Does Race exist?

[H4run]

@Truthy wait truthy, I'm outside and working, I'll get this post past midnight.

 

[H4run]

I think I agree with this.

As an aside, here's an interesting article from 2014 arguing that clustering doesn't support race realism.

Thank you for the article

I agree, though to be fair, if you use someone's membership in a cluster you get a lot more information than just skin color or eye color.

Of course, it just a simplified example, but we are agreed that the information that it may provides are strictly biomedical related, like the vulnerability toward certain disease or possibility to get certain inherited or genetical disease. However if you say it also gives information about peoples IQ, behavior, any non biomedical variable, that I will strongly disagree.

I'm not sure I understand.

I mean genetic classification only mirror implication that related to genetic, like biomedical, however if one argued like a nativist and claimed that it also implied the backwardness of certain race, certain culture, yada yada, that's when I strongly disagree.

But from what I read I think you are no different than me.

 

[Hehehe]

So.. You don't explain your measures for why mass immigration is bad, the only talking point you manage is "fiscal drain" and "crime" (without posting any sources), and you don't specifiy a country you're talking about. Thanks for the worthless post and the reminder that there is absolutely no point ever replying to you.

Do you understand what fiscal net drain means? It means they cost your country money. I have the numbers for Finland and US (US numbers courtesy of Estebonrober, thanks for sharing). In Finland, the cost per immigrant is even higher, but we have less of them in total. In fact, Helsingin Sanomat, a center-left newspaper, recently did an article about immigrant crime rates. It's in Finnish, but that's the case with nearly all Finnish sources.

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.

• The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
• The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
• At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
• Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
• The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households

...

Workers. A popular misconception about the American welfare system is that it mainly benefits people who are not in the labor force. In fact, most means-tested anti-poverty programs are open to low-wage workers. For that reason, limiting the analysis to households with at least one worker, as Table 4 does, only modestly reduces the welfare cost estimates. The drop is especially small for immigrant households — from an overall cost of $6,234 in Table 2 to $5,340 in Table 4 — because 84 percent of immigrant households already contain a worker (vs. 73 percent of native households). Therefore, the higher welfare spending on immigrant households compared to native households is not due to a lack of work among immigrants. The difference is better explained by the demographic factors analyzed below.

...

This study focuses on the cost of major welfare programs used by immigrant and native households. By contrast, a complete fiscal analysis would measure the cost of all government services and compare those costs with the taxes paid by each type of household. Some readers may wonder whether broadening the analysis would reveal that immigrant households make up for their greater welfare cost by paying higher taxes. This is not the case. As the previous CIS study of welfare participation demonstrated, immigrant households pay only about 89 cents in federal income and payroll taxes for every dollar paid by native households.9

The aforementioned report by the National Research Council, which did measure all government expenditures and taxes paid, found that immigrant households cost taxpayers as much as $2,200 per year in the 1990s, depending on their state of residence.10 More recently, the Heritage Foundation's complete fiscal analysis (to which the author of this study contributed) estimated that the average legal immigrant household paid $4,344 less in taxes than it received in services in 2010, compared to a deficit of just $310 for the average native household.11 For the most up-to-date numbers, the National Research Council will release a new analysis later this year.

It becomes important to not conflate immigrants with refugees. An immigrant policy has to be carried under strategic thinking. A refugee policy is part of humanitarian treaties

Any refugee that comes from, or through a safe country is an immigrant, and not a refugee. Finland doesn't border any unsafe countries, and thus we have zero obligation to take in any refugees.

 

[El_Machinae]

Any refugee that comes from, or through a safe country is an immigrant, and not a refugee. Finland doesn't border any unsafe countries, and thus we have zero obligation to take in any refugees.

