Closing ranks: The onset of a clash of civilizations

[Wolfbeckett]

That's a good point. Even though I have a hard time sympathising with people who have such viewpoints, part of the objective of this thread is to suss out more substantive things from such viewpoints apart from the "Islamophobic ranting" (whether or not some people understand what I'm going for here or choose not to understand and try to pick a fight instead).

I'm not saying you agree with the anti-immigration camp, but if you were a decision maker in Europe, knowing about the issues they are facing with immigration and cultures, what sort of decisions would you make today?

The decisions I would make would depend a great deal on which country I was in charge of in this hypothetical scenario. If I was in charge of a country that had little or no welfare state, I would be a lot more generous in letting people in since they aren't going to be taking money out of the pockets of the people who already live there. If I was making the decision in a country that had a large welfare state like Sweden it would be a different story, in that case I would feel morally obligated to be very selective about who I let in to make sure I'm only taking on people who seem likely to be a net gain for the country, people who are educated or have job skills.

In either case I would make sure that the immigrants were spaced out over the whole country, no immigrant camps, the idea being that there won't be enough of them in any one place to clump together and avoid interacting with the extant population, they'll have to shop at the same stores, eat at the same restaurants, etc. Mandatory classes to learn the local language seem appropriate as well, can't integrate with the community if you can't effectively communicate. That's just a few ideas, I'm sure there are other things that can be done to mitigate risk depending on exactly how selective I felt I needed to be based on the country I was in. I hear that Poland, for example, has been very choosy, only letting in a few hundred refugees, almost all of whom are Christian families.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

It gets a little tricky here though right? Put aside the racism/bigotry allegations... People get focused on that because of how much the accusation itself stings... but frankly that's a distraction, not the important issue. The real issue is whether keeping those "incompatibles" out is an accurate representation of our cultural ideology or not. If we believe that our way, the American way, is the best way, and will win out in the end... then this is where the moral equivalence comes into play, because they think their way is the best and will win out eventually. So the best way for us to prove that our wine is the sweetest, is to let them come over here and taste it. If we aren't willing to put the American way up to the Pepsi challenge, then we give way to the moral equivalence argument.

Is our American way so fragile, so weak, that it cant stand the insertion of a few million "incompatibles"? No, not if our way is objectively the best. If our way is the best then exposing and allowing and welcoming people who have different ideologies can only serve to accelerate the process of our way winning out, because eventually our culture and ideology will prove more attractive than theirs. It may take generations, but the only way for the American way to win, is to let everyone have an opportunity to experience it. Labeling whole segments of the population as incompatible seems fundamentally contradictory to the American ideal. Do you disagree?

In a comparison between cultures such as... say... ours and Japans, to use a random example, I absolutely agree with this. Let the cultures battle it out in the marketplace of ideas and may the best ideas win. But that equation changes when we're talking about a culture that encourages at least some of its adherents to use physical force to achieve that victory. It is true that most muslims are not violent terrorists, but it is also true that some ARE, and the marketplace of ideas cultural battle is not applicable to them because they have mistaken it for an actual battle and are willing to use bombs and AK-47's to make their ideological point.

So that's where we end up with a problem with the current refugee situation, because Syrian refugees cannot be properly vetted, no matter how many platitudes the Obama administration trots out about their "strict vetting process". The fact is these people are coming from countries where we do not have access to any kind of databases of information on the populations. Any vetting process done on these refugees is going to be by necessity hit-and-miss, because where are we supposed to get information to check on these people's backgrounds? The Syrian government is certainly not going to hand over what they have. So what vetting process can there be, really? An interview with someone from the FBI? Pretty sure terrorists are not going to have any moral quandary about lying to the FBI. So what's the vetting process? How are we making sure that we're only letting in people who aren't going to bomb the marketplace of ideas? If we could be, not even 100%, but at least reasonably sure that we had a vetting process that worked, then I'd be a lot more open to the immigration for exactly the reasons you pointed out, but I do not have any confidence in that whatsoever.

