NationStates Jolt Archive

So the thread on making whites a minority in the US and Europe (which I really don't care about) got me thinking.

Suppose we don't think of this in racial terms but cultural and intellectual terms. Suppose this trend continues to the point where the ethnic minorities (of today) constitute majorities to the point where they can control the political destinies of the regions involved. What do you think would change?

I don't think that much would happen in the US. It appears that Hispanics will become the new majority here. While they (I'm a white boy) come from a different cultural and intellectual tradition than what America originally came out of (Anglo-Saxon/Northern Europe), it's pretty compatible on the political side of things (at least in my opinion).

I'm more concerned about Europe. The majority o the immigration there appears to be coming from majority Muslim states (Algeria, Egypt, and Pakistan to name a few). This is a completely different cultural tradition that led to another type of government. There is a possibility that it will lead to a loss of traditional Western freedoms and a government similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I'm not trying to be racist. I'm just trying to dispassionately examine the trends and the intellectual backgrounds of the people involved.

Any thoughts?

The only way it could lead to a different type of government is if the constitutions were to be abandoned. That basically necessitates the destruction of these countries (or rather the states they're associated with), which wouldn't happen peacefully.

The only way it could lead to a different type of government is if the constitutions were to be abandoned. That basically necessitates the destruction of these countries (or rather the states they're associated with), which wouldn't happen peacefully.

Don't know if it will be peaceful or violent. I don't too many details about the Constitutions of European countries, but I think that most Constitutions have a way to amend/abrogate them with a sufficient super-majority.

The only way it could lead to a different type of government is if the constitutions were to be abandoned.

Thank you. You beat me to it.

Constitutions are there to prevent democratically elected lawmakers from running wild.

The expectation is that, by the time the majority have changed, the views of those countries they came from will be also changed, hopefully for the better. Although, I'm not sure it will ever happen: certainly in Britain immigration laws are continually getting strict, and the country is in general filling up, there will come a time when the standard of living decreases due to overpopulation and immigrants will be put off.

Another thing is to work with those countries to improve their democratic and social freedoms, and I feel this will come with better education and standards of living.

Certainly our constitutions will change gradually with immigration, but there will be no sudden shift that is peacefully orchestrated, and really, our laws and constitutions have changed hugely in the time since they were drawn up, without excessive immigration happening. In fact, the US is a great example of huge immigration to a place without losing site of its constitutional freedoms.

Suppose we don't think of this in racial terms but cultural and intellectual terms. Suppose this trend continues to the point where the ethnic minorities (of today) constitute majorities to the point where they can control the political destinies of the regions involved. What do you think would change?

speaking from a nation of immigration I'd say nothing (or rather the erecting of huge shiny castles as the Normans showed)

I don't think that much would happen in the US. It appears that Hispanics will become the new majority here. While they (I'm a white boy) come from a different cultural and intellectual tradition than what America originally came out of (Anglo-Saxon/Northern Europe), it's pretty compatible on the political side of things (at least in my opinion).

don't be silly, they will be still wondering why on Earth they are still poor (and thus come to our way of thinking :cool:)

I'm more concerned about Europe. The majority o the immigration there appears to be coming from majority Muslim states (Algeria, Egypt, and Pakistan to name a few).

no Poland, Polish people are awesome :)

This is a completely different cultural tradition that led to another type of government. There is a possibility that it will lead to a loss of traditional Western freedoms and a government similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

yes, thats precisely what has happened in places like Leeds...hmmmm

I agree with you on that. Immigrants from South and Central America have more in common culturally with white populations than immigrants from the Middle East or North Africa. There are still a lot of differences (Not just between hispanics and whites, but also between different hispanics peoples), but a lot of their culture is derived from Spain or Portugal, which are of course European. The islamic countries are a different thing. The culture's less compatible and despite convention wisdom that immigrant populations eventually assimilate, that doesn't seem to be happening. If anything islamic extremism is growing, often among second or third generation immigrants.

Don't know if it will be peaceful or violent. I don't too many details about the Constitutions of European countries, but I think that most Constitutions have a way to amend/abrogate them with a sufficient super-majority.
Not too sure about all the details of European constitutions, but I think they're much easier to amend. Britain doesn't even have a written constitution!

The expectation is that, by the time the majority have changed, the views of those countries they came from will be also changed, hopefully for the better. Although, I'm not sure it will ever happen: certainly in Britain immigration laws are continually getting strict, and the country is in general filling up, there will come a time when the standard of living decreases due to overpopulation and immigrants will be put off.
Do we really want the standard of living in this country do drop so low through overpopulation that immigrants don't want to move here? Surely it would better to prevent this drop in the standard of living through preventing overpopulation from occuring in the first place?

Another thing is to work with those countries to improve their democratic and social freedoms, and I feel this will come with better education and standards of living.
Maybe, but is it our responsibility to do that? Surely it would just be easier to look elsewhere for immigrants if you really need them? Anyway, more immigrants are coming from Poland these days.

Certainly our constitutions will change gradually with immigration, but there will be no sudden shift that is peacefully orchestrated, and really, our laws and constitutions have changed hugely in the time since they were drawn up, without excessive immigration happening. In fact, the US is a great example of huge immigration to a place without losing site of its constitutional freedoms.
The US constitution is a different animal though. It's very very difficult to amend. I think European constitutions are much easier to amend. Particularly ours, we don't even have a written constitution.

Immigration should be evaluated on purely economic terms; if the host country has a genuine economic necessity for migrants, skilled or otherwise, they should be admitted selectively. Even in this contingency, I'd sooner look to filling menial jobs with the unemployed before looking abroad, but all the same, when immigration is a necessity, I have no objection to it.

I do object to mass immigration, granting asylum and harbouring refugees; this is not in the economic interests of the state. It is, by any economic judgement, counterproductive.

yes, thats precisely what has happened in places like Leeds...hmmmm

You see my concerns.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280768']If anything islamic extremism is growing, often among second or third generation immigrants.

yes, the guy who owns the corner shop is plotting world domination as we speak!

btw I call bullshit :p

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280768']Not too sure about all the details of European constitutions, but I think they're much easier to amend. Britain doesn't even have a written constitution!

We have a monarchy without a constitution to tie its hands :)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280768']Do we really want the standard of living in this country do drop so low through overpopulation that immigrants don't want to move here? Surely it would better to prevent this drop in the standard of living through preventing overpopulation from occuring in the first place?

being done, hence the not breeding (and emigration)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280768']Maybe, but is it our responsibility to do that? Surely it would just be easier to look elsewhere for immigrants if you really need them? Anyway, more immigrants are coming from Poland these days.

how does one "look" for immigrants?

You see my concerns.

:eek: so thats why we didn't make the Euro cup

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280768']Maybe, but is it our responsibility to do that? Surely it would just be easier to look elsewhere for immigrants if you really need them? Anyway, more immigrants are coming from Poland these days.

no Poland, Polish people are awesome :)

From my understanding of the situation, the UK is the only one with large-scale Eastern European immigration (which I'm not concerned about). What about France or Germany?