Well, depends which treaty. Finland isn't part of (say) NATO and therefore is under no mutual defense obligation (on that front) when it comes to help dilute the risks of taking in too many refugees at once. Just don't ask for help.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Do you understand what fiscal net drain means? It means they cost your country money. I have the numbers for Finland and US (US numbers courtesy of Estebonrober, thanks for sharing). In Finland, the cost per immigrant is even higher, but we have less of them in total. In fact, Helsingin Sanomat, a center-left newspaper, recently did an article about immigrant crime rates. It's in Finnish, but that's the case with nearly all Finnish sources.

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households



Any refugee that comes from, or through a safe country is an immigrant, and not a refugee. Finland doesn't border any unsafe countries, and thus we have zero obligation to take in any refugees.

I know what fiscal net drain means, but in order to create a meaningful argument you would have to point out how the fiscal net drain outweighs to productivity added to the workforce and the additional demand created by the migrants, not just for now, but looking 10 years in the future. you are attempting to show a multifaceted issue from one side only, which is arguing in bad faith.

very convenient that you only have one single article in Finnish, but present yourself as an expert on the topic. I for my part spent months going through articles, official police data and census data in order to decide whether or not immigrants/refugees commit more crime than the native population.

as it turns out, at least in Germany, "non-Germans" (nowadays they are classified as Zuwanderer, but this was back in 2017) commit more crime then Germans do, but then you factor in that many of those "non-Germans" are people that are in Germany illegally, people that came from other European countries borders, or are part of organized crime. Another factor is that everyone who passes a border illegally, lacks the necessary documents, and so on, is also a de-facto criminal , meaning crime rates for "migrants" are already inflated that way. If you however look at refugees as a group, they commit roughly the same amount of crime as native Germans do.

Asyl- und Schutzberechtigte machen nur 0,5 Prozent aller Tatverdächtigen aus – und sind damit weitaus gesetzestreuer als Deutsche.

Accepted Asylum Seekers are only 0,5% of all suspects and commit less crime than the native population. (accepted asylum seekers is not synonymous with refugee)

https://www.zeit.de/news/2018-06/08/fluechtlinge-und-kriminalitaet-180608-99-636763

https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInfor...riminalitaetImKontextVonZuwanderung_node.html

 

[Modder_Mode]

hack and a racist.

You know, it really is incredible how someone can simply throw a racist label at someone else because they don't agree with them, people can and have lost jobs, future employment opportunities, relationships and not to mention a lifetime of stigma, and its done with such ease, worse of all, there's no consequences to what people like you do.
What makes him a racist?

I could've written a whole big thing, but this completely suffices to make my point on Jensen, Lynn, Rushton and all their friends, race science, faulty methodology and everything else:

The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was taken from a group of children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.[96]

I don't always grandiosely misrepresent, but when I do it is grandiose. Tell me again what any of that has to do with Professor James Flynn?

I would love to see you actually link your two articles you cite in this post rather than posting them and basically ask us to take your word for it or go searching ourselves. You are positing a point that is against common accepted knowledge on the topic it is on you to demonstrate that the common wisdom on the topic is wrong. I've posted why it is still accurate and still a fundamental problem in our police state ( don't kid yourself with almost 10% of the population in jail at one point in time or another we are the most prolific police state in the world).

I'm very cautious when it comes to posting links on forums, I was banned on another forum without warning because I posted a link that allegedly went against the forum rules, despite the rules never mentioning anything about it and despite the website linked too not even being controversial.

Bezerker already posted the link: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15591700/mass-incarceration-john-pfaff-locked-in

They didn't have a drug war targeting the children of black soldiers. Black subculture reflects the reality on the ground, it doesn't cause it. Why did 'gangsta rap' become a thing? Because the drug war put gangsters in charge of the recreational drug industry.

Thats true for people of African descent too, immigrants just have a different mindset from natives and from the natives they left behind. Now if they were subjected to centuries of oppression and targeted in a drug war their mindset would change.

Do you believe those successful people were unaffected by the drug war in their neighborhoods? You're pointing to the people who survived the situation better than others to argue the situation is not to blame. Thats like pointing to swimmers who survived a flood to complain about the people who drowned instead of the flood.

