Immigration?

[OldScratch]

\

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.

Of course in the 1840-1900 wave it was(almost entirely) Europeans assimilating into a transplanted European culture - not a huge leap. Other than language, the biggest differences were probably how to make dumplings or cure beef!

In many ways I know you are right, but I'm a little queasy about that last part, however. Forgive a moment of latent-jingoistic weakness on my part, but somehow I resent the hell out of that. Unlike many, I do not hold that America would have collapsed economically were it not for the human tsunami that has has rushed across the Rio Grande in recent years, nevermind the relatively small number arriving more recently from the Middle East. Have immigrants no obligation to attempt even some rudimentary assimilation then? No wonder we are a mercenary-state, rather than nation-state today...

 

[Norsemaiden]

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

"We should construct a new us".
When he said this,clearly Professor Putnam was terrified that without this sort of caveat he would be condemned as an evil racist.

"A new us" implies that some people must put their heads together and design an artificial global culture. This would probably have to include an artificial language such as Esperanto, and a strict police state (such as New York has found beneficial) to terrify potential criminals into behaving (as well as locking up a phenomenal number of them for life).

The whole idea is horrific.

I have composed a poem inspired by this idea - so I will treat you to it now. (If you can stand it ).
ARTIFICIAL GLOBAL CULTURE

This is the literature that you must read
This is the food on which to feed
This is the art that you must savor
This is the hobby that you must favor
These are the friends that you must seek
This vocabulary you must speak
These are the clothes that you must wear
These are the children that you must rear
These, the things that must make you care
This is the person that you must mate
These are the evils that you must hate
This is your future, accept your fate
These are the choices we make for you
What to say, to think, to do
This destiny you must embrace
One culture for the human race

----
Such a culture - if it is artificial rather than a naturally evolved one - cannot work. I know that poem was rubbish but it is a lot quicker than prose for getting the idea across.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Originally Posted by speed
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.

It is not impossible to stop immigration. Immigration is market led, and it can be stopped by our nations stopping being controlled by the greed of big business. The immigrants do not benefit the people of the country at all - they kill the society and they cause those in it to become enslaved to the corporations.

We would have to stop big business from socially engineering our population to best benefit their finances.

Mass immigration from an ethnically different area is absolutely comparable to invasion - and can be repelled as invasions have been in the past.

History is replete with the heroic and bloody battles that Europeans have fought against the Moors, Mongols, the Huns and (in ancient Germany) agaist the cosmopolitian Romans and the troops they sent to settle in Germany from Africa and Asia.

It is beyond shameful that now we sweep all these vital victories away and betray our ancestors.

 

[JoeVice]

Mass immigration from an ethnically different area is absolutely comparable to invasion - and can be repelled as invasions have been in the past.

invasion? this land isn't yours, it isn't your country's. put your ego aside. this universe is one big...big...big thing going on. folks migrate because they like what is going on in the location they migrate to. why don't we set judgment of their motivations aside? what, they want to make some cash, take advantage of our riches? hey!!! if they can get the job done better than our fellow white man, more power to 'em.

secondly, invasion of what? rats...roaches? no, we are talking about humans, who are conscious of morals, and can be reasoned with.

 

[OldScratch]

invasion? this land isn't yours, it isn't your country's. put your ego aside. this universe is one big...big...big thing going on. folks migrate because they like what is going on in the location they migrate to. why don't we set judgment of their motivations aside? what, they want to make some cash, take advantage of our riches? hey!!! if they can get the job done better than our fellow white man, more power to 'em.

secondly, invasion of what? rats...roaches? no, we are talking about humans, who are conscious of morals, and can be reasoned with.

Then we shall all hold hands and sing Pete Seeger songs...

 

[Spikeshade]

haha
but really i mean we are all HUMAN BEINGS there is no real such thing as races we're just the same but, like Baskin Robbins, just a different flavor, we should LEARN to share this earth not fight over meaningless crap like oil in the Middle East and waste countless lives and time on such crap

 

[Norsemaiden]

Well first of all I have to say that my english is very bad so I didn't understand some things you said But I will answer anyway! If I misinterpret something please tell me

Africans have their own culture (They have a lot of original tribes!) The diversity it's not a obstacle for the peace. Of course there are fights but there are also fights between ppl of the same civilisation! Their problems began when Europe (and I donno if there was any other continent involved) invaded their territory and forced them to live together!!! The problem it's not the diversity, there are historical and politic issues!

