in an area where it previously did not exist.

adj.

Of or relating to immigrants or the act of immigrating.

I can vouch even European-Americans or East Asian-Americans calling themselves as 2nd generation or 3rd or Mayflower generation American.

Kush, but no where do you write immigrant. There's an ugly motivation behind calling people who are not white, immigrants, even if they're 3 or 4 generations removed. Think about it!!! Gawd! #@$#

Umair Muhajir

Yes, point taken, you are right, it is wrong to link the two - it doesnt help with the specific situation in the UK to compare it to India at all.

Abhi said:

Whoa, that's quite a leap isn't it?

Well that was the general connotation of your message.
A call for tougher immigration policy in light of increased terrorist threats can imply more sceerning to let the 'good' in and keep the 'bad' out. But what is one to make of a call for tougher immigration policy on social grounds, if it is not anti-immigration?

I often feel that SM readers sometimes love to play "let's pile on the ABCD" since the poor guy is confused and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Whats ABCD, and confused got to do with this??? Is this a Goyal toil?

"There's an ugly motivation behind calling people who are not white, immigrants, even if they're 3 or 4 generations removed. Think about it!!! Gawd! #@$#"

I empathize with your view and pain. There is. Even the descendants of Chinese-Americans who came here as railroad workers in 1800s have to prove themselves, time and time again.

As Razib had earlier pointed out on another thread, sometimes such ugly singling out even occured to German origins during WWs. [Please note I am not underming your view.]

Peace.

"pile on the ABCD"????

Abhi: evidently you've forgotten all the "desi guys suck" threads... :-)

Glad to see I beat some sense into y'all. Please think twice... next time I won't be so nice. I know karate - lol.

Peace.

There is something like "newly convert syndrome". It is as bizarre as Jai Singh's concept "my ancestoral land is virginal and pure".

I am not implying anyone here suffering from them. However, we all seen them from time to time.

Henri Miller was quite humorous about Indian-Americans who would tell him how great things were and he would argue with endlessly, and they would feel upset. Also, about Gandhians in NYC going crazy in brothels.

Ang, alrighht...take a chill pill here, the burdens on Abhi, not you. If you dont like those word, I am more than happy to comply. So its 2nd generation immigrant. Done
But tell me something - is there another word for 'immigrant'? I mean it seems to have such a unkewl and derogatry vibe to it, that I figure we completely reword it - for the sake of the real immigrants-- so that they get some respekt, ya know.

Just don't karate me :)

Well that was the general connotation of your message. A call for tougher immigration policy in light of increased terrorist threats can imply more sceerning to let the 'good' in and keep the 'bad' out.

I think you are confusing my views with the views of the Conservative UK Migration watch. That is probably because I didn't separate my position from the begining. As I stated I often play devil's advocate. I agree with them that when the rates of people bringing in wives from the old country is so high it will lead to sustaining the old world mentality in the new. I personally disagree with that way living. I also believe that if you bring the old world to the new you are more likely to remain segregated from the general population. I also disagree with that way of living. The final logical leap that leads from there to terrorism isn't as clear. As Kush, Moornam, and DesiDudeinAustin have pointed out, that jump is more complicated. I agree with them. As far as my views on immigration they are generally very liberal. However, I am intrigued by Denmark's approach (I'd like to know more) and I think that maybe something more drastic has to happen to break up the ethnic ghettos.

Marrying someone from your parent's home country will often retard the assimiliation of your children. To the extent that assimiliation and integration lower the likelihood of bombing your countrymen, then yes -- arranged marriages contribute to terrorism.

But plenty of well integrated people bomb their countrymen. The Sikh terrorists that bombed Air India Flight 182 (Kanishka) were killing their fellow Indo-Canadians. The Muslim 7/7 bombers were plenty well integrated -- the birthplace of your mother is a minor factor in your potential murderousness. Other things are more important.

(As a personal matter, I think arranged marriages are horrible and an arranged marriage to someone from your parent's country is more horrible. But I'm not sure that there is a public policy interest in the issue. Denmark be damned.)

Ikram

Irish terrosist killed 3000 of their own countrymen in the last thirty years over the Northern Ireland issue. It does not get to the heart of the problem to pat ourselves on the back and say, yes, it has happened in the past with other people - so we dont have to worry now.