Drug wars are violent, they produce more conflict between law enforcement and the population and within the population itself. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, going to jail for marijuana is a gateway crime. If you cant legally sell your drug then you cant ask the cops to protect you, so you get a gun and maybe a gang for protection. Same thing happened during alcohol prohibition when homicide rates doubled followed by 13 years in a row of declining rates after repeal.

Would you agree the black market in drugs is a factor in the amount of violence we see? If gangsters are fighting over market share and go to jail for the resulting violence would you detach that reality from the drug war that promoted the violence? If beer was illegal and the Busch and Miller gangs were shooting it out would you ignore the war on beer when identifying cause and effect?

The author says more people are in jail for violent crimes but doesn't address why violent crime increased. If the drug war promotes violence - and it does - then arguing the drug war is not a significant factor in mass incarceration because more people are in jail for violent crimes is missing the point.

And that doesn't happen now? What has the drug war accomplished? Would you agree marijuana is among the most benign of recreational drugs when calculating social costs? What happened when Nixon began his war on pot? Many smugglers switched to other drugs that were more potent or concentrated, more easily hidden, drugs like cocaine and heroin. So how did the war on pot turn out? Did we win? What happened to the war on cocaine and heroin? They led to wars on crack and now opiates.

Because there's a direct correlation between socioeconomics and crime. Once you take class out of the picture you can see how class drives these incarceration rates in the first place.
Do you think there's evidence that economic disparities between blacks and whites is institutionalized/systemic racism?

It would almost seem like you are advocating the removal or watering down of drugs laws? Do you think illegal drugs should be legalized?
I don't do drugs, I never have and hopefully never will, so I don't know the personal effects of drug use, I do however know of a number of people who do/have done drugs and the impacts it has had.

1 what are you measures?
2 how has immigration been "disastrous"?
3 for whom has immigration been "disastrous"?

It depends on how you view multiculturalism and diversity. If people immigrated with similar values and culture then you will see it as a success, but its not because multiculturalism was successful its because they already shared those commonalities. But if the opposite occurs you will view this as a negative and will say that multiculturalism is a failure.

 

[Hehehe]

I know what fiscal net drain means, but in order to create a meaningful argument you would have to point out how the fiscal net drain outweighs to productivity added to the workforce and the additional demand created by the migrants, not just for now, but looking 10 years in the future. you are attempting to show a multifaceted issue from one side only, which is arguing in bad faith.

I don't know about Germany, but Finland has little need for uneducated people, and what little we need, we can produce ourselves. The employment rates for Islamic immigrants are generally very low, even after 10 years. The Finnish economy simply does not need their input. If you have a time machine, and you can give me stats from 10 years in the future, then please, by all means. I, however, only have the present to work with. Many immigration proponents do seem to be banking on some magical integration, which supposedly will happen but never does.

very convenient that you only have one single article in Finnish, but present yourself as an expert on the topic. I for my part spent months going through articles, official police data and census data in order to decide whether or not immigrants/refugees commit more crime than the native population.

I thought this crime disparity is common knowledge. In any case, that's the problem with discussing stats from different countries: I don't speak German, so German links are useless to me. You don't speak Finnish, so Finnish links are useless to you. If I had to break it down, the link I gave you basically says that Iraqis are 12 times more likely to rape, and 10 times more likely to rape kids, something which is a hot topic here since there was a grooming gang scandal in Finland recently. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but in Finland gangraping little kids is frowned upon.

In general, we've had the data for a long time. Like this study here, for example. It's in Finnish, but there is an English summary at the end, and I will be translating every part I'm citing here. I think that these charts, taken from the study, should sum this up nicely.

