Immigration?

[derbeder]

some people have rather low standards for what makes a bunch of sentences into an argument, it seems.

the issue here is not immigration. certainly there are problems relating to it. the problem is with the sentiment in such sentences as "The race mixing is not liberty it is tyranny that is brutally enforced". The use of the expressions "mixing", "brutally enforced" etc. point to something other than the literal meaning of the sentence. There is a hateful sentiment there which I find unacceptable (and I believe reasonably so). One doesn't argue against a sentiment.

 

[Horus]

People state things the way they believe it to be. This is called an opinion. People word their arguments, according to their opinions. That's what I meant by:

But there is no such thing as a right opinion. Opinions are subjective and able to be changed and effected. You can't actually prove an opinion to be correct or incorrect, because if you could, then Opinions wouldn't even exist. It would only be a world of Facts.

 

[Silver Incubus]

People state things the way they believe it to be. This is called an opinion. People word their arguments, according to their opinions. That's what I meant by:

Yet at the same time there are opinions which are valuable, and opinions that are worthless. The former being one from someone who has knowledge in the subject which they have an opinion on. The other is fact less, half-truths, hearsay, or just without any justification for the opinion.
So a correct opinion is one that, any person given the same information and using logic would come to a similar opinion(with their own twist) whereas a wrong opinion is baseless, ignorant, and without relevance.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

some people have rather low standards for what makes a bunch of sentences into an argument, it seems.

the issue here is not immigration. certainly there are problems relating to it. the problem is with the sentiment in such sentences as "The race mixing is not liberty it is tyranny that is brutally enforced". The use of the expressions "mixing", "brutally enforced" etc. point to something other than the literal meaning of the sentence. There is a hateful sentiment there which I find unacceptable (and I believe reasonably so). One doesn't argue against a sentiment.

How does that imply hatred? It is true that the biggest proponents of unchecked immigration are wealthy capitalists because they benefit from it the most, who in turn influence (or many times themselves are) policy makers to agree with their views. It is inhumane for the immigrant for obvious reasons and benefits the economy only in the sense that it lines the pockets of multinationals and unethical business owners.

Multiculturalism is in many ways brutally enforced. Look at the forced busing of students from one racially segregated district to another that occured in the 70s and 80s. These actions are just leading to further segregation, more racial tensions, and are making it easier for a monocultural (i.e. no identity whatsoever) society to exist. Just look at the multicultural policies in the US. What exactly has it fixed? All it's done is made "racism" a thing that is whispered instead of shouted from the rooftops, but the sentiments are still there regardless of the PC regulations that the government enforces.

And I retract my previous statement. Canada is nowhere near as "multicultural" as the US and, like someone pointed out, the values of most of their immigrants are congruent with those of Western European descent.

 

[Blowtus]

And I retract my previous statement. Canada is nowhere near as "multicultural" as the US and, like someone pointed out, the values of most of their immigrants are congruent with those of Western European descent.

Right - so ethnicity is not the problem at all, but values, yes?

 

[ThePhilosopher]

How can you not see the painfully obvious connection between ethnicity and values?

It is true that the values are more often than not the issue, but it is the ethnicity that largely dictates what a person's values are. A person of Korean descent is more likely to be able to assimilate among Western Europeans because their values are more compatible.

You're correct by stating that the crucial question is one of values, but don't forget the role that ethnicity and culture plays in those values.

 

[Blowtus]

Culture (just a word for shared values amongst a given group, yes?) I of course see has a clear role. That of ethnicity I see no evidence or rationale in the slightest for.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

That given group you speak of is more often than not made up of a single ethnicity though. So the connection is still there regardless of whether or not you want to introduce "culture" as an intermediary between ethnicity and values. I'll wait for infoterror or someone else with more experience in that field to chime in with their arguments if they feel necessary.

 

[Blowtus]

I can see that it would be of value to the 'anti immigration' standpoint to have it thought that ethnicity (ie, genetics) played some role in peoples values - it would make successful mixing just that much harder / more pointless. I do not believe that a few children of 'x' ethnicity brought up in 'y' culture, would exhibit any major traits of 'x' culture. I would be interested in any research on both sides of this particular debate - not simply physical and mental capabilities, but 'values' themselves.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I can see that it would be of value to the 'anti immigration' standpoint to have it thought that ethnicity (ie, genetics) played some role in peoples values - it would make successful mixing just that much harder / more pointless. I do not believe that a few children of 'x' ethnicity brought up in 'y' culture, would exhibit any major traits of 'x' culture. I would be interested in any research on both sides of this particular debate - not simply physical and mental capabilities, but 'values' themselves.