You're talking about gens, races, etc. But we can't talk about races, there are only one: HUMANS. And a lot of ethnic groups. Humans have lot of gens and there are only a few that determine the fisical differences that's why scientist don't use this term as a correct term. So I don't really know why do you relate gens with the treatment you can have with immigrants. The treatment if it's related with something I think it's with costums and culture.




The culture is set of ways of life and customs, knowledges, artistic, scientific and industrial development (related with a specific time or social group). Each territory has their own knowledges, industrial development, customs, etc depending on their needs. I'm trying to say that the environtment and the different needs of each ethnic group determine their culture and costums. Genetic determine biological aspects and some psychological aspects but environtment and culture determine who we are at least! So people depend of the kind of culture there's on their territory.

What I am saying is a little too complicated for most people on this forum to understand. You, and the poster before you completely fail to understand.

Science has proved that the notion of "humanity" is flawed. It is flawed because ethnic diversity exists. Ethnic diversity has been proven to cause conflicts. When push comes to shove, we look after our nearest kin and compete with those who are not our kin for scarse resources.

If a lot of people are picking on a stranger you feel less like helping than if they are picking on your own brother.

Blood is thicker than water.

The more genetic diversity the more competition and nastiness. Science has proved that this happens.

If you are fighting in a battle and you say "Wait a minute, this is bad! We should all love eachother!" and then you put down your weapon - you will be killed. So those that carry on being aggressive win.

This is comparable to ethnic nepotism. You can say "Wait a minute! Why don't we all love eachother?!" but then the other group will say "yes, stop getting in our way!" and then you do and you are eliminated. Unfortunately the other group gets to live on, have children and perpetuate the whole thing.

I say: accept the rules, try to separate the groups and then you can live in peace with people like you rather than with people who see you as competition.

Science proves that if you introduce diverse groups into a previously stable and reasonably homogeneous area, then the people even start to see their fellow group as being competitors. The equilibrium is DESTROYED.

It is not my OPINION - it is what scientists have said!

Do you get it yet?

 

[JoeVice]

What I am saying is a little too complicated for most people on this forum to understand. You, and the poster before you completely fail to understand.

Science has proved that the notion of "humanity" is flawed. It is flawed because ethnic diversity exists. Ethnic diversity has been proven to cause conflicts. When push comes to shove, we look after our nearest kin and compete with those who are not our kin for scarse resources.

-that would still be the case if ethnic diversity didn't exist.

If a lot of people are picking on a stranger you feel less like helping than if they are picking on your own brother.

-in the same situation, do you feel less like helping an immigrant than you do a brother of your country? (you know neither of them personally)

Blood is thicker than water.

The more genetic diversity the more competition and nastiness. Science has proved that this happens.

-competition happens. it would happen even without genetic diversity. we are bound to bump into eachother eventually. nastiness is a product of hate, fear, jealousy, and biggotry.

If you are fighting in a battle and you say "Wait a minute, this is bad! We should all love eachother!" and then you put down your weapon - you will be killed. So those that carry on being aggressive win.

-in the middle of the battle, survival mode kicks in, and one must fend for his life. avoid battle, and it won't have to happen.

This is comparable to ethnic nepotism. You can say "Wait a minute! Why don't we all love eachother?!" but then the other group will say "yes, stop getting in our way!" and then you do and you are eliminated. Unfortunately the other group gets to live on, have children and perpetuate the whole thing.

-but then the former group can say, "well, can you stop doing this?" so the latter group says, "well, only if you stop doing this." it might go on forever, but it would be the middle ground.

I say: accept the rules, try to separate the groups and then you can live in peace with people like you rather than with people who see you as competition.

-i say: like your competition, and let that govern your dealings.

Science proves that if you introduce diverse groups into a previously stable and reasonably homogeneous area, then the people even start to see their fellow group as being competitors. The equilibrium is DESTROYED.

-*science has proven thus far

It is not my OPINION - it is what scientists have said!