From my understanding of the situation, the UK is the only one with large-scale Eastern European immigration (which I'm not concerned about). What about France or Germany?

same only Germany has the turks doing the garbage (because Germans don't like handling waste, apparently)

no Poland, Polish people are awesome :)



yes, thats precisely what has happened in places like Leeds...hmmmm

Firstly, Leeds is neither the dystopia, nor utopia, the right and left conceive it as. It is, however, undeniable that "white flight" is a reality, the inner city areas are almost homogenously ethnic, and that racial tensions are high.

Where Poles are concerned, they have no right to be in the UK, and certainly not in the unrestricted, and equally unknown, numbers that they are.

yes, the guy who owns the corner shop is plotting world domination as we speak!

btw I call bullshit :p
Haha, I'm not thinking muslims have some hive mind that is intent on world domination, most of them are peaceful enough. Culture probably plays into it as well, a more religious muslim country like Pakistan (And the immigrants descended from those places) seems to be more of a hotbed of extremism, which doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much of a problem in the more secular muslim countries like Albania or Bosnia. But islamic extremism does seem to be a growing problem, both among recent first generation muslim immigrants and the second or third generation ones who were born here. You don't get those problems with immgirants from non-muslim countries.

We have a monarchy without a constitution to tie its hands :)
I like the British unwritten constitution, but it could have its downfalls, if not now then maybe in the future.

being done, hence the not breeding (and emigration)
Still growing though. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7055285.stm)

how does one "look" for immigrants?
Figure of speech. I meant that if you are going to let immigrants in, it may be more sensible to let in the ones who have culturally more in common with us. Though there's a lot more coming in from Poland now anyway.

You know, people who move to another country are often people who didn't like how things were going in the country they left.

Firstly, Leeds is neither the dystopia, nor utopia, the right and left conceive it as. It is, however, undeniable that "white flight" is a reality, the inner city areas are almost homogenously ethnic, and that racial tensions are high.

hence the complete social breakdown in places like Manchester and Liverpool...oh wait they get along fine

Where Poles are concerned, they have no right to be in the UK, and certainly not in the unrestricted, and equally unknown, numbers that they are.

why? tell me do you have any idea what jobs the Polish have been filling or do you not visit hospitals and research labs?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280813']But islamic extremism does seem to be a growing problem

it does:confused:

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280813']both among recent first generation muslim immigrants and the second or third generation ones who were born here. You don't get those problems with immgirants from non-muslim countries.

what about the Irish?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280813']I like the British unwritten constitution, but it could have its downfalls, if not now then maybe in the future.

not anymore of a problem than all those silly "dead" laws we have *kills Welshman with longbow*

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280813']Still growing though. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7055285.stm)

of course you do realize the elderly move to places in Spain now don't you? (to form our own little ghettos for the irony)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280813']Figure of speech. I meant that if you are going to let immigrants in, it may be more sensible to let in the ones who have culturally more in common with us. Though there's a lot more coming in from Poland now anyway.

yeah, how on Earth could a multicultural nation work!? next we will have immigration from the former empire after some catastrophic world war....

You know, people who move to another country are often people who didn't like how things were going in the country they left.

That doesn't mean that they object to the political system in those countries. They could just want better jobs.

it does:confused:
Obviously it's not the sort of thing that you can really get accurate statistics on, but it does seem to have been more of a problem in the last decade or two. You didn't seem to get those problems before, even from the muslim immigrants who moved here much earlier, such as after WW2.

what about the Irish?
Not so much a problem now. But even back then, it wasn't like it was an immigration problem. People from Northern Ireland (Even the IRA) have always legally been British citizens and always were living in part of the UK, so it's not like you could prevent the terrorists from coming here anyway.

not anymore of a problem than all those silly "dead" laws we have *kills Welshman with longbow*
What I meant was that if the worst case scenario occured (In this case, an islamic takeover) it would be much easier to change the law in a way which goes against the traditional freedoms in Britain. This would be much harder in the US.

of course you do realize the elderly move to places in Spain now don't you? (to form our own little ghettos for the irony)
Yes, but if it's net population growth that's occuring then overpopulation is getting worse. Relatively small amounts of emigration and descreasing birth rates aren't exceeding the increases in immigration.

yeah, how on Earth could a multicultural nation work!? next we will have immigration from the former empire after some catastrophic world war....
I don't think multiculturalism is a good thing, it just increases divisions in society. I prefer assimilation. Because of this, I would prefer we took in immigrants from countries that are culturally closer to us. Also, if you have to choose between a letting immigrants in from countries where there tends to be more of a terrorist problem (No matter how small) and letting immigrants in from a country where there's no real terrorist problem, it definitely makes more sense to opt for the latter.

Yes, some people want a better job, but others are tired of watching people get stoned to death.

Yes, some people want a better job, but others are tired of watching people get stoned to death.

Given the riots in France over the last few years, I don't think that that's the case here. At least not for the majority.

Given the riots in France over the last few years, I don't think that that's the case here. At least not for the majority.
The riots in France were more your standard race riots than anything to do with islam.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']Obviously it's not the sort of thing that you can really get accurate statistics on, but it does seem to have been more of a problem in the last decade or two. You didn't seem to get those problems before, even from the muslim immigrants who moved here much earlier, such as after WW2.

that because it was much more Hindus vs Muslims back in the day

now they have cultural harmony-ish :)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']Not so much a problem now. But even back then, it wasn't like it was an immigration problem.

I do believe that was what the whole hundred odd years of squabble was about :p

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']People from Northern Ireland (Even the IRA) have always legally been British citizens and always were living in part of the UK, so it's not like you could prevent the terrorists from coming here anyway.

....I just had to read that quite a few times, you do know of an EIRE no?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']What I meant was that if the worst case scenario occured (In this case, an islamic takeover) it would be much easier to change the law in a way which goes against the traditional freedoms in Britain. This would be much harder in the US.

yes because things like constitutions have always been upheld even when the majority support has faulted, hence gitmo

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']Yes, but if it's net population growth that's occuring then overpopulation is getting worse. Relatively small amounts of emigration and descreasing birth rates aren't exceeding the increases in immigration.

which we need to support those who stay, not that immigrants ever emigrate that is...

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']I don't think multiculturalism is a good thing, it just increases divisions in society.

would you like some Tea? oh wait thats not English! nor is this umbrella! *pajamas vanish in a puff of smoke*

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']I prefer assimilation.

everyone being the same FTW!