One thing to consider in this matter is that adopted children, even when adopted by people from their own race and culture, more often than not show the same behavioural traits as their biological parents.

The culture (apart from the artifical american monoculture) that a people develops in isolation is not random, but rather a reflection of the nature of that people. There is something in them that makes their kind tend towards having such a culture. It feels easy for them to be a part of that, but if born into another culture they would try to adapt, yet would never fit in as well as the average person whose ethnic culture it was.

There is a commonly accepted concern amongst even those who most ardently support multiculturalism, that black children (or other ethnicities) adopted by white families, should be helped to understand their ethnic culture and not treated as if they are to be brought up the same as whites (whites of course not being allowed any ethnic pride anyway).

Newman Study Site Transracial

 

[megamaniac]

(whites of course not being allowed any ethnic pride anyway)

 

[bcmetalforces]

pride is for fools. It is an illusion that will drive one to their grave. Very stupid.

agreed!

 

[Blowtus]

One thing to consider in this matter is that adopted children, even when adopted by people from their own race and culture, more often than not show the same behavioural traits as their biological parents.

Evidence?

The culture (apart from the artifical american monoculture) that a people develops in isolation is not random, but rather a reflection of the nature of that people. There is something in them that makes their kind tend towards having such a culture. It feels easy for them to be a part of that, but if born into another culture they would try to adapt, yet would never fit in as well as the average person whose ethnic culture it was.

"Something in them that makes their kind tend towards having such a culture" - Location, environment, and history?

There is a commonly accepted concern amongst even those who most ardently support multiculturalism, that black children (or other ethnicities) adopted by white families, should be helped to understand their ethnic culture and not treated as if they are to be brought up the same as whites (whites of course not being allowed any ethnic pride anyway).

Newman Study Site Transracial

I care not for any such concerns myself. I see no benefit to pride in one's supposed culture, nor do I see any benefit in the idea that old and irrelevant / outdated / damaging cultures must be preserved. Far better to push forward and develop a new, more useful system of values, I would suggest. I saw no evidence for any of the genetic claims you make in the link you supplied, the only thing vaguely resembling 'evidence', suggested that trans-racial adoptions were no more problematic than regular adoptions.

 

[Norsemaiden]

On the face of it, the idea of "pride" in one's ethnicity does sound rather stupid. After all, one is born like that, and need do nothing to achieve it - so why the "pride"? Should one equally be proud for being a woman for eg. ? But another way to look at this is to ask, what is the opposite of pride? Is it not "shame"?

In this context, the declaration of "pride" may be a defensive emotion to avoid the feelings of shame, embarassment, or other negative reactions that may be occassioned by the accusations of evils done by one's people (guess which race that might be!) or the feeling of being somehow intellectually, physically or morally inferior (accusations which are commonly made against every ethnicity by another ethnicity).

Blowtus, you really don't seem to think that having a strong and meaningful sense of identity is valuable to people. It is valuable, however, and we search for our identity by knowing our heritage and trying to find something good about it to get some idea of our place in life and our role.

Do you know how strongly adopted children usually feel about tracking down their biological parents, and how they say they need to do this in order to understand themselves and have a meaningful identity?

 

[Norsemaiden]

A current news story that is relevant to this thread.

'Migrants bring only 4p a week in financial benefit', says report | News | This is London

Migrants flooding into Britain bring only 4p a week in financial benefit to each person living here, a report has revealed.

At the same time, according to the Government's own research, migrants send home up to £4 billion in remittances every year - money effectively lost to the UK economy.

The Government, desperate to justify the unprecedented influx of migrants since Labour came to power, boast they boost the country's Gross Domestic Product by £4 billion a year.

But Ministers fail to point out that, in order to achieve this, huge numbers of new arrivals - around 185,000 each year - are being added to the workforce.

Once the increase in the population is taken into account, the overall impact of migration is to benefit GDP by only 0.1 per cent, or 4p a week for each person living here.