WE DO HAVE TO WORRY when people start strapping bombs to their bodies and slaughtering dozens of people in the cause of a global Islamist Jihad that sees no boundaries and knows no end. It is only fair and correct that we ask very serious questions of those Muslims (not all) in England who espouse, harbour, evnagelise for this Jihadi suicide terrorist culture that thrives in some Muslim ghettoes in cities across the UK.

Various groups are at various stages of integration in the UK - Indians are more integrated than Pakistanis, Jews are the most integrated minority group, etc etc etc

A root and branch approach to the specific problem of Islamic Jihad philosophy in the Muslim ghettoes has to be found - and fast.

Umair Muhajir and Judas,

I'm in disagreement with you on why we cant draw any parallels between Islamic radicals in rest of the world and those in India. (Please dont take my arguments offensively as I dont intend to do so - just want to make some frank communincation).

Hasnt India seen many 9/11, 7/7 type attacks? In fact, they are forgotten time and again. Starting from Kashmir to attacks on parliament, temples.

Moreover, some of the radical views are appeased and entertained for political mileage. Like what better way get elected than having a Osama bin laden look alike as an election 'campaign star'? (Paswan's star campainer - Mr Khaleed Noor.)

There are numerous places in India where Pakistani flag is hoisted on August 14. Diwali like crackers go off in muhallas - not during Diwali but when India looses to Pakistan in a
cricket match.

I may be sounding harsh, but I just to clear my thoughts on what do these constitute to? Seclusion? radical behaviour?

On a second hand note:

There is always a talk of bringing every citizen of the country into the mainstream, but, reality is that this unnecessary concept of minorityism is taking certain religious communities away from the mainstream of our society. It is common knowledge that political parties of all colours are attempting to develop and extend this concept of minorityism or communalism to every possible sphere of public life in their zeal to get their vote. That results in frequent announcements of reservations in admissions in educational institutions, municipal bodies and legislatures, proposing establishment of Muslim banks, minority financial commission, and minority human rights commission, as if human rights of minorities are different those of from other citizens. One political party creates a Muslim university, the other openly proposes a Muslim chief minister during elections, and, has by his side on stage a picture of Osama bin-Laden to attract Muslim vote foolishly implying that all Muslims adore the terrorist. Political parties are in the race of telling the minorities that they, and nobody else, are their protectors. This communalism is being practised openly and blatantly in the name of secularism. This is bound to have a reaction and serious repercussions on the other side resulting in social disharmony, disunity and unrest in the country.

Hammer and sickel: I see what you're saying; my own view is that the RELIGIOSITY os Indian Muslims is not a good indicator of the ANTI-INDIAN or separatist tendencies among Indian Muslims:

http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2005/08/on-historical-relationship-between.html

I too have heard of some Muslims celebrating pakistan's victories; I have also heard of Muslims in Baroda pelted with stones when they were celebrating INDIA'S victory (they were taunted and told to support Pakistan), and have heard of people saying that when Muslims in Bombay and Calcutta prayed at stadiums with Indian flags, that they were only pretending to do so, and that "really" these people were "of course" praying for a Pakistani victory.

I didn't take offense, dialogue and discussion are necessary (since I hope I don't believe that only I have access to "truth" and everyone else has no basis for their views).

"parties are in the race of telling the minorities that they, and nobody else, are their protectors. This communalism is being practised openly and blatantly in the name of secularism."

I agree completely.

i'm late to the party, and i don't have much to say aside from this

1) good for you abhi for looking at the content of ideas rather than the source.

2) note that there was a 40 year "pause" in american immigration (relative to the base native population at least) between 1925 and 1965. this was the period when catholic and jewish ethnics became "american."

3) different communities have different dynamics. in the USA the 'ghetto' or 'ethnic neighborhood' was destroyed by suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. jewish intermarriage rates started increasing a lot around 1965, going from 10% to 40% (being conservative) in 40 years. jews were already rather prosperous by 1950.

4) terrorist issues aside, i think a culture of arranged marriages is shitty for the people within those marriages. in this thread there is a focus on the relationship of ethnic minorities to the surrounding population, but myself, one big concern i have is that boys, and more likely, girls, will be pressured by their social milieu which is perpetually metastable as an 'immigrant' community that is in the nation but not of the nation.

