Flocking to Success – Immigration

For me, this essay brings up an enduring question throughout much of history: “What to do with immigrants or newcomers?” It also leads to the follow up question: “Who should be doing these actions?” The fact is that when a country starts becoming successful, like Germany in the late twentieth century and like the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, people will flock to that nation. For them, it represents the possibility of opportunity or escape from a potentially bad homeland (refugee). The same thing will happen domestically: if a city starts to boom, and create more job opportunity, people will generally flock to that city. According to this article, Germany is having to face these questions now. As the nation furthers itself as an economic powerhouse, more will want to join in on the bandwagon. In some cases, a newly booming economy needs this flocking in order to keep the momentum going. Germany is not too far from Eastern Europe, and therefore, a large percentage of mixed ethnic populations. For a nation with such a troubled racial past, it can be challenging for them to determine what to do. In the not too distant future, leaders in Germany will have to decide whether they want to assimilate immigrants, allow immigrants to stay but retain their culture, or simply disallow immigration into Germany. The difficult thing is, all answers to the question have their merits; it’s a moral dilemma.

It was a problem for nineteenth-century U.S., and now it is a problem for Germany. Are there any other parts in history that may experience this problem? Perhaps Irish immigration into Britain? Or perhaps North African immigration into Spain?

“Is multi-kulti Dead?”

This news article, written in 2010, focuses on the rising number of immigrants in Germany. However, a large number of these immigrants are unable to integrate into mainstream society, and there is a growing anti-immigration trend. Economist Sarrazin published a book criticizing the influx of immigrants and the number of non-German children being born in Germany. He claims that the influx of immigrants is causing Germany to become less advanced biologically, culturally, and professionally. Recent polls found that many Germans favor heavy restrictions on Muslim religious practices, and “a third [of the population] think the country is overrun with foreigners.” Many of the immigrants are not integrated into German society, and Germany could benefit from their professional skills.There are individuals who recognize that Germany is becoming an immigration state, and they are advocating for immigrant integration into German society. Rather than force assimilation or limit immigration, Germany needs to integrate immigrants into their society to reap maximum economic benefits. It is alarming that anti-immigrant feelings are becoming so strong in Germany, particularly because of German’s historical views on German supremacy. Sarrazin paints non-Germans as unintelligent and draining the resources of the German people, which is a dangerous precedent. Racial and ethnic hierarchies create civil unrest and discontent, which is far more destructive than immigrants.

THE MAASTRICHT TREATY

The Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 which know as the symbol of the establishment of European Union.

The Maastricht Treaty marked the cooperation of European countires became more close and expanded from economic regions to politic, military and diplomatic regions. The predecessor of European Union is European Communities which only made cooperation among economic as European Coal and Steel Community and  European Atomic Energy Community. Now with the new signed treaty Eurpean countries strated more comprehensive cooperation such as common currency and the expansion of Parliament’s power.

The Treaty of Maastricht – Unity for Europe?

Signed in 1992, the Maastricht Treaty established a supranational body comprised of countries, which would be known as the European Union. The Treaty dictates that the Union will help keep peace in Europe and will help facilitate good economic relations amongst member nations. Moreover, it will assert itself as an important body of interdependence. Essentially, the Treaty was signed almost immediately (a year or so) after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Following this logic, it would be reasonable to assume that members would comprise of all regions of Europe. This is a false assumption to make; the Treaty signers were primarily from Western Europe.[1] Founder nations included the likes of Belgium, France, Italy, West Germany, Denmark, the U.K., Spain, and others. It left out much of Eastern Europe, who had just collapsed along with the Soviet Union. In fact, many of these nations would not join until 2004, when ten primarily Eastern European countries joined the European Union. It is questionable to consider why the Treaty was not extended into these nations immediately. Perhaps it had to do with the still lingering fear of communism or the thought that these nations would bring the Union down. Moreover, perhaps the Eastern European nations were still in fear of those leaders in Moscow.

What do you think? Why was Eastern Europe excluded initially from the Treaty of Maastricht and the European Union?

Also, here’s a map:

Map showing the member states of the European Union (clickable)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Member_States_of_the_European_Union_(polar_stereographic_projection)_EN.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EC-EU-enlargement_animation.gif

[1] “European Union.” Wikipedia. Accessed April 21, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Member_states.