 

[Blowtus]

On the face of it, the idea of "pride" in one's ethnicity does sound rather stupid. After all, one is born like that, and need do nothing to achieve it - so why the "pride"? Should one equally be proud for being a woman for eg. ? But another way to look at this is to ask, what is the opposite of pride? Is it not "shame"?

In this context, the declaration of "pride" may be a defensive emotion to avoid the feelings of shame, embarassment, or other negative reactions that may be occassioned by the accusations of evils done by one's people (guess which race that might be!) or the feeling of being somehow intellectually, physically or morally inferior (accusations which are commonly made against every ethnicity by another ethnicity).

The understanding that you have no reason to be proud of your ancestry, would be the same understanding that would show you also have no reason to feel shame

Blowtus, you really don't seem to think that having a strong and meaningful sense of identity is valuable to people. It is valuable, however, and we search for our identity by knowing our heritage and trying to find something good about it to get some idea of our place in life and our role.

Rather than push for that as the only valid identity people can find, I would prefer to push for greater understanding of the general human condition and give people the tools to develop a true sense of their own identity - defining one's identity simply as how one was born seems quite a defeatist attitude to me... but there is nothing stopping people using it as some sort of crutch even in a 'multicultural' society, that I see?

Do you know how strongly adopted children usually feel about tracking down their biological parents, and how they say they need to do this in order to understand themselves and have a meaningful identity?

I've seen movies where they say similar things, but haven't exactly looked into it myself. I presume some proportion of them would feel that way, with varying levels of need. I miss the relevance?


I guess it's about time in this thread that I stress I'm not necessarily pro immigration - I'm just not anti it on a racial basis. Some may argue for the whole 'tearing down borders' thing, but I would only support it if the likelyhood of humanity developing and growing from it was higher than the likelyhood of it regressing. I believe we need 'more capable' countries to point the way, flooding everywhere with starving Africans or the like would seem to reduce that capacity.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The understanding that you have no reason to be proud of your ancestry, would be the same understanding that would show you also have no reason to feel shame



Rather than push for that as the only valid identity people can find, I would prefer to push for greater understanding of the general human condition and give people the tools to develop a true sense of their own identity - defining one's identity simply as how one was born seems quite a defeatist attitude to me... but there is nothing stopping people using it as some sort of crutch even in a 'multicultural' society, that I see?



I've seen movies where they say similar things, but haven't exactly looked into it myself. I presume some proportion of them would feel that way, with varying levels of need. I miss the relevance?


I guess it's about time in this thread that I stress I'm not necessarily pro immigration - I'm just not anti it on a racial basis. Some may argue for the whole 'tearing down borders' thing, but I would only support it if the likelyhood of humanity developing and growing from it was higher than the likelyhood of it regressing. I believe we need 'more capable' countries to point the way, flooding everywhere with starving Africans or the like would seem to reduce that capacity.

Can one deduce from your last statement that you see the error of importing poverty, which is all that immigration has ever demonstrably achieved? (The exception being for the capitalists who make a profit from the cheaper labour and become personally wealthier).

You say that no race should feel shame. That would ideally be true, yet it is very disheartening to have guilt piled upon one for the supposed wrong doings of one's ancestors. If you are white then you either feel this guilt, and shame, or else you reject it and consider the accusations to be an outrage. If your reaction is the latter, it could be summed up as showing "pride", but we can argue about how appropriate this term is until the cows come home.

Likewise, if one believes in racial oppression, one surely believes that the oppressing race should be ashamed of themselves as a race, and that the oppressed are victims. Neither they who are ashamed of their guilt for oppressing others nor the victims of this can have much of a high esteem.

America moved from the dark age of white racism to the dark age of white guilt. Not that the one is the equivalent of the other. But white guilt about the nation’s racist past has been a powerful and pernicious force over the last four decades, shaping public policy, as well as private and public institutions. It created a vacuum of moral authority into which specialists in moral indignation moved—“bargainers, bluffers, and haranguers” who delivered a message of white obligation and black entitlement. Blacks suddenly acquired an invaluable new race card: the status of aggrieved victims. And they used it “to shame, silence, and muscle concessions from the larger society.” In the new age of white guilt, a repentant America had to prove its virtue to blacks.

Abigail Thernstrom on White Guilt on National Review Online

This suggests that half of adopted children seek their biological roots:

But if ties of blood don't matter, why do half of all adoptees go in search of their biological parents? ...."