Do you get it yet?

science can predict that when you mix chemical a and chemical b you get chemical r. but, humans are more complex than chemical a, chemical b, and chemical r. science and history have proven thus far that ethnic diversity doesn't work. i imagine the scientists that made these observations were quite jolly and esteemed when they noticed the re-occuring patterns. but, does science explain why biggotry continues to exist, why john the neo-nazi still hates the my pals? are you using science as an excuse for hatred and biggotry?

but lets just accept that this hate will continue, and a hundred years from now, when our society is in ruins, some scientists will say, "see, it happened again. i told ya...ethnic diversity doesn't work."

 

[OldScratch]

science can predict that when you mix chemical a and chemical b you get chemical r. but, humans are more complex than chemical a, chemical b, and chemical r. science and history have proven thus far that ethnic diversity doesn't work. i imagine the scientists that made these observations were quite jolly and esteemed when they noticed the re-occuring patterns. but, does science explain why biggotry continues to exist, why john the neo-nazi still hates the my pals? are you using science as an excuse for hatred and biggotry?

but lets just accept that this hate will continue, and a hundred years from now, when our society is in ruins, some scientists will say, "see, it happened again. i told ya...ethnic diversity doesn't work."

What exactly do you consider "hatred" and "bigotry?" Why do you presume it is natural, necessary or even desirable to endlessly integrate disparate peoples? Moreover, why would a simple desire NOT to do so, based soberly upon science, history, empirical evidence, experience and rational judgement, be considered necessarily hateful? According to what cosmic doctrine is this so?
You acknowledge that the data shows that ethnic/racial diversity does indeed cause strife - why on earth should resistance to it be condemned so?
The entire western world, in all its liberal-democratic glory, now mandates that the multi-racial/ethnic/cultural society is the utopian model for all of mankind to follow. What reasonable recourse do those who happen to disagree with this relatively new and unproven policy have?

 

[hibernal_dream]

What I am saying is a little too complicated for most people on this forum to understand. You, and the poster before you completely fail to understand.

Science has proved that the notion of "humanity" is flawed. It is flawed because ethnic diversity exists. Ethnic diversity has been proven to cause conflicts. When push comes to shove, we look after our nearest kin and compete with those who are not our kin for scarse resources.

If a lot of people are picking on a stranger you feel less like helping than if they are picking on your own brother.

Blood is thicker than water.

The more genetic diversity the more competition and nastiness. Science has proved that this happens.

If you are fighting in a battle and you say "Wait a minute, this is bad! We should all love eachother!" and then you put down your weapon - you will be killed. So those that carry on being aggressive win.

This is comparable to ethnic nepotism. You can say "Wait a minute! Why don't we all love eachother?!" but then the other group will say "yes, stop getting in our way!" and then you do and you are eliminated. Unfortunately the other group gets to live on, have children and perpetuate the whole thing.

I say: accept the rules, try to separate the groups and then you can live in peace with people like you rather than with people who see you as competition.

Science proves that if you introduce diverse groups into a previously stable and reasonably homogeneous area, then the people even start to see their fellow group as being competitors. The equilibrium is DESTROYED.

It is not my OPINION - it is what scientists have said!

Do you get it yet?

JoeVice's objection to this post was legitimate.

Science has proven that when left to their own devices, most people will fail to look after the environment, and instead look after themselves - since this is natural phenomenon, the notion of "environmentalism" is flawed. Science has shown that without laws some people will kill, rape and steal - again, any regulatory action against such conduct is flawed. Science shows that patients with certain genetic mental disorders can pose a threat to themselves and others - remedial medicinal action is flawed. After all, science has spoken, right?

Fortunately, our society has adopted a stance which sees certain kinds of human conduct as wrong - and acts against it, whether by policy, law or medicine.

What you're doing is endorsing what people do naturally without a thought to what they should do. Okay, ethnic diversity may cause conflict among some people - presumably those unfamiliar with the categorical imperative - you've told us! But we're rational beings capable of reason, are we not? How do we know that those of the majority causing conflicts with diverse races are not, like those who are destructive towards the environment, are not acting irrationally? Must we always follow our natural inclinations to whatever ends it may take us? Forget empirical science - ask what is right, and then decide how best to achieve it.