5) canada and europe and can do multiculturalism all they want. i don't give a fuck anymore, but when it comes to the USofA i am a proud conservative who wishes to maintain the civil rights consensus of 1965, after civil rights legislation and roll back of state mandated segregation, but before the rise of powerful identity politics and an ssertion that group affinity must by its nature trump individual preference. even if it is a vain and lost cause, at least we go down with a fight.

People, sorry for the OT comment because I am just coming here after a long layoff on SM, and having read the entire Ramzaan thread and I think I have some value to add. (To Ed: why do you guys close comments to old post? - feel free to remove this comment and put it back in the Ramzaan thread with a pointer here).

So, here we go:
First up, excellent post Abhi. However, there is no starting age of 12. You can regularly see, children as young as of age 5 fasting(yes, the whole 30 days). But it varies. Parents usually encourage their children to start fasting as early as possible so that they don't resist it later on. Some start with 2-3 fasts and graduate slowly, and some go the whole month in first attempt. Mileage varies from family to family.

All that switching to Mecca timings is news for me. Though I do wonder what Finnish/Norwegian Muslims do where they have 6months of night and 6months of day. Surely, there should be a reasonable way out. Secondly, though fasting is one of the obligatory rituals, nothing in Islam, and I mean NOTHING is mandated to the point where it hurts your health. So to answer Bongbreaker, if someone is medically advised to not fast, then he can stay away. Infact it's mandated that he should not fast. Same goes with pregnant women(baby needs nutrition).
And till date I haven't heard of someone dying of fasting. If anyone has any such story, pls point it out.

Yoginder Sikand is neither a Sufi nor Sikh, though he did mention that he comes from a mixed background(Sufi+Hindu parents, IIRC) hence his interest in inter-faith dialogue and Islam. He calls himself agnostic. I've met him and interacted with him quite a few times in Bangalore. Gem of a person, and can beat many modern-day aalims in Islamic theology hands down.

I am from Bombay, and mutton always meant goat and lamb=sheep. After moving to Bangalore, someone told me, in expensive restaurants in India when they say lamb it means goat, and nobody serves sheep. So I am now thoroughly confused.(btw, any places here in the US which serve goat/sheep? ofcourse except for the desi halaal-meat store). Though poor people do eat beef more, even rich people eat beef. Beef is more suitable for kebabs et al, and mutton for curries etc. Then again tastes vary. Most Muslims in Bombay who belong from UP/Bihar(I am not) have a strong liking to beef over mutton. I think it's a regional thing.

Done with Ramzaan..onto this thread.
Have they looked into the new love-cum-arranged marriages phenonmenon?
I call bullshit on this report without reading it in detail. They somehow assume, all marriages that are not arranged, are more likely to be inter-[religious/sect/cultural] and even white-brown pairs.

I claim that anyone who marries into a family of chilli-spice-curry family is more likely to turn into a terrorist. You see: chilli+spices = hot = hot-headed = loses his cool .. ergo terrorist.

They somehow assume, all marriages that are not arranged, are more likely to be inter-[religious/sect/cultural] and even white-brown pairs.

well duh. what parents wants their son/daughter to marry a muslim/hindu/sikh/black/white/etc. etc. can't we just stipulate obvious realities? the p value of you marrying someone of background x is due to a lot of factors, arranged marriages where there is a go-between tends to impose high selection criteria. "love" marriages impose different selection criteria, often more expansive ones (i would argue that a ph.d. brown hindu dude has more stringent educational selection critera than his extended family might have, but in other areas like religion, caste, SES and so on he might be laxer).

"i think a culture of arranged marriages is shitty for the people within those marriages"

Razib: I think that's a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of people who prefer arranged or semi-arranged marriages, who would be quite surprised by your characterization of their life-choices as shitty.

Razib: I think that's a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of people who prefer arranged or semi-arranged marriages, who would be quite surprised by your characterization of their life-choices as shitty.

of course. i'm talking general expectations here. on the balance, i think for a liberal democratic society to prosper in congruence with a mass consumer culture one must have strong non-kin attachments and individual preference and self-actualization must take priority.

if you want me to be honest, i know a fat shy dude who really enjoys his non-english speaking bangladeshi import. arranged marriage has been a real good deal for him. and aside from the manic depression and social isolation that said important feels living in western massachuttes, i'm sure she's happy being in the first world.

if want to take sweeping generalizations off the playing field, well, we can't talk about anything except for art where all standards for systematic discursion seem to be nullified. i mean, if want me to talk in terms of exceptation, medians, variances, standard deviations and what not, i will. i'd have to make up some numerative proxies (ie; utility bundle, i don't know), but i'll do it.