Majikthise : Velleman on family values (or, in praise of hydroponic babies)

Adopted children look like their biological parents (surprise!) and mental processes are heavily influenced by genes too.

Despite being a strong proponent of the "nurture" or environment side of the nature-nurture or heredity versus environment debate, Dr. Jackson acknowledges the influence of biology in the development of human intelligence. He refers to studies showing there is a closer correlation between adopted children's intelligence and that of their biological parents than their adoptive parents even if they move to their adoptive home in their first few months of life.

Book Review: Myths of Madness by Don D. Jackson

 

[ThePhilosopher]

Evidence?

Someone never took Psych 101 it seems. There's plenty of evidence showing what Norsemaiden is talking about, not to mention all those "twin separated at birth studies" they've done over the years. Twins are still remarkably similar to each other and to their biological families regardless of any geographical differences or varying factors in the adopting families.

 

[OldScratch]

The understanding that you have no reason to be proud of your ancestry, would be the same understanding that would show you also have no reason to feel shame



Rather than push for that as the only valid identity people can find, I would prefer to push for greater understanding of the general human condition and give people the tools to develop a true sense of their own identity - defining one's identity simply as how one was born seems quite a defeatist attitude to me... but there is nothing stopping people using it as some sort of crutch even in a 'multicultural' society, that I see?



I've seen movies where they say similar things, but haven't exactly looked into it myself. I presume some proportion of them would feel that way, with varying levels of need. I miss the relevance?


I guess it's about time in this thread that I stress I'm not necessarily pro immigration - I'm just not anti it on a racial basis. Some may argue for the whole 'tearing down borders' thing, but I would only support it if the likelyhood of humanity developing and growing from it was higher than the likelyhood of it regressing. I believe we need 'more capable' countries to point the way, flooding everywhere with starving Africans or the like would seem to reduce that capacity.

"Greater understanding of the general human condition..." It is the assumption that there is such a general, universal "condition" that lies at the root of our disagreement. While all humans may indeed share certain traits, ideas or fundamental desires, that loose, radom similarity is hardly the basis for a strong, coherent society.
Your last paragraph suggests you understand this whole issue, perhaps reluctantly, a great deal more than your arguments would lead one to believe. Your position is fully understandable, possibly even noble its desire to cast the widest net for the common good of a nation, regardless of race, ethnicity etc. Except that there is no logical, supportable reason to necessarily pursue such "Diversity" and the like in the first place! Diversity only 'achieves' one thing...that being diversity!
What can be said of the mind-set of a society that continually imports diverse, disparate peoples...then moans incessantly about native xenophobia, prejudice, etc? Worse, how preposterous is the notion that this Diversity is a "strength" after the fact, when by and large, it has only been achieved through illegal immigration and an inexplicably arbitrary lottery system cynically intended to dilute the majority populace?

My arguments for a homogeneous social structure are not based purely on an accident of birth by a long shot. While I do have a sense of pride in the cultural accomplishments of my forbears, of the heritage of my people, that in and of itself is not the motivation for my ideals. If anything I might say that I feel lucky to have been born of this stock that has lead the civilized world in so many ways. And it is important to me to preserve that stock, to continue that progress and accomplishment. I value stability, safety and cultural coherence. I wish only to protect and maintain what is near and dear to me, not to harm or adversely effect others. But endless Diversity means conflict, strife and struggle - all unnaturally manufactured by a cynical State, experimenting with mankind in the hopes of creating utopias and Shargri-las.

 

[Blowtus]

Can one deduce from your last statement that you see the error of importing poverty, which is all that immigration has ever demonstrably achieved? (The exception being for the capitalists who make a profit from the cheaper labour and become personally wealthier).

I see the potential for it to be an error, but am not convinced either way
My own country, Australia, is staring down the barrel of supposed economic downturn because of our rapidly aging population. We are encouraged to have more children. In a world with 5 (6?) billion odd already, facing rapidly approaching environmental crisis, this makes no sense to me. Importing workers would seem to be a way to keep the all important economy happy - but at what cost to the environment here? No more than if we had the same population increase through births obviously - but I am not a supporter of either method.