Link to chart, just in case

as it turns out, at least in Germany, "non-Germans" (nowadays they are classified as Zuwanderer, but this was back in 2017) commit more crime then Germans do, but then you factor in that many of those "non-Germans" are people that are in Germany illegally, people that came from other European countries borders, or are part of organized crime. Another factor is that everyone who passes a border illegally, lacks the necessary documents, and so on, is also a de-facto criminal , meaning crime rates for "migrants" are already inflated that way. If you however look at refugees as a group, they commit roughly the same amount of crime as native Germans do.



Accepted Asylum Seekers are only 0,5% of all suspects and commit less crime than the native population. (accepted asylum seekers is not synonymous with refugee)

https://www.zeit.de/news/2018-06/08/fluechtlinge-und-kriminalitaet-180608-99-636763

https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInfor...riminalitaetImKontextVonZuwanderung_node.html

So where do I find a breakdown by offender nationality?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I don't know about Germany, but Finland has little need for uneducated people

Prove that they are uneducated instead of making baseless assumptions. Literally every refugee I've met has either succesfully finished an apprenticeship or was studying at university before they left.

The Finnish economy simply does not need their input

Ah, but it needs someone else's input? Obsolute nonsense. Every European nation is facing one issue: The demographic shift. We do not have enough young people in the workforce to care for the massive amount of retired people awaiting us. You cannot deny this, unless you are purposefully being stubborn.

Many immigration proponents do seem to be banking on some magical integration, which supposedly will happen but never does.

You talk like a snake, and wiggle like one, too. Your rhetoric is toxic to the utter maximum.

the link I gave you basically says that Iraqis are 12 times more likely to rape, and 10 times more likely to rape kids, something which is a hot topic here since there was a grooming gang scandal in Finland recently. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but in Finland gangraping little kids is frowned upon.

yeah, I don't believe a word of this until I've seen some proper sources. since you have consciously left out any English speaking sources, I'll bombard you with some:

German crime rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years, even with "migrant" crime factored in!

https://www.thelocal.de/20180509/what-we-learned-from-this-years-crime-statistics-and-what-we-didnt

Accounting for the above variables, the study concluded by illustrating that refugees (note by me: refugees does NOT mean foreigners/non-native), refugees are far less likely to commit crimes than the population as a whole. This reflects similar studies conducted elsewhere, which have indicated that immigrant populations on the whole are less likely to commit crimes than locals.

https://www.thelocal.de/20181221/st...k-between-foreigners-refugees-and-criminality

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/30/upshot/crime-immigration-myth.html

Police crime statistics

https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/PoliceCrimeStatistics/policecrimestatistics_node.html

Foreigners more likely to be suspect in crime regardless of involvement:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170926/wh...likely-to-be-suspects-in-sexual-assault-cases

On rape:

To answer these questions, DER SPIEGEL reviewed crime statistics, interviewed police officials, consulted academic experts and analyzed around 450 online news reports about purported sex crimes alleged to have been committed by asylum-seekers and immigrants. Our reporters also visited police stations, public prosecutors and courts to uncover the background behind the news reports and the ultimate outcome of any proceedings. Some cases were revisited up to five different times and in several instances, reporters also met with people involved in the cases for background interviews. The reporters then analyzed the documents and information together with data-journalism specialists and fact-checkers.

When the term "rape" comes up, many people instinctively think of an unknown assailant pulling women into the bushes at night. But according to calculations by the Center for Criminology, a research institute run by Germany's federal government in conjunction with state governments, the alleged perpetrator is only a stranger in one-fifth of all reported rapes and serious sexual assaults. Most often, the alleged perpetrator is an acquaintance, friend or relative.

So much for the shadowy "rapefugee". Almost all rape still happens in toxic relationships, marriages, sexualized friendships..