There are plenty of people who prefer arranged or semi-arranged marriages, who would be quite surprised by your characterization of their life-choices as shitty.

and let me be clear in that there isn't a dichotomy here. there is semi-arranged marriage. there is conventional western marriage before 1900 where sexual enjoyment was frowned upon. there are lots of variations. mormons in the USA take a different attitude toward marriage that most americans. i'm not denying diversity, but the way extended families manipulate or control spouse choice in many "traditional" societies, or the neo-traditional diaspora societies, is a particular cultural motif that i think is wrong for a variety of reasons. those reasons are framed by the norms and values that i think promote the 'good life' and 'good society.' i will make them explicit if you really want, but my negative attitude toward arranged marriage is party motivated by those larger considerations.

for example, in marriage, a history by stephanie coontz, she reports on psychological literature which points out that north indian men often have a distant and cool relationship to their wives in comparison to that with their mothers and brothers. that is not a pattern that i think is ideal to recapitulate in a liberal democratic society where gender equalitarianism is expected and promoted.

"if you want me to be honest, i know a fat shy dude who really enjoys his non-english speaking bangladeshi import. arranged marriage has been a real good deal for him. and aside from the manic depression and social isolation that said important feels living in western massachuttes, i'm sure she's happy being in the first world."

The "if you want me to be honest" that begins this sentence is a giveaway: the generalization I was objecting to is precisely your insinuation that arranged marriages are only good deals for fat, shy dudes, i.e. that arranged marriages are only good deals for those who can't hack it in the social scene. If that's your view fine, however, if you want ME to be honest, I know tons of people to whom that description does not apply. I am not suggesting that the arranged marriage ethic is utterly non-problematic, but neither is its liberal Western counterpart.

You also said: "i think for a liberal democratic society to prosper in congruence with a mass consumer culture one must have strong non-kin attachments and individual preference and self-actualization must take priority."

I do agree with this statement (though I do not share the implicit assumption of this statement, at least as I read it, that the only "good" polity is one that may be defined as a "liberal democratic society" focused on "individual preference and self-actualization", or that this is the summa of human achievement).

Razib, though I broadly agree that love marriages have more chances of mixing than arranged, but the numbers are not too high. From what I've seen, people will still tend to prefer partners of similar religious/cultural background and that's not necessarily a bad thing, if that is what they want.

Arranged marriages no more mean, those days of 70s when the bride and groom see each other for the first time on their first night, and then live through the horror rest of their lives. Nowadays, it mostly means, parents search for a 'suitable' family, and both boy and girl have a choice to 'evaluate' out each other and opt out if it doesn't suit their tastes. I don't see anything wrong in that.

At the same time, as much as we like to believe, I see little correlation between inter-[whatever] marriages and education. Just take a trip down south India (you'll get doctors, engineers, PhDs dime a dozen) and you can see most of them are still marrying not just in the same religion, but same sect, sub-sect, nakshatra, gothra what not. Now, I don't have any objection to that. To each his own. I am just saying there is little relation between these statistics and shingdang think-tanks coming out with such 'policy reports'.
One might as well propose a legislation, where all browns are forced to marry caucasians, so that all of us can become one cool beige. Saves money on tanning, eh? :-)

"i'm not denying diversity..."

I'm glad you say that, because one of the socially interesting things (or at least that I find intriguing) about contemporary arranged marriages-- especially in the trans-national context-- is the extent to which arranged marriage structures have morphed and mutated rather than withered away, as many had expected. It is not uncommon for me to come across (for instance) independent career-oriented desi women in both the sub-continent and in the USA who consider the arranged marriage structure--on their terms-- to be preferable to the liberal Western ideal, and what they see as the manufacture of anxiety (and obligations, different in kind from the obligations associated with "traditional" structures, but pervasive nonetheless) associated with that ideal. As long as "self-actualization" might mean different things to different people in the same culture, and different things across different cultures, such generalizations are not so much an aid to analysis so much as a regurgitation of unexamined biases.