 

[Norsemaiden]

JoeVice's objection to this post was legitimate.

Science has proven that when left to their own devices, most people will fail to look after the environment, and instead look after themselves - since this is natural phenomenon, the notion of "environmentalism" is flawed. Science has shown that without laws some people will kill, rape and steal - again, any regulatory action against such conduct is flawed. Science shows that patients with certain genetic mental disorders can pose a threat to themselves and others - remedial medicinal action is flawed. After all, science has spoken, right?

Fortunately, our society has adopted a stance which sees certain kinds of human conduct as wrong - and acts against it, whether by policy, law or medicine.

What you're doing is endorsing what people do naturally without a thought to what they should do. Okay, ethnic diversity may cause conflict among some people - presumably those unfamiliar with the categorical imperative - you've told us! But we're rational beings capable of reason, are we not? How do we know that those of the majority causing conflicts with diverse races are not, like those who are destructive towards the environment, are not acting irrationally? Must we always follow our natural inclinations to whatever ends it may take us? Forget empirical science - ask what is right, and then decide how best to achieve it.

You can do what is "right" but if it doesn't fulfill the criteria of Hamilton's Rule you are going to be replaced by the ones that do it "wrong"! I will explain this basic foolproof rule which shows that if good people are good to just anyone, then goodness will die out and be replaced by naughtiness. But first, just one paragraph on game theory.

In "game theory" we can see that a strategy of indiscriminately loving and helping anyone is a losing strategy, because (a bit like the game "paper, scissors, rock") the exploiter can take full advantage of that. Total competition and exploitation (a result of the lack of trust which we find in the societies where there is the most genetic variation) is also a losing strategy.
Reciprocal altruism works best, and this develops when you trust and expect an individual to repay your efforts, or not to take advantage of what you are doing.

Hamilton's rule tells us is that a gene for altruism can spread by natural selection, so long as the cost incurred by the altruist is offset by a sufficient amount of benefit to sufficiently closely related relatives.

Hamilton demonstrated rigorously that an altruistic gene will be favoured by natural selection when a certain condition, known as Hamilton's rule, is satisfied. In its simplest version, the rule states that b > c/r, where c is the cost incurred by the altruist (the donor), b is the benefit received by the recipients of the altruism, and r is the co-efficient of relationship between donor and recipient. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness. The co-efficient of relationship depends on the genealogical relation between donor and recipient -- it is defined as the probability that donor and recipient share genes at a given locus that are ‘identical by descent’. (Two genes are identical by descent if they are copies of a single gene in a shared ancestor.) In a sexually reproducing diploid species, the value of r for full siblings is ½, for parents and offspring ½, for grandparents and grandoffspring ¼, for full cousins 1/8, and so-on. The higher the value of r, the greater the probability that the recipient of the altruistic behaviour will also possess the gene for altruism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Humans are free to behave in a way that makes their way of behaviour, and their kind go extinct, because they are so much more rational than animals are . But those who obey the rule will still be around.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Wait a minute. Maybe I wasn't clear in my post. This discussion is about immigration - should it be allowed or not? Is it a good thing or bad? All I was saying is that showing that immigration naturally doesn't work is not enough to show it should not occur. Now, if this "game theory" goes against the notion that immigration should be allowed (since you still haven't provided a ground that it shouldn't) then we should create laws to ensure that it doesn't happen - that people cannot obtain an advantage over others in such a fashion. Since we don't have to act according to our genetic disposition, Altruism and Hamilton's law has no relevance whatsoever.

 

[JoeVice]

What exactly do you consider "hatred" and "bigotry?" Why do you presume it is natural, necessary or even desirable to endlessly integrate disparate peoples? Moreover, why would a simple desire NOT to do so, based soberly upon science, history, empirical evidence, experience and rational judgement, be considered necessarily hateful? According to what cosmic doctrine is this so?
You acknowledge that the data shows that ethnic/racial diversity does indeed cause strife - why on earth should resistance to it be condemned so?
The entire western world, in all its liberal-democratic glory, now mandates that the multi-racial/ethnic/cultural society is the utopian model for all of mankind to follow. What reasonable recourse do those who happen to disagree with this relatively new and unproven policy have?

hatred is at one end of the hate/love spectrum. biggotry is at one end of the biggotry/acceptance spectrum. hatred and bigotry are perfectly natural, and desirable, but not necessary.