 

[Sommerswerd]

In a comparison between cultures such as... say... ours and Japans, to use a random example, I absolutely agree with this. Let the cultures battle it out in the marketplace of ideas and may the best ideas win. But that equation changes when we're talking about a culture that encourages at least some of its adherents to use physical force to achieve that victory. It is true that most muslims are not violent terrorists, but it is also true that some ARE, and the marketplace of ideas cultural battle is not applicable to them because they have mistaken it for an actual battle and are willing to use bombs and AK-47's to make their ideological point.

So that's where we end up with a problem with the current refugee situation, because Syrian refugees cannot be properly vetted, no matter how many platitudes the Obama administration trots out about their "strict vetting process". The fact is these people are coming from countries where we do not have access to any kind of databases of information on the populations. Any vetting process done on these refugees is going to be by necessity hit-and-miss, because where are we supposed to get information to check on these people's backgrounds? The Syrian government is certainly not going to hand over what they have. So what vetting process can there be, really? An interview with someone from the FBI? Pretty sure terrorists are not going to have any moral quandary about lying to the FBI. So what's the vetting process? How are we making sure that we're only letting in people who aren't going to bomb the marketplace of ideas? If we could be, not even 100%, but at least reasonably sure that we had a vetting process that worked, then I'd be a lot more open to the immigration for exactly the reasons you pointed out, but I do not have any confidence in that whatsoever.

This is exactly the issue that I think lies at the very heart of the refugee issue. Are we as Americans willing to take the risk to prove that the American way is best? Its one thing to say that we will take in people from different ideologies that have been proven safe... but what about the ones who haven't? Then there is a risk right? A serious risk as in, life-and-death risk. So are we, the American people willing to risk death individually to perpetuate and spread and prove the value and righteousness of the American way? In other words... Is the American Way worth dying for?

But it has to be, right? That's the whole basis of it. Otherwise its just an illusion, a bunch of rhetoric... Why send troops over there to die in the fight against terrorism if the American way isn't worth dying for?... because then its just back to the oil. And if its just about oil, then fine, I mean we do need the oil and thus it makes sense to fight for it... but then its a moral equivalence situation again, right?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

This is exactly the issue that I think lies at the very heart of the refugee issue. Are we as Americans willing to take the risk to prove that the American way is best? Its one thing to say that we will take in people from different ideologies that have been proven safe... but what about the ones who haven't? Then there is a risk right? A serious risk as in, life-and-death risk. So are we, the American people willing to risk death individually to perpetuate and spread and prove the value and righteousness of the American way? In other words... Is the American Way worth dying for?

But it has to be, right? That's the whole basis of it. Otherwise its just an illusion, a bunch of rhetoric... Why send troops over there to die in the fight against terrorism if the American way isn't worth dying for?... because then its just back to the oil. And if its just about oil, then fine, I mean we do need the oil and thus it makes sense to fight for it... but then its a moral equivalence situation again, right?

Whether it's worth dying for should be left up to the American people. It's not morally acceptable for the government to lie about how good the vetting process is in order to force that risk on everyone. Whether or not it is worth the risk is a valid debate to have and I could go either way depending on the arguments presented but any debate like that has to start with the government being 100% transparent and honest about exactly what it is we're debating. What is the vetting process? Where are these people actually coming from? Are they in fact mostly families, or mostly young, single men? These questions have to be clearly and honestly answered before the debate can even start and they haven't been, the government has instead offered vagueness and "just trust us, we know what's best for you, children." Forcing an unknown level of risk on an American population that has not had a chance to have a say in the matter is not how democracy and liberty are supposed to work.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Whether it's worth dying for should be left up to the American people. It's not morally acceptable for the government to lie about how good the vetting process is in order to force that risk on everyone. Whether or not it is worth the risk is a valid debate to have and I could go either way depending on the arguments presented but any debate like that has to start with the government being 100% transparent and honest about exactly what it is we're debating. What is the vetting process? Where are these people actually coming from? Are they in fact mostly families, or mostly young, single men? These questions have to be clearly and honestly answered before the debate can even start and they haven't been, the government has instead offered vagueness and "just trust us, we know what's best for you, children." Forcing an unknown level of risk on an American population that has not had a chance to have a say in the matter is not how democracy and liberty are supposed to work.