From what I've seen, people will still tend to prefer partners of similar religious/cultural background and that's not necessarily a bad thing, if that is what they want.

you are quantitizing anything though. of course people still prefer "their own kind," all things being equal. jews prefer to marry other jews in the USA, there is about a 1 out of 2 shot that an american jew will marry another jew, but if you constrain that to say, a hasidic jew, there is a 99 out of 100 shot they will marry another jew (or a 999 out of 1000). that's a big difference. jews are 2.5% of the american population, so back-of-the-envelope a 50% inmarriage rate is 800X what you would expect from random mating (that is, 2.5%X2.5%). but 50% outmarriage rate is also pretty high.

so yeah, it might be a 'sweeping generalization' that non-arranged marriages increase the p value of 'outmarriage,' but it also happens to be true from all i can see. sometimes you can't help who you fall in love with, but momma & auntie don't really give a shit :)

consider a community with a 10% outmarriage rate vs. one with a 1% outmarriage rate. you might think on an absolute level that the different is minimal, but that's 10X the possibility that a cousin, sister, brother, or friend you meet at temple, is married out of the community. that's 10X the number out-community social links created with the outside society.

sometimes you can't help who you fall in love with
I thought it was more like 'always' :)

but momma & auntie don't really give a shit :)
They do.. atleast in cities, most of em do..(lest if their sweetoo decides to elope with the girl :))
Jokes aside, that's where the love-cum-arrange setup comes into picture. Parents nowadays are increasingly becoming pretty cool to this idea.

Guys,

The primary reason of the discussion/ post was not about "love" vs. "arranged" marriages, "in" vs. "out" marriages. On these issues, I tend to be "to each its own" and would have not commented at all. Please do not digress.

It was about link between arranged marraiges, ghettoization, terrorism, and immigration policies. Moreover, a campaign for imposing selective policies over certain section of minority - that is absolutely detestable.

Let's stay on the topic.

Moreover, a campaign for imposing selective policies over certain section of minority - that is absolutely detestable.

but the danish policy doesn't due that. the motivation was due to the rise of cousin marriages between kurds "back home" and those born in denmark, but the effect has been on all people. there was an NPR story about a senagalese woman who had to live in malmo in sweden because of the new law, as she couldn't marry her danish boyfriend because of the age related issues. that sucks, but if as a byproduct it breaks up the recapitulation of muslim kurdish clan culture in denmark, i'm all for it.

I recall that a few Jewish kids at my HS complained about having to go to all-Jewish functions and being "set-up" w/ boys by family members/community. The adults expected these teens to get to know each other and maybe even date and marry later on. I have never seen people in ANY Muslim community doing such a thing, and I sorta envied those kids who got to meet a lot of people from their background. I have never met any Muslim desis who were cool with the Western style of dating, even if it was with a desi of similar background/religion. They (the older gen) don't seem to care that most of the young ppl are not religious and don't care about national origin. In college, there were MANY desis, but there were divisions as well by, mainly by looks and money. This is so shallow and old-fashioned, and as a result of this CRAP a lotta desis don't know how to talk/relate to someone from the opposite gender! Things really have to change (even my traditional, practicing Muslim dad agrees)!!!

Sorry, but had to vent.

Sure... this is just a Muslim problem... at least until the Sangh Parivar radicals finally roll out a serious international terrorist campaign... then the real fun starts...

In my previous post, I mean to say that a lotta young desis don't know how to talk to/approach other desis.

a campaign for imposing selective policies over certain section of minority

I don't think that's strictly accurate. As far as I know, the proposed policy is a blanket UK-wide restriction and, in content, not specifically targetted at any particular minority community (ie. no "names" are mentioned). However, since by far the majority of British citizens who have arranged marriages happen to be of South Asian origin, they're the ones who'll be impacted the most by all this. And although the catalyst is events concerning the Muslim population, the rest of us would also be affected by this too.