"Why do you presume it is natural, necessary, or even desirable to endlessly integrate disparate peoples?"

-it is natural and desirable, but not necessary. it is natural and desirable because it has happened, happens today, and will happen again.

"Moreover, why would a simple desire NOT to do so, based soberly upon science, history, empirical evidence, experience and rational judgement, be considered necessarily hateful?"

-the idea isn't hateful, but its not productive in a positive way when tied into your interaction with an ethnically diverse society.

"You acknowledge that the data shows that ethnic/racial diversity does indeed cause strife - why on earth should resistance to it be condemned so?"

i am resistant to the validity of yesterday's data when applied to today and tomorrow's dealings. according to the data, when i was a kid, i absolutely hated doing chores. that attitude isn't useful anymore.

"The entire western world, in all its liberal-democratic glory, now mandates that the multi-racial/ethnic/cultural society is the utopian model for all of mankind to follow. What reasonable recourse do those who happen to disagree with this relatively new and unproven policy have?"

you don't have to follow any policy. "the entire western world" isn't a dude sitting on a thrown telling everyone to follow him. the "entire western world" is a "(half-of-the-people-in-this-world)-sized sweeping generalization. you will find the same degree of reasonable recourse in hinging on a slogan as you will buying into the, "it won't work because science told us so," as i will being blocked by either....none.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Since we don't have to act according to our genetic disposition, Altruism and Hamilton's law has no relevance whatsoever.

Certainly we don't have to obey Hamilton's law. This law only clearly states what the consequences will be if we do, that the genetic propensity for altruism will not be reinforced, but will diminish instead in the population, because instead of being an aid to kin survival it becomes an opportunity to be exploited instead. That aspect is not open to change.

I don't think I should really care if people choose to be indiscriminately altruistic, except to the extent that this is one of the reasons for the huge number of people in the 3rd world and is thus killing the planet. Actually, that is quite a good reason to be annoyed...

 

[OldScratch]

hatred is at one end of the hate/love spectrum. biggotry is at one end of the biggotry/acceptance spectrum. hatred and bigotry are perfectly natural, and desirable, but not necessary.

"Why do you presume it is natural, necessary, or even desirable to endlessly integrate disparate peoples?"

-it is natural and desirable, but not necessary. it is natural and desirable because it has happened, happens today, and will happen again.

"Moreover, why would a simple desire NOT to do so, based soberly upon science, history, empirical evidence, experience and rational judgement, be considered necessarily hateful?"

-the idea isn't hateful, but its not productive in a positive way when tied into your interaction with an ethnically diverse society.

"You acknowledge that the data shows that ethnic/racial diversity does indeed cause strife - why on earth should resistance to it be condemned so?"

i am resistant to the validity of yesterday's data when applied to today and tomorrow's dealings. according to the data, when i was a kid, i absolutely hated doing chores. that attitude isn't useful anymore.

"The entire western world, in all its liberal-democratic glory, now mandates that the multi-racial/ethnic/cultural society is the utopian model for all of mankind to follow. What reasonable recourse do those who happen to disagree with this relatively new and unproven policy have?"

you don't have to follow any policy. "the entire western world" isn't a dude sitting on a thrown telling everyone to follow him. the "entire western world" is a "(half-of-the-people-in-this-world)-sized sweeping generalization. you will find the same degree of reasonable recourse in hinging on a slogan as you will buying into the, "it won't work because science told us so," as i will being blocked by either....none.

1)Perhaps I was not clear. I am quite familiar with the ideas and definitions of hatred and bigotry. My question was what you meant by those terms with regard to the discussion at hand - and why you invoked those terms at all.

2 Much of your argument seems to presuppose that "Diversity" is a positive, simply because it is "there" and we should thus receive it gladly and that would be more productive or some such. In other words, it is now fully desirable because it is the chosen "new way" but not for any discernable, tangible reason beyond that.