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280883']I would prefer we took in immigrants from countries that are culturally closer to us. Also, if you have to choose between a letting immigrants in from countries where there tends to be more of a terrorist problem (No matter how small) and letting immigrants in from a country where there's no real terrorist problem, it definitely makes more sense to opt for the latter.

yes because eastern Europeans never have terrorist groups (well I confess eastern Europe's seems more Nazi land now)

Given the riots in France over the last few years, I don't think that that's the case here. At least not for the majority.

you somehow see rioting as proof that they haven't assimilated into French culture?

tell me do you really understand Europe?

Where Poles are concerned, they have no right to be in the UK, and certainly not in the unrestricted, and equally unknown, numbers that they are.

Funny that, last I checked, Poland was admitted into the EU and that means that, by way of a treaty, Poles have equal rights as the British do in Britain or in Poland and vice versa.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13280916']The riots in France were more your standard race riots than anything to do with islam.

Actually, the riots showed that the immigrants were capable of integrating into French society.

Funny that, last I checked, Poland was admitted into the EU and that means that, by way of a treaty, Poles have equal rights as the British do in Britain or in Poland and vice versa.

actually no, the Government has just decided to do some weird "points" based jargon

honestly though, the sooner we get kicked out the E.U and thus into economic ruin the better (though maybe French farmers can leave too)

that because it was much more Hindus vs Muslims back in the day

now they have cultural harmony-ish :)
I doubt it. Probably more down to a correlation with the increase in islamic extremism worldwide that came with things like Saudi Wahhabist doctrine, the success of islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda's attacks on US targets, ect.

....I just had to read that quite a few times, you do know of an EIRE no?
I was under the impression that Republican attacks tended to come from Northern Irish Catholics, rather than those down south. Though maybe there have been attacks from down south that I haven't known of. Unless you're referring to the time when all of Ireland was part of the UK.

which we need to support those who stay, not that immigrants ever emigrate that is...
I can't quite make sense of that. Whatever it meant, it doesn't adress the fact that there is net population growth, something which may cause overpopulation in the future. Immigration is what's responsible for that.

yes because eastern Europeans never have terrorist groups (well I confess eastern Europe's seems more Nazi land now)
I can't think of any terrorist groups in eastern Europe that are a threat to Britain at the moment.

actually no, the Government has just decided to do some weird "points" based jargon
Not with Poland. The points system only applies to non-EU immigrants.

You know, people who move to another country are often people who didn't like how things were going in the country they left.

Thank you.

It's quite true. It's a really horrible thing to uproot yourself and leave the place you were born and raised. Not something people generally undergo lightly. Many do so for economic or political reasons, and would prefer that the situation in their home country was such that they could return.

It's true, there is a trend to 'fetishize' the home country. Just speaking anecdotally here, from working with various immigrant groups...not going to pull up sources, though I have no doubt there are many studies. First generation immigrants will often have a love/hate relationship with their home country. They'll miss familiar things, foods, climate, social relationships...but also hate the things that made them leave...poverty, repression, what have you. Their children, however, will quite often feel a strong pull to assert their cultural heritage, and won't be as familiar with the negatives. So you get, for example, Greek kids who are 'more Greek' than those actually living in Greece. I agree that fanaticism tends to increase with the second generation, if the context is religious, but also a cultural fanaticism that comes from a need to find one's identity.

The more that impulse is dealt with in a negative manner, the more it reinforces it. The more you target people for behaving like 'foreigners', the more they will feel threatened, and hold onto those aspects. When people feel welcomed into your country, and there is a system in place to help them settle, that antagonism doesn't tend to be such an issue. Quite honestly, I believe this is why nations that are more open to multiculturalism tend not to have so many problems with it. (again, speaking purely out of my ass)

However, it's true, at some point if a certain group becomes predominant, or for a period the main group immigrating to your nation, it will be easier for them to form communities based on shared culture, that will for a while, be a barrier to them integrating into the mainstream culture of the host nation. Nonetheless, as successive generations grow and are raised in this new culture, they tend to identify more strongly with it than with their grandparents or great-grandparent's culture.

What is seems like some people here are worried about is a large influx of first generation immigrants, who have not yet had time to adapt. Yet, no country that I can think of has such open policies that it would actually be possible for first generation immigrants to form the majority of the population. So hmmmm. Is it that you reject the proven fact that successive generations of immigrants 'integrate'? Or are you just scared of people who don't look like you?

You know, people who move to another country are often people who didn't like how things were going in the country they left.

True and it is also typical of them to bring their nations dysfunctions with them. Most people if you really get down to it move to the west for better jobs and relatively safe enviroment for their families. Can't blame them but the west cannot have a third world invasion either.

Thank you.

It's quite true. It's a really horrible thing to uproot yourself and leave the place you were born and raised. Not something people generally undergo lightly. Many do so for economic or political reasons, and would prefer that the situation in their home country was such that they could return.

It's true, there is a trend to 'fetishize' the home country. Just speaking anecdotally here, from working with various immigrant groups...not going to pull up sources, though I have no doubt there are many studies. First generation immigrants will often have a love/hate relationship with their home country. They'll miss familiar things, foods, climate, social relationships...but also hate the things that made them leave...poverty, repression, what have you. Their children, however, will quite often feel a strong pull to assert their cultural heritage, and won't be as familiar with the negatives. So you get, for example, Greek kids who are 'more Greek' than those actually living in Greece. I agree that fanaticism tends to increase with the second generation, if the context is religious, but also a cultural fanaticism that comes from a need to find one's identity.

The more that impulse is dealt with in a negative manner, the more it reinforces it. The more you target people for behaving like 'foreigners', the more they will feel threatened, and hold onto those aspects. When people feel welcomed into your country, and there is a system in place to help them settle, that antagonism doesn't tend to be such an issue. Quite honestly, I believe this is why nations that are more open to multiculturalism tend not to have so many problems with it. (again, speaking purely out of my ass)

However, it's true, at some point if a certain group becomes predominant, or for a period the main group immigrating to your nation, it will be easier for them to form communities based on shared culture, that will for a while, be a barrier to them integrating into the mainstream culture of the host nation. Nonetheless, as successive generations grow and are raised in this new culture, they tend to identify more strongly with it than with their grandparents or great-grandparent's culture.

What is seems like some people here are worried about is a large influx of first generation immigrants, who have not yet had time to adapt. Yet, no country that I can think of has such open policies that it would actually be possible for first generation immigrants to form the majority of the population. So hmmmm. Is it that you reject the proven fact that successive generations of immigrants 'integrate'? Or are you just scared of people who don't look like you?


Don't agree 100% but well said and articulated.

Don't agree 100% but well said and articulated.

I can do that sometimes :)

Immigration should be evaluated on purely economic terms; if the host country has a genuine economic necessity for migrants, skilled or otherwise, they should be admitted selectively. Even in this contingency, I'd sooner look to filling menial jobs with the unemployed before looking abroad, but all the same, when immigration is a necessity, I have no objection to it.

I do object to mass immigration, granting asylum and harbouring refugees; this is not in the economic interests of the state. It is, by any economic judgement, counterproductive.