But then, this applies to the oil too, I think. If at least part of the reason we are over there is to secure our oil interests then they owe it to us to tell us that upfront and let us decide if its worth dying for.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

But then, this applies to the oil too, I think. If at least part of the reason we are over there is to secure our oil interests then they owe it to us to tell us that upfront and let us decide if its worth dying for.

Probably? That's bit beyond the scope of this thread, however, so I'm not going to explore it in detail.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't know about your country but all immigrants are checked. And if they don't have proper credentials chances are they will be turned back. If their asylum procedure doesn't grant asylum, they will be sent back. If they have a criminal record they may again be sent back. Nothing illegal going on here.

I don-t know about your country, but it must be surrounded by minefields or shark-infested waters. Because if there is a safe way to cross the border and the country is attractive to immigrants and asylum seekers, it will have illegal immigrants. They will get in and will not just volunteer to be identified and sent back where they came from (if you can even discover that).

 

[Akka]

In a comparison between cultures such as... say... ours and Japans, to use a random example, I absolutely agree with this. Let the cultures battle it out in the marketplace of ideas and may the best ideas win.

I find this concept of treating culture and market goods the same way deeply disturbing.

 

[Agent327]

I don-t know about your country, but it must be surrounded by minefields or shark-infested waters. Because if there is a safe way to cross the border and the country is attractive to immigrants and asylum seekers, it will have illegal immigrants. They will get in and will not just volunteer to be identified and sent back where they came from (if you can even discover that).

Sorry, no minefields or sharks here. Illegal immigrants are those who remain in the country after having being denied legal access.

That said, there's nothing illegal about migration in any way. It's a basic human right - something which tends to be forgotten in all these migrant discussions. Then, of course, there are plenty of states denying such rights - for political or other reasons. And in other cases this basic right is being severely restricted.

Now state authorities would obviously like all migrants to properly register and go through all required proceedings. Sadly, reality often does not conform to this ideal. Hence the term 'illegal immigrants'. (There are also illegal emigrants, but one hears much less about those these days, oddly.)

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I find this concept of treating culture and market goods the same way deeply disturbing.

You're going to need to explain why if you expect any kind of response.

 

[Agent327]

Apples and oranges? Where one of the two is actually neither?

 

[Akka]

You're going to need to explain why if you expect any kind of response.

I'm going to have to explain why culture isn't a market good ?
Because it's not a commodity but the "soul" of a people and what makes it separate from another ? Because values aren't something that lends itself to be bought and sold ?

 

[Verbose]

You're going to need to explain why if you expect any kind of response.

Culture isn't a bunch of commodities. It's what might produce different kinds of demands though.

Cultures aren't some kind of fixed things. That's probably the biggest point to keep in mind.

Its not some kind of hard-coded program that individuals and groups respond or act according to. Neither "western culture" or whatever the Salafist terrorists get off on. It's a much more fluid and open-ended thing. It's more like musical improvisation on certain themes, I'd say.

So it's not so much about who HAS the "best culture", but what all kinds of groups and individuals withing this or that society — at it's core or at its fringe or wherever — end up doing with what they have to work with, as well as every bit that can expropriate, adopt and adept, which is also a continous ongoing process.

What's there, that might be apt, is that there is intense competition. And in that way things resemble the original function of a basic market situation. Recognising that it'a a competition for hearts and minds, on a global scale, might be a decent starting point.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I'm not sure you people understood what I meant by the marketplace of ideas. That's how western civilization already works. What do you think all of the political ads you see on TV are for? They're advertising sets of ideas, which you then choose between at the polls. When you see one ad that says "Vote yes on proposition 420, because legalizing marijuana is the best option" and then another ad that says "Vote no on proposition 420, because marijuana is a devil plant who's scourge must be stopped", that is the marketplace of ideas happening. You are deciding which of those ideas to "buy" when you go and vote on proposition 420. I can't believe I'm even having to explain this.

A state without a marketplace of ideas is a dictatorship, you all are acting like this is some kind of radical new concept when this is already how democracy works.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think this "marketplace" discussion, or whether culture is a "commodity" is really the point. The substantive point is whether you think that the fundamentals of Western civilization are objectively better, or if you think that Middle Eastern fundamentals (whether that is Sharia and such or otherwise) are just a "different," but morally equivalent way of running a society.