3) As for the policies of western(First World)nations, are you suggesting that egalitarianism, multiculturalism, inclusion/integration are NOT the dominant orthodoxy on social construction, immigration, etc. somewhere? Can you name this country and how their official position on such matters departs from this otherwise unilaterally professed ideology? The UN, the EU, Canada, The United States, Australia, etc. all loudly preach and protect(enforce)the dogma of 'multi-ethno/racial/culturalism.' Indeed, in a variety of those same locations to not do so is now considered criminal!

 

[JoeVice]

1)Perhaps I was not clear. I am quite familiar with the ideas and definitions of hatred and bigotry. My question was what you meant by those terms with regard to the discussion at hand - and why you invoked those terms at all.

-norsemaiden stated that we fend for our brother before we do a stranger. but, fending for either side for your own means with the intent of defeating the opposition is a result of biggotry, hatred, intolerance, prejiduce, or any other egocentric term you want to insert here___. granted, your actions may be motivated by love for your brother. but, the disturbance that incurs is unavoidable. there is a bigger love (the medium, the center, the premise, the intangible of the dispute) that is one of universal harmony, where both sides can win. by default, any resolution that isn't aimed at this goal is coupled with negative feelings, which will only feed more of their kind. would you fend for your brother if he was treating another in an unfair manner?

2 Much of your argument seems to presuppose that "Diversity" is a positive, simply because it is "there" and we should thus receive it gladly and that would be more productive or some such. In other words, it is now fully desirable because it is the chosen "new way" but not for any discernable, tangible reason beyond that.

-no, i'm not labeling diversity. i find it pointless to label diversity. but yes, it is here. and, i don't understand how recieving your neighbor gladly would not be more productive. don't get me wrong, if my neighbor is raping me or trying to murder my family, i'm not going to be receiving their action in a positive way. but, in that moment, their ethnicity doesn't matter. what do you mean when you say, "the chosen 'new way'"?

3) As for the policies of western(First World)nations, are you suggesting that egalitarianism, multiculturalism, inclusion/integration are NOT the dominant orthodoxy on social construction, immigration, etc. somewhere? Can you name this country and how their official position on such matters departs from this otherwise unilaterally professed ideology? The UN, the EU, Canada, The United States, Australia, etc. all loudly preach and protect(enforce)the dogma of 'multi-ethno/racial/culturalism.' Indeed, in a variety of those same locations to not do so is now considered criminal!

-no, what i am saying is that it doesn't matter how a country is constructed. the only thing that defines a country is everything excluding the nature of life's interactions. ethnic diversity's role in the nature of life's interactions is no different than the role played by anything that has ever happened, is happening now, or will happen. so here we are, living in an ethnically diverse world. why not focus on making it work instead of stating over and over again that it will not?

 

[OldScratch]

-no, what i am saying is that it doesn't matter how a country is constructed. the only thing that defines a country is everything excluding the nature of life's interactions. ethnic diversity's role in the nature of life's interactions is no different than the role played by anything that has ever happened, is happening now, or will happen. so here we are, living in an ethnically diverse world. why not focus on making it work instead of stating over and over again that it will not?

The simple answer to your last question is because some of us firmly believe(for a variety of reasons, many already expressed) that it cannot work - at least not for long, on a large scale(ie. the more diversity - the greater the issues)or without a tremendous amount of unnecessary strife accompanying it. Thus, the negatives outweigh the positives.

I must clarify though, that I am not taking issue with a "diverse world" as you have phrased it. The world on the whole is of course naturally diverse and should, to the degree it can do so without compulsive, uber-humanitarian interference, remain thus. In that respect I have no quarrel with(or "hatred" of)people from any part of the globe whatever.

It is the many issues, as Norsemaiden has tried(largely in vain it would appear, unfortunately)to illustrate, that arise from wide-spread integration of ethnically diverse peoples that is the primary rationale of my rejection of this ideal.
Obviously, no one can prove that such a scheme cannot work and in the end you and those who think as you do, may indeed be right. However, I believe the risks are too high to justify the
alleged or perceived benefit this much-lauded Diversity supposedly brings. So why would anyone labor toward making something work they firmly believe cannot, simply because the "conventional wisdom," against all apparent evidence, insists it will...sooner or later? Wishing rarely makes anything so.