Something which must be mentioned is that the 'salad bowl' version of multiculturalism (in the same mould as the US or India) was a concept which in recent years the British populace and government were quite happy to live with -- "diversity enriches our society", and so on. However, the issue of UK-based support for jihad on the part of some of the Muslim population -- especially after 7/7 -- is what has triggered the turnaround and re-thinking of the whole nature of "British identity", integration, assimilation, and so on. Most people weren't excessively bothered about non-indigenous communities practising certain cultural beliefs and traditions amongst themselves as long as it didn't negatively impact the rest of society. Unfortunately, in recent times this has changed with:

a) extreme groups openly campaigning on TV and in central London for the overthrowing of British government, culture and society and for the imposition of Shariah Law, along with support for the global jihad (imagine if groups with similar views were behaving the same way in the middle of Times Square in New York, and you'll get the idea),

b) Large numbers of British-born Muslims (mostly of South Asian origin) apparently having visited terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, including some who have participated in warfare over there against British and American soldiers (possibly treasonous behaviour),

c) 7/7 and the small-but-significant tacit and explicit support for the bombers and the global jihad that seems to be present. Along with the fact that Muslims are the biggest minority religious group in the UK (because the numbers are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis combined with others from the Middle East and Africa), remember that geographically the UK is much smaller than the US -- it's much more crowded, so large numbers of ethnic communities do have a greater impact here, especially if they're predominantly "aloof" in their lifestyles and attitudes from the rest of the country.

I'm beginning to get a very strong impression that there is a marked difference in attitudes and levels of integration/assimilation between the British South Asian Muslim community and its counterpart in the US. I have no idea what the population breakdown is in the States, but over here most South Asian Muslims are actually from Pakistan rather than India, with a smaller percentage originally from Bangladesh.

On another related thread a few weeks ago, Punjabi Boy -- and, to a lesser extent, myself -- gave quite a detailed summary about events during the last 15 years here which appears to have encouraged an anti-Western radicalised mentality. To give you an example, when I was at college about a decade ago, plenty of British Muslim students did have a "South Asian unity" mindset, but unfortunately there were also significant numbers who did not, and even then it was common to hear people quite openly talking about "the future Islamic revolution", "one day the whole world will be united under Islam", "one day Britain itself will be Islamic, and believe me it will happen", "the aim is to reach the top of our respective professions and then impose Islam from the top down", and so on.

The rest of us usually jokingly dismissed such aspirations as harmless fantasising -- pipe-dreams, basically. "Let them dream -- it's never going to happen, and they'll find the 'real world' is a very different place once they graduate and start having to work."

Unfortunately, with the rise of certain radical mosques and clerics here in the UK, it appears that quite a few wannabe jihadists with a hero-complex have subsequently decided to turn their fairytale ideas into reality. Especially when individuals like OBL kick things into higher gear by openly declaring war on the West (and everyone else) -- of course people with a change-the-world jihadist attitude (which would previously have been relatively impotent) are going to find an added impetus to put plans into motion if they see that there really is an organised, worldwide movement to attack the West (and everything it symbolises). It's an apocalyptic dream-come-true.

From what I can tell, the most influential and radical mullahs seem to be relatively recent arrivals from the Middle East, rather than from Pakistan, although the majority of their "disciples" do seem to be of Pakistani origin. (There are other smaller numbers of extremists from Africa along with converts of Caribbean origin).

I've already mentioned the "reverse racism" factor in another recent SM discussion (as referenced by Kush Tandon near the top of this thread), but it would certainly help to have some input from those of you based in the US as to the general attitude and mentality of the American-based South Asian Muslim population with regards to the majority Caucasian community (along with American society and culture as a whole). If there is not such a great degree if antagonism towards American Caucasians then perhaps there are some different dynamics at work in the UK compared with the US. To paraphrase what I've already said in another thread -- I've wondered if there is an element of (metaphorical) schizophrenia involved; think about it -- from the point of view of many older-generation South Asians, migrating to the UK (the very country which ruled and, in the minds of many, tyrannised, humiliated and abused so many of one's countrymen for so long) would be like large numbers of Israeli Jewish people migrating to Germany*, just for financial reasons, despite what "they" did to "us". There could be all kinds of guilt-ridden and possibly xenophobic** factors at work here, if certain sections of the immigrant population view the term "British" to be referring to past colonial groups (and their descendents) rather than merely describing everyone who happens to be a citizen of the UK (including themselves) -- and if this worldview is encouraged amongst UK-born 2nd-Generationers by their parents. This doesn't necessarily explain the rising Islamist extremist on mainland Europe, of course, but it could well be something pertinent to the UK. Just an idea.