You make the assumption that refugees and other asylum seekers are a net drain. Can you please back this claim up with evidence?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13281013']I doubt it.

yes what a silly notion that tensions would be high between groups originating form two nation ready to start a nuclear war in a heartbeat!

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13281013']Probably more down to a correlation with the increase in islamic extremism worldwide that came with things like Saudi Wahhabist doctrine, the success of islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda's attacks on US targets, ect.

all of which (apart from Soviet resistance to an extent) have been widely criticized by Muslims in the west

not that Muslims are any particular political group or anything as your train of thought seems to be heading

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13281013']I was under the impression that Republican attacks tended to come from Northern Irish Catholics, rather than those down south. Though maybe there have been attacks from down south that I haven't known of. Unless you're referring to the time when all of Ireland was part of the UK.

the IRA was largely based in EIRE (I'd dare say because Northern Irish actually knew more about the situation and of the people that got hurt), though by all means not exclusively the idea you are putting forward seems to be that Irish terrorism was exclusively British citizens

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13281013']Immigration is what's responsible for that.

even a David Coleman research doesn't exclusively say this increased longevity and higher birth rates (higher birth rates being bullshit of course) is also mentioned

lets look at this man friends shall we (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Watch)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13281013']I can't think of any terrorist groups in eastern Europe that are a threat to Britain at the moment.

the short answer is no terrorist group is a threat, however eastern Europe has loose nukes...

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13281013']Not with Poland. The points system only applies to non-EU immigrants.

oh thats not too bad then, though still a travesty

Immigrants should not be allowed to carve off peices of preexisting countries.

Immigrants should not be allowed to carve off peices of preexisting countries.

....don't worry I don't feel the need to insult your intelligence, you can just see peoples reactions and maybe try again

Immigrants should not be allowed to carve off peices of preexisting countries.

What about the ones who just cut off pieces of the Risk playing board?

And what exactly do you mean? Immigrants don't suddenly assert sovereignty over the land they now occupy. At least, not since 1867...

Immigrants should not be allowed to carve off peices of preexisting countries.


I agree with Brachiosaurus, im mean it wouldn't bother me as much if immigrants would just pay Taxes, they come in the country work for cheap labor and avoid paying taxes.
:sniper: we don't want to resort to doing what the smily is doing.

I agree with Brachiosaurus, im mean it wouldn't bother me as much if immigrants would just pay Taxes, they come in the country work for cheap labor and avoid paying taxes.
:sniper: we don't want to resort to doing what the smily is doing.

Argh.

At the very least, attempt some sort of coherent argument. Please.

Here, I'll even help you. This (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=team_team2167) is a site that is anti-immigration. You can even pretend that you have the intelligence to make these arguments.

So the thread on making whites a minority in the US and Europe (which I really don't care about) got me thinking.

Suppose we don't think of this in racial terms but cultural and intellectual terms. Suppose this trend continues to the point where the ethnic minorities (of today) constitute majorities to the point where they can control the political destinies of the regions involved. What do you think would change?

I don't think that much would happen in the US. It appears that Hispanics will become the new majority here. While they (I'm a white boy) come from a different cultural and intellectual tradition than what America originally came out of (Anglo-Saxon/Northern Europe), it's pretty compatible on the political side of things (at least in my opinion).

I'm more concerned about Europe. The majority o the immigration there appears to be coming from majority Muslim states (Algeria, Egypt, and Pakistan to name a few). This is a completely different cultural tradition that led to another type of government. There is a possibility that it will lead to a loss of traditional Western freedoms and a government similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I'm not trying to be racist. I'm just trying to dispassionately examine the trends and the intellectual backgrounds of the people involved.

Any thoughts?

I follow a rather unique idea...or at least I think its unique. Examining history, very few multicultural nations existed for any great period of time. Texas was taken over by LEGAL immigrants, Rome was destroyed when they let Visigoths come in as immigrants, and other such multicultural nations, like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and India until recent years have all met their demise at the hands of their multitudes of ethnic groups. Take a look at devolution in the UK. And they speak the same damn language. People, despite whatever transcendentalist philosophy you may follow, have a tendency to fight, bicker, and hurt each other in a plethora of ways. I hold that generally, immigration is bad for any society because it adds a boatload of new, competing identities within the host nation and generates tensions within society.

That being said, I realize that this is an unpopular view to hold in the US (oh noes, teh ebil illegals), since the reigning view is that we are a nation of immigrants and that since immigration worked so well in the past, of course it will work well now, and anybody who disagrees is a racist. But what people fail to understand is that the past situation was radically different. If you read the history, the pressure incoming immigrants recieved was enormous. In the factories, immigrant laborers were divided up so the only way they could form unions is to speak English. In the schools the children where taught they were Americans and to disregard their less civilized parent culture. In fact, reading the accounts, many immigrants were dismayed with the complete disdain and disgust their children exhibited towards their culture. And immigration was constantly being limited by an anxious government. And these policies worked. People today don't think of themselves as Poles or Germans, just Americans, or maybe, if they had to classify themselves, as white (since the overwhelming number of immigrants came from Europe)

We don't do that anymore. We provide their languages so that they can leave an entirely English-free lifestyle, we advocate that they maintain their identity, which they promtly do. Now this works all fine, right, because they want money and a piece of the American economy, which encourages them to at least learn a little bit about their new land. But given the flagging condition of the economy, what's to hold them together? A love of their new land? Yeah right. After all, french cars are the only victims of French immigrants.

Well, this seems to be asking for a flame war. Oh well.
*dresses in fire redardant suit*
Bring it.

I follow a rather unique idea...or at least I think its unique. Examining history, very few multicultural nations existed for any great period of time. Texas was taken over by LEGAL immigrants, Rome was destroyed when they let Visigoths come in as immigrants, and other such multicultural nations, like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and India until recent years have all met their demise at the hands of their multitudes of ethnic groups. Take a look at devolution in the UK. And they speak the same damn language. People, despite whatever transcendentalist philosophy you may follow, have a tendency to fight, bicker, and hurt each other in a plethora of ways. I hold that generally, immigration is bad for any society because it adds a boatload of new, competing identities within the host nation and generates tensions within society.

That being said, I realize that this is an unpopular view to hold in the US (oh noes, teh ebil illegals), since the reigning view is that we are a nation of immigrants and that since immigration worked so well in the past, of course it will work well now, and anybody who disagrees is a racist. But what people fail to understand is that the past situation was radically different. If you read the history, the pressure incoming immigrants recieved was enormous. In the factories, immigrant laborers were divided up so the only way they could form unions is to speak English. In the schools the children where taught they were Americans and to disregard their less civilized parent culture. In fact, reading the accounts, many immigrants were dismayed with the complete disdain and disgust their children exhibited towards their culture. And immigration was constantly being limited by an anxious government. And these policies worked. People today don't think of themselves as Poles or Germans, just Americans, or maybe, if they had to classify themselves, as white (since the overwhelming number of immigrants came from Europe)

We don't do that anymore. We provide their languages so that they can leave an entirely English-free lifestyle, we advocate that they maintain their identity, which they promtly do. Now this works all fine, right, because they want money and a piece of the American economy, which encourages them to at least learn a little bit about their new land. But given the flagging condition of the economy, what's to hold them together? A love of their new land? Yeah right. After all, french cars are the only victims of French immigrants.