European Common Market and The Free Trade Area

Author- United States Department of State press statement on the European Common Market and the Free Trade Area, January 15,1957, the US government writes back offering support for these negotiations because it unifies different countries and improves their economy.

Context-Belgium, France, the German Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands are all joining together to establish a European market where there are no barriers during trade. This is in order to keep peace between these six countries. It will help each of these six countries prosper and raise their economies. Tariffs would be put on all foreign goods being export to those not in the market.

Language- The document was designed for those who are educated and it is directed towards the people. It is also spoken in a way that is understandable as well as informative. It was showed to the U.S to gain their approval. It was a convincing document that showed all the pros of this arrangement.

Audience- The document informs the people about the situation, the audience who is reading this would most likely be those who are educated and interested in the economy as well as politics

Intent- the intent of this press statement is to get the people aware of how this could help their economy and help build their economy back up after the war. The author was trying to bring the people and the countries together.

Message- It was to convince the people that this change would be beneficial to all involved. They have gained the U.S approval and are able to form a market representing all of the six countries. This treaty helps prevent the spread of communism.

European Common Market (1957)

This document is a press statement written from the United States’ perspective that described a potential European Common Market and free rade area. This common market was to be comprised of Belgium, France, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The intent of these negotiations was to eliminate trade barriers between member countries and to establish a common external tariff towards outside countries. Both the United States and Great Britain favored this initiative because it would further the political and economic strength of Western Europe by unifying this market. It would also be aligned with the U.S.’s vision of having freer, nondiscriminatory multilateral trade, as well as further increase the prevalence of convertible currencies. This trade relationship would also be in the U.S.’s interest because it would continue a positive trend by further liberalizing imports from the dollar area.

Do you believe that, although not mentioned, the U.S. vehemently supports this treaty because it will halt the spread of communism in Europe by creating a strong, economically expanding, western Europe?

At the end of the document, is the use of the words “welfare of the entire free world,” meant to include every free country, even if it was a freely elected socialist or communist government?

Treaty on European Union

The Maastricht Treaty, also known as the Treaty on European Union, was signed on February 7, 1992. It became active on November 1, 1993, during the Delors Commission. It established the European Union and led to the creation of the Euro. It was amended by the treaties of Lisbon, Nice, and Amsterdam.

Upon creation, the European Union was comprised of three pillars: the European Communities, which dealt with economic, social, and environmental policies, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which handled foreign policy and military matters, and the Police and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters, which focussed on law enforcement and fighting crime. The three pillar structure was abandoned on December 1, 2009, when the Treaty of Lisbon became active.

European Common Market (1957)

This reading focuses on negotiations related to a trade union between Belgium, Grance, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Lxembourg, and The Netherlands. However, the U.K. was also interested in joining the trade union. These countries would remove barriers of trade, and would not impose tariffs upon one another, although they would establish a tariff to all external countries. The United States supported this decision, as this union will help to further unite Western Europe, both politically and economically. In addition, this union is a move towards convertible currencies, and the United States hopes this move will expand trade among countries outside of the union.

UN Declaration of Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and People

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People was created by the UN General Assembly on December 14, 1960. It was a resolution that provided independence for once colonized people. The assembly declared that these people were no longer the subjects of other. One of its main goal was to promote freedom and provide basic human rights to all. It states, ” All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity” (legacy.fordam.edu/halsall/mod/1960-un-colonialism.asp). The declaration signifies the changing attitudes towards human rights that countries collectively share.

Jawaharlal Nehru

Jawaharlal Nehru was the first prime minister of India, he ruled from the time that India gained its independence until his death. He was a supporter of Ghandi and embraced peace as the most important attribute his country could have. Due to the fact that Nehru found peace to be of utmost importance, he decided that India should follow Marxism in order to maintain the most likely course to peace. Nehru believed that following Marxism was the best path to take because violence was only used in order to gain peace in the long run. He also believed with the help of Marxism and government planning, much like the five year plans of Russia, could allow the new country of India to catch up in the world. India also took a very isolationist approach to world politics, Nehru believed that being involved in other affairs would only lead to violence with other countries, a result which he was most adverse to.