 

[luiz]

That said, there's nothing illegal about migration in any way. It's a basic human right - something which tends to be forgotten in all these migrant discussions. Then, of course, there are plenty of states denying such rights - for political or other reasons. And in other cases this basic right is being severely restricted.

What's moral and what's legal are two different things. You may think immigration is a basic human right, but that doesn't change the fact that if it's done in a manner outside the law of some country, it is by definition illegal.

Simple practicality and common sense dictate that migration can't be irrestricted and treated as a "basic right". If every Indian in the world decided to move to Switzerland, that wouldn't work out very well. Therefore immigration must be regulated by laws, with countries controlling who gets to come in and who doesn't, and therefore there is such thing as illegal immigration.

 

[Dachs]

I don't think this "marketplace" discussion, or whether culture is a "commodity" is really the point. The substantive point is whether you think that the fundamentals of Western civilization are objectively better, or if you think that Middle Eastern fundamentals (whether that is Sharia and such or otherwise) are just a "different," but morally equivalent way of running a society.

or whether you think those so-called fundamentals are even actually Things at all

 

[Sommerswerd]

or whether you think those so-called fundamentals are even actually Things at all

Sure, so that's a no then to "the American way is the better way" right?

 

[Oerdin]

The decisions I would make would depend a great deal on which country I was in charge of in this hypothetical scenario. If I was in charge of a country that had little or no welfare state, I would be a lot more generous in letting people in since they aren't going to be taking money out of the pockets of the people who already live there. If I was making the decision in a country that had a large welfare state like Sweden it would be a different story, in that case I would feel morally obligated to be very selective about who I let in to make sure I'm only taking on people who seem likely to be a net gain for the country, people who are educated or have job skills.

In either case I would make sure that the immigrants were spaced out over the whole country, no immigrant camps, the idea being that there won't be enough of them in any one place to clump together and avoid interacting with the extant population, they'll have to shop at the same stores, eat at the same restaurants, etc. Mandatory classes to learn the local language seem appropriate as well, can't integrate with the community if you can't effectively communicate. That's just a few ideas, I'm sure there are other things that can be done to mitigate risk depending on exactly how selective I felt I needed to be based on the country I was in. I hear that Poland, for example, has been very choosy, only letting in a few hundred refugees, almost all of whom are Christian families.

Great points. I think you over looked the fact that a job is the best way to get someone to intigrate as it forces them to interact with people outside their own community. One of the reasons Sweden, Italy, and France have failed so miserably at intigrating the new comers is that they have high minimum wages (many of the migrants aren't worth such wages as they have no job skills thus they don't get hired), they make it expensive to fire bad workers (thus employers don't want to take a chance on iffy workers they will have a hard time getting rid of if they don't work out), and generally have highly regulated labor markets. Change those things and suddenly hiring even a no skill/low skill worker becomes viable. Such low paying work is the first step on the ladder and helps migrants gain country specific human capital which will help them eventually find better jobs.

Lastly, you can't really intigrate people who do not want to be intigrated. If they think they are superior due to religious virtue or any other reason or that the native culture has no value to them then they won't want to intigrate especially if they have a nice generous welfare state enabling their refusal to intigrate (see Sweden and Norway). Denmark is actually the smartest of the Nordic states when it comes to incentivizing intigration and punishing refusal to intigrate.

 

[Agent327]

Great points. I think you over looked the fact that a job is the best way to get someone to intigrate as it forces them to interact with people outside their own community. One of the reasons Sweden, Italy, and France have failed so miserably at intigrating the new comers is that they have high minimum wages (many of the migrants aren't worth such wages as they have no job skills thus they don't get hired), they make it expensive to fire bad workers (thus employers don't want to take a chance on iffy workers they will have a hard time getting rid of if they don't work out), and generally have highly regulated labor markets. Change those things and suddenly hiring even a no skill/low skill worker becomes viable. Such low paying work is the first step on the ladder and helps migrants gain country specific human capital which will help them eventually find better jobs.

Actually, there are no reliable statistics on the 'newcomers' as of yet. But interesting argument. (As opposed to the rest of your argument.)