Someone on this thread mentioned the higher degree of integration/assimilation by British Hindus and Sikhs compared with Muslims; this is correct -- broadly-speaking -- but bear in mind that both Hinduism and Sikhism are more liberal and flexible than Islam (apart from the Sufi variety), so there is greater leeway for them to be more "Westernised" in their attitudes and behaviour without any excessive incompatibility with their respective faiths. Islam, however, is very conservative about certain non-negotiable things; hence there can be less flexibility and subsequently less scope for its stricter adherents to "dive into" -- or condone/accept --some of the more liberal norms of Western life -- so of course they will feel more alienated from mainstream Western society and culture.

While we're on this topic, I should also comment that the rationale of poverty apparently being a factor in triggering/promoting terrorism isn't something I agree with -- if that were true, sub-Saharan Africans should have been waging guerrilla war against the rest of the world for a long time. Which obviously isn't the case.

* I am not comparing the British Raj to Nazi Germany and don't think they're morally equivalent; this is just an analogy.

** By no means am I saying that Israeli Jews have a xenophobic attitude towards present-day Germans. Again, this is just an example.

so whats all so great in "integration"? Christopher Columbus didn't bother integrating, and america turned out pretty decent.

Jai,

Quite well written. The Economist has also been for nearly four years raising alarm on openly radicalized Islamists have become in UK.

Regarding reverse racism in US, I am not the right person to comment. Other than sepia mutiny, my contacts with South Asian community are minimal, and sometimes for years non-existent. Somebody else, could comment in a more educated manner.

It is not the poverty - it is the poverty sitting next to wealth that causes violence. It is not the only reason - cultural trapping play a role too. There has been no fatwa on children being killed by Islamic terrorists in Iraq but there were fatwas on Sania Mirza [Paraphrasing Tom Friedman from NYT].

However, the solution is isolating the disease rather than demonizing the community as a whole.

Of course, this happened in the late 1800s and 1900s in America, but the difference there was that there was a wide open expanse of land waiting to be explored and settled to the west. In many cases this incentivized the break-up of concentrated ethnic communities as they moved to pursue better opportunities

Yep the American indians who called that vast expance a home don't matter right? After all it was their land. Census shows there were over a million of them living there and about two million caucasians living in the east. I don't belive interracial marriage there was any more common amongst whites and American indians. So why should we? After all we all came here for the same reason regardless of area of origin. If they are allowed to keep their tradition and heretage why now us?

Great post, Jai Singh! I am also in the same situation as Kush Tandon- not an expert on desis/Muslims/South Asians. I am trying to learn though... Jai, you said that Islam is less flexible than Hinduism and Sikhism. I would agree to this if I was younger, but I know NOW that it all depends on interpretation! However, there is not a movement I know of (of any large scale) to have a more "liberal" view of Islam. Any suggestions on how we can bring this about? Or am I being too naive?

If you leave your country to make a better life for yourself in another, the statistics shouldn’t so strongly indicate that you are trying to pull your entire old society with you.

If the old society you are trying to pull has enough cash and can create jobs in the new country, they are welcomed with open arms and all these statistics mean nothing.

Kush,

However, the solution is isolating the disease rather than demonizing the community as a whole.

Absolutely correct. I certainly don't believe in the concept of "group guilt/collective blame".

Amplifiar,

So why should we? After all we all came here for the same reason regardless of area of origin. If they are allowed to keep their tradition and heretage why now us?

Our parents (and recent desi arrivals) did NOT come here for the same reason. The average early European settler in America was not living there as a citizen of one of the indigenous Native American nations. South Asians are mostly economic migrants and have moved to established, industrialised nation-states. They did not migrate to the West in order to "take those countries over" as "new" colonies. To a lesser or greater extent, you're basically living in someone else's country -- certainly with regards to the UK, if not necessarily the US where everyone is an immigrant (or descended from one) apart from the Native Americans.

Emma,

However, there is not a movement I know of (of any large scale) to have a more "liberal" view of Islam.

