Immigration?

[SatanicBunny]

But why on earth should Americans do this? Spanish speaking peoples make up a tiny percentage of the American population. All Hispanics, of who many are native born and do indeed speak fluent English, comprise perhaps 14% of the population. So only a fraction of that number is in fact Spanish-only in terms of linguistic knowledge.
Either way the vast majority of Americans do speak English. English is considered the language of international commerce, the internet-common usage lingo etc. The ONLY people who legitimately benefit from Americans universally learning Spanish is of course the small minority of Spanish-only speakers. What possible logic is there in encouraging Americans to do this? Better we should stem the illegal tide from south of the border, and stop this convoluted nonsense post-haste.

I agree with you that the illegal part of the immigration should be stopped. But the point behind my idea of teaching Spanish to kids was that it is the most logical choice. I mean, if you would like to learn some language that would be useful to you, Spanish would be the numeber one choice. Why? Because it is the third most spoken language in the world right after English. It is spoken in Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and many other nations of South-America.

If people in States started to learn more Spanish, it would be easier to them to communicate with South-American people. That would do well for the economy and politics, since new business relationships could established to areas in which people speak only Spanish.

 

[OldScratch]

I agree with you that the illegal part of the immigration should be stopped. But the point behind my idea of teaching Spanish to kids was that it is the most logical choice. I mean, if you would like to learn some language that would be useful to you, Spanish would be the numeber one choice. Why? Because it is the third most spoken language in the world right after English. It is spoken in Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and many other nations of South-America.

If people in States started to learn more Spanish, it would be easier to them to communicate with South-American people. That would do well for the economy and politics, since new business relationships could established to areas in which people speak only Spanish.

Fair enough - IF that were the impetus I could not disagree. Naturally, any quest for knowledge, linguistic or otherwise, that benefits one in a sensible, reasoned manner is worth undertaking.

 

[Norsemaiden]

An series of excellent Leftist articles in opposition to immigration.

http://www.evangelos12.btinternet.co.uk/immigration.htm

Many are those who feign ignorance, but in fact everyone knows that foreigners are here not in spite of the authorities, but with their will, as cheap labour. As far as citizens of countries of the former "socialist" camp are concerned, there are also other expediences, purely political ones. Especially for Albanians. This doesn't mean that economic reasons lose their importance.

This cheap labour does not benefit the population, nor does it benefit the economy. It benefits the Capitalists and the State serves the Capitalists.

A former cadre and minister of New Democracy, industrialist well known for his cynicism, Stefanos Manos is even more precise: "immigrants are god's blessing, we need them because they work with one third of a Greek worker's wages, because they cannot go on strike, they cannot form unions, they can do nothing".

So the foreigner is not for some "undignified" jobs, he is for every job, as long as he does it with one third of the wage, with no other rights, with the head bowed.

http://www.evangelos12.btinternet.co.uk/immigration.htm#n2

Immigrants are slaves (like almost all workers arguably are) but they come here and the workers rights collapse all across the board. Wages and working conditions become eroded for everyone.

Anyway, work itself should be abolished
http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html

 

[Imp!]

Interesting article NM, thanks for sharing it.

"we have to take what useful work remains and transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes"

I just had to laugh at that.

Maybe this link would fit in the "Work" thread, if it hasn't been discussed yet anyway.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Interesting article NM, thanks for sharing it.

"we have to take what useful work remains and transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes"

I just had to laugh at that.

Maybe this link would fit in the "Work" thread, if it hasn't been discussed yet anyway.

I just got that link about the anti work article from the Rebellious World View thread, as Crucified Spartacus recommended it - but I just wanted to emphasise what a great article it is. I shouldn't be taking the credit.

 

[Norsemaiden]

ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE FACTS OF LIFE?

MODERN HERESY: DIVERSITY CAUSES CONFLICT

The existence of “race” has been questioned, - yet the existence of ETHNIC DIVERSITY is undisputed.

"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0125073157.htm

Africa has always been a war-ravaged continent. Can there ever be peace in Africa?

Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570...0779e2340.html
“His [Harvard Professor Robert Putnam’s] research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.”

So perhaps the question should be: Can there ever be peace anywhere ever again, thanks to immigration? And: how long until we have the same violence and corruption over the whole world?

Discrimination and Ethnic Nepotism
http://conservationfinance.wordpress...hnic-nepotism/
“We all discriminate all the time.”
“An abundance of research has shown that people tend to give preferential treatment to others who are genetically similar to themselves, whether they’re actual blood relatives or simply share an ethnic background.”