Well, this seems to be asking for a flame war. Oh well.
*dresses in fire redardant suit*
Bring it.

Not quite what I was getting at.

More along the lines of this: do cultures/religions lead to certain political outlooks/systems/outcomes? If so, what does this hold for us in the future, given the influx into Europe of a large group of people holding a very different religion/culture compared to what has historically been there?

Not quite what I was getting at.

More along the lines of this: do cultures/religions lead to certain political outlooks/systems/outcomes? If so, what does this hold for us in the future, given the influx into Europe of a large group of people holding a very different religion/culture compared to what has historically been there?

I've never been to Europe so I really don't know how it is over there. But judging by what I see on the news, the immigrants really don't see themselves as belonging to their respective host country and band together as "Arabs in France" or "Pakistanis in England", an alien culture residing within the nation, not really assimilating. I saw a shot once of a two Turkish girls waving a Turkish flag in front of the Reichstag. As for the future, if hostility and alienation continue, as well as current demographic trends, then Europe will be a very sad place.

If what I see in the news is correct, that is.

Thread Anti-thesis:

In a democracy with a sufficiently homogeneous population, cultural nationalism takes root and competes with objective fundamental values on which democracy is founded. Therefore, multiculturalism is the only way to preserve democracy from being usurped by nationalism. The only way to effectively sustain broad multiculturalism is through immigration.

The problem with Europe I think is that it is too rooted in nationalism, which when faced with significant immigration from other cultures undermines the comparatively weak democratic meta-culture (the objective fundamental democratic values). Europe can't assimilate because it requires it to happen at the level of national culture, which is impossible. A traditional Muslim teen in France can never be "French" because she wears a veil. France attacks her very cultural identity by insisting she remove the veil before going to school.

When an immigrant comes to the United States on the other hand, it's impossible for that immigrant NOT to assimilate, because the tolerant meta-culture takes precedence. Sure, we're a bunch of bigoted rednecks, but if you can get in our country, you can go to school, drive on our roads, ride the bus, shop at the store, deny the holocaust or evolution, and start your own business; even the freaking death-to-the-infidel terrorist finds himself to be a flag-waving American because he functions within the inclusive, all-encompassing, blind (except to money) cocoon of capitalism.

Thread Anti-thesis:

In a democracy with a sufficiently homogeneous population, cultural nationalism takes root and competes with objective fundamental values on which democracy is founded. Therefore, multiculturalism is the only way to preserve democracy from being usurped by nationalism. The only way to effectively sustain broad multiculturalism is through immigration.

The problem with Europe I think is that it is too rooted in nationalism, which when faced with significant immigration from other cultures undermines the comparatively weak democratic meta-culture (the objective fundamental democratic values). Europe can't assimilate because it requires it to happen at the level of national culture, which is impossible. A traditional Muslim teen in France can never be "French" because she wears a veil. France attacks her very cultural identity by insisting she remove the veil before going to school.

When an immigrant comes to the United States on the other hand, it's impossible for that immigrant NOT to assimilate, because the tolerant meta-culture takes precedence. Sure, we're a bunch of bigoted rednecks, but if you can get in our country, you can go to school, drive on our roads, ride the bus, shop at the store, deny the holocaust or evolution, and start your own business; even the freaking death-to-the-infidel terrorist finds himself to be a flag-waving American because he functions within the inclusive, all-encompassing, blind (except to money) cocoon of capitalism.

Democracy, Liberalism (Classical, not modern), and the like are based on certain base assumptions. In the West, John Locke is generally seen as the best source that identifies those values (respect for the individual, limited government, and the like). When European countries have gone nationalist, they abandoned those values. Multi-culturalism will prevent the nationalism from happening, but it will not prevent another abandoning of those values in another direction. I am arguing that many immigrants come from backgrounds that do not have some or all of those values. This presents a problem when those groups become large enough to have serious political effects.

I agree with Brachiosaurus, im mean it wouldn't bother me as much if immigrants would just pay Taxes, they come in the country work for cheap labor and avoid paying taxes.
:sniper: we don't want to resort to doing what the smily is doing.

Also, we required to speak their foriegn language and they are exempt from most of our laws. They allowed to drive without drivers license.
If an illegal immigrant kill a cop he get deported. An American kill a cop, he gets executed.

Also, we required to speak their foriegn language and they are exempt from most of our laws. They allowed to drive without drivers license.
If an illegal immigrant kill a cop he get deported. An American kill a cop, he gets executed.

Hey, this isn't an anti-immigrant thread. This is a political philosophy thread.

True and it is also typical of them to bring their nations dysfunctions with them. Most people if you really get down to it move to the west for better jobs and relatively safe enviroment for their families. Can't blame them but the west cannot have a third world invasion either.

Is it really typical of them? Please explain how Chilean immigrants who arrived en masse to Canada in 1974 brought with them the dysfunctions of Pinochet's regime. Or any example at all. Because I don't think it's typical at all.

I follow a rather unique idea...or at least I think its unique.

It's not unique. And it's wrong.

Examining history, very few multicultural nations existed for any great period of time. Texas was taken over by LEGAL immigrants, Rome was destroyed when they let Visigoths come in as immigrants, and other such multicultural nations, like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and India until recent years have all met their demise at the hands of their multitudes of ethnic groups.

All of these places still exist, and so are their various cultures. Wow. Way to fail.

Take a look at devolution in the UK. And they speak the same damn language. People, despite whatever transcendentalist philosophy you may follow, have a tendency to fight, bicker, and hurt each other in a plethora of ways. I hold that generally, immigration is bad for any society because it adds a boatload of new, competing identities within the host nation and generates tensions within society.

Tell me, do you have any reason to believe this in the face of evidence that multicultural societies function well?

That being said, I realize that this is an unpopular view to hold in the US (oh noes, teh ebil illegals), since the reigning view is that we are a nation of immigrants and that since immigration worked so well in the past, of course it will work well now, and anybody who disagrees is a racist. But what people fail to understand is that the past situation was radically different. If you read the history, the pressure incoming immigrants recieved was enormous. In the factories, immigrant laborers were divided up so the only way they could form unions is to speak English. In the schools the children where taught they were Americans and to disregard their less civilized parent culture. In fact, reading the accounts, many immigrants were dismayed with the complete disdain and disgust their children exhibited towards their culture. And immigration was constantly being limited by an anxious government. And these policies worked. People today don't think of themselves as Poles or Germans, just Americans, or maybe, if they had to classify themselves, as white (since the overwhelming number of immigrants came from Europe)

Yes, well, statements such as the bolded one may imply that you are racist.