You're right, as far as I know there is not any global, organised Islamic reformation movement at present. There are, however, apparently local efforts in various Islamic countries. The irony is that there is already a more liberal interpretation of Islam, one which developed centuries ago, especially in the Indian subcontinent -- Sufism. Unfortunately, it currently seems to be rejected by many Muslims in favour of more orthodox and conservative versions of the faith.

Any suggestions on how we can bring this about?

As non-Muslims, "we" can do relatively little. The change has to come from within the global Islamic community.

IMO, reason that US muslim population especially from South Asia is not ghetto-ised is because they tend to more educated.

Due to the immigration policy of US only highly educated people (if they are browns from South Asia) were allowed. (A fuckwit from Europe would be just fine for the immigration policy.

As a result the south asian muslim population in the US is on average has higher education and is more affluent, which explains why US south asian MUSLIMS are not terrorists (although even they've had arranged marraiges :-) )

South Asians are mostly economic migrants and have moved to established, industrialised nation-states. They did not migrate to the West in order to "take those countries over" as "new" colonies. To a lesser or greater extent, you're basically living in someone else's country -- certainly with regards to the UK, if not necessarily the US where everyone is an immigrant (or descended from one) apart from the Native American

Jai some great points. But immigrants who come here and "form ghetto's" often try the same trick with less success than the whites did in america. Remember america was a land full of indians(the red variety). The initial whites were given land and refuge by the indians(hence the reason for thanks giving day here). Once the whites gained enough numbers, they snatched the land from the less numbered indians. The europeans came here for economic reasons also, depending on the part of europe we are talking about. We SE asians have migrated for economic reasons, not to become white. The point is to have a "better" live, not necessarily a different one. The goal is to practice your religion and preserve your culture and maintain it, while being able to live without worrying about food and shelter. That in a nutshell is the goal of a typical SE asian immigrant. And i personaly don't think its an unreasonable one.

In a globalized world, one can make the point that having one parent from india and another from uk/canada/us/australia is not really such a stretch

every other person in some districts in india knows someone who's living in the uk/canada/us/australia....it can be as different as someone from alabama marrying someone from NYC

of course, not always

Amplifiar,

The goal is to practice your religion and preserve your culture and maintain it, while being able to live without worrying about food and shelter. That in a nutshell is the goal of a typical SE asian immigrant. And i personaly don't think its an unreasonable one.

You're correct, but read my post number 69 again. Most of the indigenous people here in the UK didn't really care what ethnic groups did amongst themselves either, and although people weren't necessarily thrilled about the tendency of some South Asians to live aloof from the mainstream society, it wasn't regarded as a threat to national security and to the cohesion of the country as a whole.

The problems arise when some of the culture and values practised by enough members of the minority groups are hostile to the surrounding majority society and nation -- especially if it's to the degree of wanting to overthrow the present democratic political system (or tacitly supporting this aim, even if one doesn't necessarily do anything directly), supporting the actions of overseas terrorist groups who are waging war against the West as a whole, or deciding to "bring the war home" by blowing up one's fellow citizens on the trains and buses in London.

We SE asians have migrated for economic reasons

With all due respect, the term "we" is a misnomer. This certainly applies to recent arrivals in the West and of course to the 1st-Generation -- but it doesn't apply to the children of South Asian immigrants who have been born in, and have grown up in, the West. I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK the majority of South Asians have been born here. (I'm talking pure numbers -- there are significantly more 2nd-Generationers than 1st-Generationers).

UK's immigration system needs to be overhauled thats for sure.

"International arranged marriages are a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain."

Rubbish!

The problems arise when some of the culture and values practised by enough members of the minority groups are hostile to the surrounding majority society and nation

what kind of numbers are we talking about here, seems to me there are significantly less Muslims actively supporting 'terror' (who's scared ?) by percentage of UK muslim population than there were irish catholics supporting terror by percentage of UK catholic population . UK Immigrants of whatever generation should remember that the british state has fought before against internal subversion and this subversion has arisen as a consequence of imperialism as much as any ghettoising.

"International arranged marriages are a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain."

wats all dis bwt????????
I agree with FK

This is dumb. The British are the most racist people ever. Basically anything can lead to terrorism if thats how you put it.
No one looks at the dumb blondes in britian who never amount to anything in this line of poverty.
Its people likes those who write an article like this that get laughed at from future generations.