 

[speed]

It is not impossible to stop immigration. Immigration is market led, and it can be stopped by our nations stopping being controlled by the greed of big business. The immigrants do not benefit the people of the country at all - they kill the society and they cause those in it to become enslaved to the corporations.

We would have to stop big business from socially engineering our population to best benefit their finances.

Mass immigration from an ethnically different area is absolutely comparable to invasion - and can be repelled as invasions have been in the past.

History is replete with the heroic and bloody battles that Europeans have fought against the Moors, Mongols, the Huns and (in ancient Germany) agaist the cosmopolitian Romans and the troops they sent to settle in Germany from Africa and Asia.

It is beyond shameful that now we sweep all these vital victories away and betray our ancestors.

I think we need to seperate Europe from America in this discussion.

ALmost all, if not all of these heroic battles, are of totally different religions and cultures fighting each other (Franks vs Moors; Romans vs Goths/Huns/Vandals, etc; Greeks vs. Persians; Occitans and Franks vs. Saracens; Protestants vs. Catholics--thats where it gets interesting. For Europe, perhaps this is an apt point: the muslims have an entirely different culture and religion that does not fit with European values. Hence, it is not a problem for say a Finn to immigrate to England, and retain their culture and values (because they share cultural values); but it is a problem for a fundamentalist Pakistani who doesnt share many common values with a englishmen.

With America, our values are essentially the desire and dream for money. Money is the goal of our society. Thus why it is so easy for a variety of immigrants to show up here, and become very successful. People dont think twice about Asian or Indian engineers and doctors, and the Mexicans have become so common, one fails to notice them either.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I think we need to seperate Europe from America in this discussion.

ALmost all, if not all of these heroic battles, are of totally different religions and cultures fighting each other (Franks vs Moors; Romans vs Goths/Huns/Vandals, etc; Greeks vs. Persians; Occitans and Franks vs. Saracens; Protestants vs. Catholics--thats where it gets interesting. For Europe, perhaps this is an apt point: the muslims have an entirely different culture and religion that does not fit with European values. Hence, it is not a problem for say a Finn to immigrate to England, and retain their culture and values (because they share cultural values); but it is a problem for a fundamentalist Pakistani who doesnt share many common values with a englishmen.

With America, our values are essentially the desire and dream for money. Money is the goal of our society. Thus why it is so easy for a variety of immigrants to show up here, and become very successful. People dont think twice about Asian or Indian engineers and doctors, and the Mexicans have become so common, one fails to notice them either.

There are plently of ethnically different people in Britain. And I notice them and think a lot about it. I don't like it at all. I consider their presence here aggressive and offensive. I know many Americans do feel the same way. Perhaps if you lived in a Mexican part of town you would have an awareness.

Someone was saying in a paper the other day how the biggest change in America in the last 50 years is how, in the past, when someone gave their word you knew you could trust it, but now you cannot trust anyone in that way.
Professor Putnam puts this down to the presence of ethnic diversity.

This is not aimed at you Speed, but there seem to be a lot of people who fear truth so much that they believe their groundless opinion based on what sounds most pleasant to them to be worth more than any research or evidence.
This kind of relativism is infuriatingly stupid.

Wishful thinking does not create reality.

 

[speed]

Someone was saying in a paper the other day how the biggest change in America in the last 50 years is how, in the past, when someone gave their word you knew you could trust it, but now you cannot trust anyone in that way.
Professor Putnam puts this down to the presence of ethnic diversity.

Thats more than ridiculous. There's a panopoly of different factors at work here besides ethnicity, which cause this lack of trust (economy, standardization, building/urban/suburban form, prevailance of positvistic philosophy, etc). The breakdown of community did not arise because of larger groups of immigrants or ethnicities; if anything, those of different ethnicities, are the only groups in America with anything akin to an actual community.

Immigration and ethnicity is not our central problem these days. Its a pathetic controversial issue to stir up the ignorant and racist hawkish conservatives while the rest of the world decays. In short, globalism has already won; we're past dealing with immigration and global integration--its a fact of life. Even sept 11 couldnt stop immigration in America.