We don't do that anymore. We provide their languages so that they can leave an entirely English-free lifestyle, we advocate that they maintain their identity, which they promtly do. Now this works all fine, right, because they want money and a piece of the American economy, which encourages them to at least learn a little bit about their new land. But given the flagging condition of the economy, what's to hold them together? A love of their new land? Yeah right. After all, french cars are the only victims of French immigrants.

The other reason people don't take anti-immigrant arguments seriously is because they seem to be poorly written and wander all over the place. The paragraph above is noteworthy in that it doesn't seem to have a central point.

Well, this seems to be asking for a flame war. Oh well.
*dresses in fire redardant suit*
Bring it.

I don't think you'll need it. Your argument isn't very scary.

*snip* I always enjoy your posts. Mostly for the fact that you're way better at being mean than most people who have to be really obvious about it:)

I always enjoy your posts. Mostly for the fact that you're way better at being mean than most people who have to be really obvious about it:)

That's because I'm actually trying very, very hard not to be mean. You should read what I deleted.

That's because I'm actually trying very, very hard not to be mean. You should read what I deleted.

I would. Except you disappeared the words. How Chilean of you.

Thread Anti-thesis:

In a democracy with a sufficiently homogeneous population, cultural nationalism takes root and competes with objective fundamental values on which democracy is founded. Therefore, multiculturalism is the only way to preserve democracy from being usurped by nationalism. The only way to effectively sustain broad multiculturalism is through immigration.

The problem with Europe I think is that it is too rooted in nationalism, which when faced with significant immigration from other cultures undermines the comparatively weak democratic meta-culture (the objective fundamental democratic values). Europe can't assimilate because it requires it to happen at the level of national culture, which is impossible. A traditional Muslim teen in France can never be "French" because she wears a veil. France attacks her very cultural identity by insisting she remove the veil before going to school.

When an immigrant comes to the United States on the other hand, it's impossible for that immigrant NOT to assimilate, because the tolerant meta-culture takes precedence. Sure, we're a bunch of bigoted rednecks, but if you can get in our country, you can go to school, drive on our roads, ride the bus, shop at the store, deny the holocaust or evolution, and start your own business; even the freaking death-to-the-infidel terrorist finds himself to be a flag-waving American because he functions within the inclusive, all-encompassing, blind (except to money) cocoon of capitalism.

Can I assume that what you're trying to say is that immigration is good because the influx of radically different viewpoints places a constant strain on democracy that stretches its freedoms to their absolute concievable limit, just to prove whether the democracy capable of functioning under such extremes? To which I say nay. An interesting viewpoint, but immigration pushes the limit unneccesarily. We have a ton of people who "defy society" today, but say nothing of any great relevance. Our artists are all terrible, our philosophers laughable, and our activists ridiculous. A mild, "healthy intolerance" (in quotes because I'm sure I'm the only one ever in the history of anything to say that) encourages people with good ideas, strong conviction, and an iron will to speak up against society. It encourages good ideas and weeds out bad ones.

Democracy, Liberalism (Classical, not modern), and the like are based on certain base assumptions. In the West, John Locke is generally seen as the best source that identifies those values (respect for the individual, limited government, and the like). When European countries have gone nationalist, they abandoned those values. Multi-culturalism will prevent the nationalism from happening, but it will not prevent another abandoning of those values in another direction. I am arguing that many immigrants come from backgrounds that do not have some or all of those values. This presents a problem when those groups become large enough to have serious political effects.
Maybe, but for the sake of argument...

I submit that the fundamental values of American meta-culture, being humanistically-derived, are universal, and present to some degree in all cultures. I would further submit that to the extent they are NOT present in a culture, that culture poses a contradiction that creates cognitive dissonance. When immersed in American meta-culture, light is shone on those contradictions, and they are not allowed to survive in the immigrant's mind.

Yeah, I know it sounds ethnocentric, but hey, I'm an American.

I agree with Brachiosaurus, im mean it wouldn't bother me as much if immigrants would just pay Taxes, they come in the country work for cheap labor and avoid paying taxes.
:sniper: we don't want to resort to doing what the smily is doing.
Actually, many illegal immigrants probably pay more than their fair share of taxes, since employers are required to withhold money for taxes, and can only reduce that per I-9 form deductions. Furthermore, many illegal immigrants make so little money and support such large families that they don't qualify to pay taxes in the first place.

Also, we required to speak their foriegn languageUm, no not really.
and they are exempt from most of our laws. They allowed to drive without drivers license.Not any more than you or I. If they are less willing to stick around and wait for the police, well, that wouldn't happen if they weren't being threatened with deportation to a third world country.

If an illegal immigrant kill a cop he get deported. An American kill a cop, he gets executed.So legalize imigration and you can kill all the murderers.

Can I assume that what you're trying to say is that immigration is good because the influx of radically different viewpoints places a constant strain on democracy that stretches its freedoms to their absolute concievable limit, just to prove whether the democracy capable of functioning under such extremes? To which I say nay. An interesting viewpoint, but immigration pushes the limit unneccesarily. We have a ton of people who "defy society" today, but say nothing of any great relevance. Our artists are all terrible, our philosophers laughable, and our activists ridiculous. A mild, "healthy intolerance" (in quotes because I'm sure I'm the only one ever in the history of anything to say that) encourages people with good ideas, strong conviction, and an iron will to speak up against society. It encourages good ideas and weeds out bad ones.

What (s)he is trying to say, in my opinion, is that the influx of radically different viewpoints constantly creates new viewpoints and new questions.

Let me give you an example. Due to fears of Muslim men running around being sexist and claiming it as a religious right, the Quebec government proposed a law that said that gender rights should trump religious rights. Everyone thought this was fine, until they realised that this meant that the Quebec government could force the Catholic church to accept women as priests. This did not go down so well.

The point is that while Quebec was mostly a Christian nation, the question of female exclusion from powerful religious hierarchies never came up, despite the fact that it appears to be constitutionally illegal. There. That's an example of how multiculturalism makes democracy stronger.

Can I assume that what you're trying to say is that immigration is good because the influx of radically different viewpoints places a constant strain on democracy that stretches its freedoms to their absolute concievable limit, just to prove whether the democracy capable of functioning under such extremes? To which I say nay. An interesting viewpoint, but immigration pushes the limit unneccesarily.
An interesting viewpoint, but not quite what I was trying to express. I like it though. See my post after that one for clarification.

We have a ton of people who "defy society" today, but say nothing of any great relevance. Our artists are all terrible, our philosophers laughable, and our activists ridiculous.There are plenty of good artists - they simply don't get mainstream recognition as such; I attribute this to stagnation. More than ever before, American culture (and global culture?) is homogeneous, thanks probably to the mass media. Yesterday, politics involved a lot of posturing and differences in ideals. Today, the vast majority of Americans agree with each other because CNN does their thinking for them, and politics is posturing in its entirety. We have to fight this to preserve democracy. Immigration is one approach. A free Internet is another.