You say that no race should feel shame. That would ideally be true, yet it is very disheartening to have guilt piled upon one for the supposed wrong doings of one's ancestors. If you are white then you either feel this guilt, and shame, or else you reject it and consider the accusations to be an outrage. If your reaction is the latter, it could be summed up as showing "pride", but we can argue about how appropriate this term is until the cows come home.

Likewise, if one believes in racial oppression, one surely believes that the oppressing race should be ashamed of themselves as a race, and that the oppressed are victims. Neither they who are ashamed of their guilt for oppressing others nor the victims of this can have much of a high esteem.

I 'believe' in racial oppression - but as I feel no emotional attachment to a particular race this causes me no shame, it is the result of others actions and is in no way assisted by me.

Abigail Thernstrom on White Guilt on National Review Online

Americans acting irrationally? What's the world coming too

This suggests that half of adopted children seek their biological roots:

Majikthise : Velleman on family values (or, in praise of hydroponic babies)

Great, a figure for something at least

Adopted children look like their biological parents (surprise!) and mental processes are heavily influenced by genes too.

Book Review: Myths of Madness by Don D. Jackson

Sure, genetics plays a fundamental part in how we look, how well we can develop various attributes, etc. I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that back somewhere. For me to be convinced of the 'race' argument, I would need to see evidence that genetics plays a fundamental role in the development of human values, and if so, that the value differences between the various races this leads to are substantially larger than the value differences between individuals within a particular race. Ie, the bell curve of 'human values' is focused around substantially different points on the hypothetical 'human values' axis for different races. The data would of course need to be gathered in a statistically valid manner, so you couldn't just wade in and survey folks in their already majority racial culture. I would find such evidence both interesting and surprising, but I have no fundamental belief / desire that would cause me to dislike or try to ignore such evidence.

Someone never took Psych 101 it seems. There's plenty of evidence showing what Norsemaiden is talking about, not to mention all those "twin separated at birth studies" they've done over the years. Twins are still remarkably similar to each other and to their biological families regardless of any geographical differences or varying factors in the adopting families.

No, never did psych 101 sorry, thus my asking for evidence
Similar in value judgements I assume you mean? Identical twins?
If the same were true of siblings born at seperate times it would get more interesting - but if no similarity in values can be picked even between siblings born into entirely different environments, it would seem a ridiculously long bow to draw to suggest that similarities could be picked within whole races, and the genetic diversity they have within them.

"Greater understanding of the general human condition..." It is the assumption that there is such a general, universal "condition" that lies at the root of our disagreement. While all humans may indeed share certain traits, ideas or fundamental desires, that loose, radom similarity is hardly the basis for a strong, coherent society.

Your last paragraph suggests you understand this whole issue, perhaps reluctantly, a great deal more than your arguments would lead one to believe. Your position is fully understandable, possibly even noble its desire to cast the widest net for the common good of a nation, regardless of race, ethnicity etc. Except that there is no logical, supportable reason to necessarily pursue such "Diversity" and the like in the first place! Diversity only 'achieves' one thing...that being diversity!
What can be said of the mind-set of a society that continually imports diverse, disparate peoples...then moans incessantly about native xenophobia, prejudice, etc? Worse, how preposterous is the notion that this Diversity is a "strength" after the fact, when by and large, it has only been achieved through illegal immigration and an inexplicably arbitrary lottery system cynically intended to dilute the majority populace?

My arguments for a homogeneous social structure are not based purely on an accident of birth by a long shot. While I do have a sense of pride in the cultural accomplishments of my forbears, of the heritage of my people, that in and of itself is not the motivation for my ideals. If anything I might say that I feel lucky to have been born of this stock that has lead the civilized world in so many ways. And it is important to me to preserve that stock, to continue that progress and accomplishment. I value stability, safety and cultural coherence. I wish only to protect and maintain what is near and dear to me, not to harm or adversely effect others. But endless Diversity means conflict, strife and struggle - all unnaturally manufactured by a cynical State, experimenting with mankind in the hopes of creating utopias and Shargri-las.

I guess I do not see such a fundamental diversity between races as you and others do. I find myself with a dramatically different view of the world to many of my race, and I find some in other races who have similar views to me. Am I in conflict with my race? If I am not, what would put an immigrant, with views that fall outside 'the norm' of the new country, in conflict? Racial fear?

I forsee the need for me to make a shorter response next time