How well we treat others depends upon how much such behavior benefits copies of our genes .
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
“Kin selection theory predicts that animals are more likely to behave altruistically towards their relatives than towards unrelated members of their species.”
Science agrees: “The importance of kinship for the evolution of altruism is very widely accepted today, on both theoretical and empirical grounds.”

We should not fight nature or try to change nature. The more homogeneous a society is the more peaceful it is. History proves this time and time again, yet this is a modern heresy.

The consequences of not facing these facts can only be catastrophic.

 

[Imp!]

None of these "facts" prove homogeneity is beneficial. They just prove that people get along with their own kind. How is having mistrust a bad thing? I mean, if we were a bit more vigilant anyway, wouldn't crime be harder to commit?

 

[OldScratch]

None of these "facts" prove homogeneity is beneficial. They just prove that people get along with their own kind. How is having mistrust a bad thing? I mean, if we were a bit more vigilant anyway, wouldn't crime be harder to commit?

So...crime is only really a problem because decent, law-abiding citizens aren't "vigilant" enough?! That certainly is one way to divert responsibility from the genuinely guilty.

 

[Imp!]

Now how the hell did you know that was my conclusion?:zombie:



I diverted something, somehow blaming people...what?

Ahhhh no man, maybe NM can understand what I mean...

 

[Norsemaiden]

Related to the first part I have to say that the reason why people have preferential treatment whith poeple of their countries it's not cuz they've got the same blood or gens it's cuz they have the same habits and culture. And of course the culture it's related with a country and with a fisical place so it's normal that there are genetic coincidences. But I think it's not correct this example.

Related with the second part. Yes Africa has always been a war-ravaged continent. But (If I'm not wrong) there is an historical explanation for that situation. It's not something they choose.

And for the last part. Don't kill me for the next words I'm gonna say!! please! It will sound strong but It's what I thought when I read it. If you change the word peacful and you use better it's the same sentence that nazis use to defend their theories. (please try to understand what I said and don't judge before do it )

QUOTE]

Logically it would be impossible for Africans to form a civilisation when you consider just the one factor of the ethnic diversity. Any other reasons are actually not required to explain that! Diverstity goes hand in hand with the end of civilisations - just as it is with ours at this moment.

The reason why giving "preferential treatment" evolved in the first place, is because the preferential treatment helped to increase copies of the genes that made people/animals behave that way. Natural selection favoured this behaviour.

The whole point of altruism ("preferential treatment") is the propagation of those who have the closest genotype to the altruist.

If the altruist was not being selective enough then their behaviour would result in extinction.

Btw - the kind of culture a people have depends on the kind of people that they are - and that is genetic. In any case the culture works as a genetic marker - it has the effect of showing people who is likely to be related to them.

 

[Imp!]

In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."

Well this is kind of interesting...considering you are using his arguments as reason for believing ethnic diversity isn't beneficial...

 

[OldScratch]

Now how the hell did you know that was my conclusion?:zombie:



I diverted something, somehow blaming people...what?

Ahhhh no man, maybe NM can understand what I mean...

Yes, well...setting aside all that charming drollery for a moment - what then, in fact, was the point of your last sentence in that post, to which I was refering? Perhaps I misinterpreted your overall assertion. Are you suggesting that cautious mistrust of one group(presumably ethnic or racial in origin given the discussion)toward another is indeed natural and healthy, and thus a perfectly rational grounds to be on guard against criminal activity, etc? Is this the manner of vigilance you recommend for reducing crime?
That doesn't, however, seem to square with your apparent disagreement with "Diversity" being a root-cause of much social strife...indeed, that position only appears to support the notion. Hence, my confusion.

 

[speed]

Does not globalization promote immigration and the destruction of culturally homogenous nation states? It has in Europe and America (although, we've almost always besides the turn of the century, accepted legally or illegally, everyone--we didnt treat them well though); it has almost everywhere.

Thus, I think there's two possible solutions: 1) the nation state is archaic, and we should go back to smaller scale mostly culturally homogenous communities, small nations, or cities: a return to the renaissance or ancient europe before the Roman conquests; 2) Immigration is impossible to stop for richer countries, so why not accept and culturally educate the newcomers? I see no other solution for America at least. It is hypocritical and perhaps detrimental to our economy to shut the immigration valve.

 

[Justin S.]

It seems to me that eventually we will return to bio-regionalism, whether we like it or not. The burning question is what sort of state man and our world will be in when such a turn comes.