Is it really typical of them? Please explain how Chilean immigrants who arrived en masse to Canada in 1974 brought with them the dysfunctions of Pinochet's regime. Or any example at all. Because I don't think it's typical at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying, but that's ok, because I'm here to explain. Chilean immigrants aren't problematic because they bring with them Pinochet's regime, but because of their culture. Now of course in real life Chileans in Canada were not numerically strong enough to cause any real problems. But what about consolidated large ethnic groups living next to each other, like Spanish and English speakers in the Southwest. People speaking different languages, worshiping different gods, having different beliefs/ outlooks, and living all together differently generally tend to generate suspiscion and hostility, especially when it's in regards to different languages. As I keep saying over and over again, this is evidenced by the breakup of so many multicultural nations. Breakup= bad.


All of these places still exist, and so are their various cultures. Wow. Way to fail.
The nation itself is gone or failing and the places have gone from relative prosperity and civilization (interpret that word whichever way you like) to third world shitties. Or second world shitties. The point being that they aren't as well off as when they were in the original nation.



Tell me, do you have any reason to believe this in the face of evidence that multicultural societies function well?.
They are devolving, which will lead to a weakening of both of them. Well functioning multicultural societies? Like what? Germany, which just sent 10% of its immigrants home? France, which has massive bi-annual immigrant upheavels? To whom are you referring? If your referring to Europe, their troubles with their immigration would exclude them from being defined as "healthy multiculturalism"


Yes, well, statements such as the bolded one may imply that you are racist..

If you had any idea what I just said, you'd realize that:
A) That had absolutely nothing to do with race
B) It wasn't me talking, it was me emulating the ideology of 19th century education.


The other reason people don't take anti-immigrant arguments seriously is because they seem to be poorly written and wander all over the place. The paragraph above is noteworthy in that it doesn't seem to have a central point..
Uh yeah, it did have a central point. Despite the fact that I said it half a dozen times, you seemed to have missed it. Here you go:
Immigration is unhealthy for a society because when two very different groups are placed in close proximity, they generally tend to divide and hurt the country, as evidenced by the break up of almost every multicultural nation to day, to the detriment of all.

The crux of my argument is really my belief that larger, more centralized nations are better economically, politically then a bunch of smaller, decentralized nations, which is why I dislike the breakup of so many ethnically divisive nations.

You don't understand what I'm saying, but that's ok, because I'm here to explain. Chilean immigrants aren't problematic because they bring with them Pinochet's regime, but because of their culture. Now of course in real life Chileans in Canada were not numerically strong enough to cause any real problems. But what about consolidated large ethnic groups living next to each other, like Spanish and English speakers in the Southwest. People speaking different languages, worshiping different gods, having different beliefs/ outlooks, and living all together differently generally tend to generate suspiscion and hostility, especially when it's in regards to different languages. As I keep saying over and over again, this is evidenced by the breakup of so many multicultural nations. Breakup= bad.


The nation itself is gone or failing and the places have gone from relative prosperity and civilization (interpret that word whichever way you like) to third world shitties. Or second world shitties. The point being that they aren't as well off as when they were in the original nation.



They are devolving, which will lead to a weakening of both of them. Well functioning multicultural societies? Like what? Germany, which just sent 10% of its immigrants home? France, which has massive bi-annual immigrant upheavels? To whom are you referring? If your referring to Europe, their troubles with their immigration would exclude them from being defined as "healthy multiculturalism"



If you had any idea what I just said, you'd realize that:
A) That had absolutely nothing to do with race
B) It wasn't me talking, it was me emulating the ideology of 19th century education.


Uh yeah, it did have a central point. Despite the fact that I said it half a dozen times, you seemed to have missed it. Here you go:
Immigration is unhealthy for a society because when two very different groups are placed in close proximity, they generally tend to divide and hurt the country, as evidenced by the break up of almost every multicultural nation to day, to the detriment of all.

The crux of my argument is really my belief that larger, more centralized nations are better economically, politically then a bunch of smaller, decentralized nations, which is why I dislike the breakup of so many ethnically divisive nations.


Bravo, you sir, seem to get it.

You don't understand what I'm saying, but that's ok, because I'm here to explain. Chilean immigrants aren't problematic because they bring with them Pinochet's regime, but because of their culture.

Please elaborate as to how Chilean culture is problematic.

Whoa whoa whoa. If history has taught us anything, it's that a bunch of centralized nations with different cultures is a time bomb waiting to happen. In fact, I would argue that the majority of ethnic conflict, and war in general, is due to this kind of cultural segregation.

The fact is, multiculturalism is always more successful than the alternatives. Latin America is a big-time example. Sure, there's some racism, but there's also regional stability (and in the third worlds to boot!). Now compare that to places where multiculturalism wasn't pursued, like the US. Only after pursuing multiculturalism are we beginning to heal the legacy of slavery and genocide.

With multiculturalism, there's a least the opportunity to cohere through melting pot/assimilation dynamics. Isolationism/segregationism doesn't provide that opportunity, and therefore will ALWAYS fail in the long run.

You don't understand what I'm saying, but that's ok, because I'm here to explain. Chilean immigrants aren't problematic because they bring with them Pinochet's regime, but because of their culture.

What, exactly, is it about Chilean culture that caused a problem in Canada? What was the problem, and how did the influx of Chileans cause it? If you can think of anither example that explains your point more clearly, you don't have to use Chileans in Canada.

Now of course in real life Chileans in Canada were not numerically strong enough to cause any real problems. But what about consolidated large ethnic groups living next to each other, like Spanish and English speakers in the Southwest.

Spanish has been spoken in the US southwest for longer than English. Many of the Hispanics down there are descendents of families that arrived before the Mayflower. Therefore that area has been decidedly multiculutral since then. Now, the Southwest USA has actually consolidated rather than broken up over the last five hundred years. This seems to refute you theory that multiculturalism invariably causes nations to break up.

People speaking different languages, worshiping different gods, having different beliefs/ outlooks, and living all together differently generally tend to generate suspiscion and hostility, especially when it's in regards to different languages. As I keep saying over and over again, this is evidenced by the breakup of so many multicultural nations. Breakup= bad.

Yes, you do keep repeating that claim.

The nation itself is gone or failing and the places have gone from relative prosperity and civilization (interpret that word whichever way you like) to third world shitties. Or second world shitties. The point being that they aren't as well off as when they were in the original nation.

Texas still exists. It seems to be doing quite well. So does Austria, and Hungary. And Russia, and India. The Roman Empire isn't doing too well, but since you haven't shown that it fell due to immigration, I'm not too worried.