 

[speed]

It seems to me that eventually we will return to bio-regionalism, whether we like it or not. The burning question is what sort of state man and our world will be in when such a turn comes.

I am not optimistic. We humans seem to need a catastrophic event to make any major changes. Although it seems there's been a real mainstream awakening about Immigration over the last 5 years, especially in Europe. However, I love my subtle citrusy real-Mexican food, falafels, cheap physical labor, and very affordable Guatemalan maids.

 

[Justin S.]

I am not optimistic.

I'm not either... of our prospects. However, I don't see how it could be otherwise (bio-regionalism), baring "outliers".

I say this, not from a sense of idealism, but in terms of pure energy economy. I don't see any way the systems we have in place now could continue any longer than short term (measurable in decades).

edit: this is all very complicated, and I am fully aware of how much I am generalizing (and also causing the thread to stray somewhat). However, there is the worst case scenario, which is a sustainable level of shit existence for millions, if not low billions of people. I hope the world, and the heavens, don't allow it to be anything but brief (fortunately, we have the odds on this not being the case)

 

[speed]

I'm not either... of our prospects. However, I don't see how it could be otherwise (bio-regionalism), baring "outliers".

I say this, not from a sense of idealism, but in terms of pure energy economy. I don't see any way the systems we have in place now could continue any longer than short term (measurable in decades).

edit: this is all very complicated, and I am fully aware of how much I am generalizing (and also causing the thread to stray somewhat). However, there is the worst case scenario, which is a sustainable level of shit existence for millions, if not low billions of people. I hope the world, and the heavens, don't allow it to be anything but brief (fortunately, we have the odds on this not being the case)

Ah, sweet generalization! Embrace it! The world is such a dynamic place, only generalizations make sense. hehe.

I dont know about the energy ideas. I will say there also has been a real economic incentive over these same last 5 years, to build or implement more sustainable design/ practices. I just came from a meeting with the Lex homebuilders association, where these developers put on a big show about all the small, community based sustainable developments they wish to build. And even the big companies like Kroger and Walmart are making energy efficient changes in their operations, as it saves them money.

 

[speed]

I'm not either... of our prospects. However, I don't see how it could be otherwise (bio-regionalism), baring "outliers".

It seems to me that eventually we will return to bio-regionalism, whether we like it or not. The burning question is what sort of state man and our world will be in when such a turn comes.

On a further note, I do really think this is very possible. Look at the UK for example. Wales and Scotland are essentially self-governing, while they reliy on the UK for military, foreign policy (a mistake), and econ policy (interest rates etc). Clearly, such a system of small autonomous republics or cities, all under the aegis of a loose confederation could work now with all the changes in technology and globalization.

 

[OldScratch]

Immigration is impossible to stop for richer countries, so why not accept and culturally educate the newcomers? I see no other solution for America at least. It is hypocritical and perhaps detrimental to our economy to shut the immigration valve.

Let's say for argument's sake, that it is indeed possible to culturally educate(or satisfactorily educate at all)millions of disparate peoples, hailing from all over the globe - primarily, unskilled and minimally educated individuals from "developing" nations. How many will ever be enough? None of those who make the economic-imperative argument ever seem willing to entertain, let alone specify a cut-off. Immigration, legal and illegal has already changed the population demographic of America rather dramatically in the past forty years(the vast majority in the past decade and a half). If this continues, is it even realistic to believe cultural education will be necessary? What identifiable culture will a country undergoing such radical population changes honestly retain? Then again, maybe that's just what some desire...

 

[speed]

Let's say for argument's sake, that it is indeed possible to culturally educate(or satisfactorily educate at all)millions of disparate peoples, hailing from all over the globe - primarily, unskilled and minimally educated individuals from "developing" nations. How many will ever be enough? None of those who make the economic-imperative argument ever seem willing to entertain, let alone specify a cut-off. Immigration, legal and illegal has already changed the population demographic of America rather dramatically in the past forty years. If this continues, is it even realistic to believe cultural education will be necessary? What identifiable culture will a country undergoing such radical population changes honestly retain? Then again, maybe that's just what some desire...

\

One big problem is our leaders and businessmen (or are they the same?), look at the short term benefits of immigration (cheaper labor, driving down wages, more consumers) and not the long term costs (millions of extra soc. security, medicare, extra infrastructure, and other services). But this is a problem of our democratic system.

And, America took in millions of immigrants from 1840-1900, and although it took awhile, eventually they assimilated. The problem we're facing today, is many Hispanics and Middle Eastern immigrants, have no desire to assimilate. I dont blame them.