They are devolving, which will lead to a weakening of both of them. Well functioning multicultural societies? Like what? Germany, which just sent 10% of its immigrants home? France, which has massive bi-annual immigrant upheavels? To whom are you referring? If your referring to Europe, their troubles with their immigration would exclude them from being defined as "healthy multiculturalism"

One out of every five Canadians is an immigrant. Please explain how Canada is weakening. Or the UK. Or even show how these supposed problems in Germany and France are the fault of multiculturalism.

If you had any idea what I just said, you'd realize that:
A) That had absolutely nothing to do with race
B) It wasn't me talking, it was me emulating the ideology of 19th century education.

You were the one complaining about how everyone calls anti-immigrants racists. I was pointing out how your words could be taken to imply such a position.

Uh yeah, it did have a central point. Despite the fact that I said it half a dozen times, you seemed to have missed it. Here you go:
Immigration is unhealthy for a society because when two very different groups are placed in close proximity, they generally tend to divide and hurt the country, as evidenced by the break up of almost every multicultural nation to day, to the detriment of all.

I see where the confusion lies. You see, I was expecting you to expand on this staement rather than merely repeating it. Perhaps even support such a claim with something like a source or some rational logic. This is supposed to be a debate forum.

The crux of my argument is really my belief that larger, more centralized nations are better economically, politically then a bunch of smaller, decentralized nations, which is why I dislike the breakup of so many ethnically divisive nations.

Well, it is all fine and good that you have such a belief, but it doesn't really affect reality. And reality shows us that multicultural societies can be strong and democratic, like Canada, the USA, France, Germany, the UK, etc.

Maybe, but for the sake of argument...

I submit that the fundamental values of American meta-culture, being humanistically-derived, are universal, and present to some degree in all cultures. I would further submit that to the extent they are NOT present in a culture, that culture poses a contradiction that creates cognitive dissonance. When immersed in American meta-culture, light is shone on those contradictions, and they are not allowed to survive in the immigrant's mind.

Yeah, I know it sounds ethnocentric, but hey, I'm an American.


Actually, many illegal immigrants probably pay more than their fair share of taxes, since employers are required to withhold money for taxes, and can only reduce that per I-9 form deductions. Furthermore, many illegal immigrants make so little money and support such large families that they don't qualify to pay taxes in the first place.

Um, no not really.
Not any more than you or I. If they are less willing to stick around and wait for the police, well, that wouldn't happen if they weren't being threatened with deportation to a third world country.

So legalize imigration and you can kill all the murderers.

I have better idea. Close the borders, catch the murderer/rapist, execute him, say FU to Mexico.

Maybe, but for the sake of argument...

I submit that the fundamental values of American meta-culture, being humanistically-derived, are universal, and present to some degree in all cultures. I would further submit that to the extent they are NOT present in a culture, that culture poses a contradiction that creates cognitive dissonance. When immersed in American meta-culture, light is shone on those contradictions, and they are not allowed to survive in the immigrant's mind.

Yeah, I know it sounds ethnocentric, but hey, I'm an American.

I don't think so. First of all, I disagree that the values that produce Liberalism and democracy are humanistically derived. Communism and fascism are humanistically derived. But that's a debate for another time.

Certain cultures have ideas diametrically opposed to Liberal democracy, have survived for centuries on those ideas, and will continue to do so. I very much doubt that there are surviving contradictions in those cultures. For example, democracy would not have evolved naturally in India. The Hindu caste system would have prevented it because it does not have the equality necessary to create democracy. The Chinese would not have evolved Liberalism because of the Confucian background. It requires absolute obedience to higher-ups in all things, while Liberalism requires that the government be limited and allows it to be questioned. I question the survival of such things in these places unless the underlying cultural belief structures are either abandoned or substantially revised.

I'm not sure about Muslim culture. I suspect that Liberalism would not show up because it lacks the idea that government should be limited to certain areas and allow society to regulate the rest. But I don't know enough to say this with any certainty.

I'm not sure about Muslim culture. I suspect that Liberalism would not show up because it lacks the idea that government should be limited to certain areas and allow society to regulate the rest. But I don't know enough to say this with any certainty.
The only problem is that Islam is more a code of law as well as an religion than perhaps Christianity. It's very old school that way, because Judaism is quite similar.

That means Islam lends itself to a theocracy, where this code of law is administered by government, than Christianity.

But that's not a given. There are plenty of modern Muslim scholars pushing the point that being a good Muslim is about you following the rules, and that it can be quite acceptable to tolerate others not doing so. It's a challenge that is being faced now because mainstream Islam isn't used to be a minority religion - but I think there are things to be learned from the few places where it was (China etc).

Thank you. You beat me to it.

Constitutions are there to prevent democratically elected lawmakers from running wild.

What? Like the one they have in the US?

Hmmmmm :p

The only problem is that Islam is more a code of law as well as an religion than perhaps Christianity. It's very old school that way, because Judaism is quite similar.

That means Islam lends itself to a theocracy, where this code of law is administered by government, than Christianity.

That's kinda what I was getting at.

In America, yeah, a Mexican majority won't be a problem. The Europeans though.....their politicians are destroying themselves.

As long as Euro lawmakers keep appeasing Fundamentalist society's like the Islamic Council of Britain, either for their own warped sense of multiculturalism or to get their fair share of the expanding Muslim vote....the future Islamic Republic of Europe is not far off.

In the 70's, the Middle East was ruled predominantly by Secular Arab Nationists....but once the Western culture started to move in as the oil market grew, traditional Muslim values were threatened by an influx of Christian oil tycoons, tourists and the like.

Fundamentalism grew from there. The Secular states kept appeasing and appeasing, but eventually fell victim to the will of the Fundies.

That's what we're seeing in America today, with Fundie Christians becoming a powerful voting group, hence hijacking the future of Conservative Politics and in Europe, with insane "multiculturalism" and an expanding Muslim voting group that will soon prove too tempting for mainstream politicians to pass up.

That's what we're seeing in America today, with Fundie Christians becoming a powerful voting group, hence hijacking the future of Conservative Politics and in Europe, with insane "multiculturalism" and an expanding Muslim voting group that will soon prove too tempting for mainstream politicians to pass up.

Although I would argue that it's the "Fundamentalist Christians" that gave us the rights that we enjoy today.... But again that's a topic for another time.

Although I would argue that it's the "Fundamentalist Christians" that gave us the rights that we enjoy today.... But again that's a topic for another time.

Ok...thats interesting....start a new thread...

/Utilitarians as fundi christians...okaaay...

Ok...thats interesting....start a new thread...

/Utilitarians as fundi christians...okaaay...

Okay,... if you insist,... but I don't think that you'll like it....

Okay,... if you insist,... but I don't think that you'll like it....

I suspect you won't even know where to start...but carry on ;)

yes, thats precisely what has happened in places like Leeds...hmmmm

I believe a councillor there was elected based on a pledge to bring in stoning for adultery and to improve bin collection.