The panel exists because Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann announced shortly before the German federal election last September that the number of rapes and serious sexual abuses had risen in Bavaria during the first half of 2017 by 47.9 percent. He said 126 of the 685 crimes could be attributed to immigrants, 91 percent more than in the same period the previous year. The latter statistic roughly reflects the findings of the BKA, but the Bavarian crime statistics additionally count those who have been granted asylum as part of its figures for the category of immigrants.

tl;dr: Reportings (that is the metric that is counted) of rape have increased significantly, yet immigrants commit roughly 1/5th of the sexual assaults. So they alone cannot account for that increase numerically. Does that mean that Germans are much more likely to rape in 2017 than they were in 2016? No, it doesn't. What really happened is that after Köln many German women realized that being groped did count as sexual assault. most were oblivious, and many judges simply counted groping as "insulting" or some other absolute minor charge. But that has changed, luckily.

unless you want to believe that German's are getting significantly more rapey every year while somehow crime statistics on the whole are falling, you have to concede the point that rape statistics are inflated (note: for good reason), because what does or does not count as rape has changed significantly in the last decade, and even the last few years.

huh, weird isn't it? you somehow cannot produce a single English speaking source on your "statistics", meanwhile I google around for two minutes and find official sources undermining my point.

 

[Hehehe]

Prove that they are uneducated instead of making baseless assumptions. Literally every refugee I've met has either succesfully finished an apprenticeship or was studying at university before they left.

You do realize that anecdotes aren't valid data, right?

Ah, but it needs someone else's input? Obsolute nonsense. Every European nation is facing one issue: The demographic shift. We do not have enough young people in the workforce to care for the massive amount of retired people awaiting us. You cannot deny this, unless you are purposefully being stubborn.

And how does importing unemployable people, who are a net drain, help that shift? If anything, it just makes things worse

yeah, I don't believe a word of this until I've seen some proper sources. since you have consciously left out any English speaking sources, I'll bombard you with some:

German crime rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years, even with "migrant" crime factored in!

https://www.thelocal.de/20180509/what-we-learned-from-this-years-crime-statistics-and-what-we-didnt

Accounting for the above variables, the study concluded by illustrating that refugees (note by me: refugees does NOT mean foreigners/non-native), refugees are far less likely to commit crimes than the population as a whole. This reflects similar studies conducted elsewhere, which have indicated that immigrant populations on the whole are less likely to commit crimes than locals.

https://www.thelocal.de/20181221/st...k-between-foreigners-refugees-and-criminality

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/30/upshot/crime-immigration-myth.html

Police crime statistics

https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/PoliceCrimeStatistics/policecrimestatistics_node.html

Foreigners more likely to be suspect in crime regardless of involvement:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170926/wh...likely-to-be-suspects-in-sexual-assault-cases

I'm just going to skip all of that, since it's not in English. That's fair right?

On rape:

To answer these questions, DER SPIEGEL reviewed crime statistics, interviewed police officials, consulted academic experts and analyzed around 450 online news reports about purported sex crimes alleged to have been committed by asylum-seekers and immigrants. Our reporters also visited police stations, public prosecutors and courts to uncover the background behind the news reports and the ultimate outcome of any proceedings. Some cases were revisited up to five different times and in several instances, reporters also met with people involved in the cases for background interviews. The reporters then analyzed the documents and information together with data-journalism specialists and fact-checkers.

When the term "rape" comes up, many people instinctively think of an unknown assailant pulling women into the bushes at night. But according to calculations by the Center for Criminology, a research institute run by Germany's federal government in conjunction with state governments, the alleged perpetrator is only a stranger in one-fifth of all reported rapes and serious sexual assaults. Most often, the alleged perpetrator is an acquaintance, friend or relative.

So much for the shadowy "rapefugee". Almost all rape still happens in toxic relationships, marriages, sexualized friendships..

Yes, that is exactly how grooming gangs operate. This isn't a refutation. Give me a breakdown by nationality.

The panel exists because Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann announced shortly before the German federal election last September that the number of rapes and serious sexual abuses had risen in Bavaria during the first half of 2017 by 47.9 percent. He said 126 of the 685 crimes could be attributed to immigrants, 91 percent more than in the same period the previous year. The latter statistic roughly reflects the findings of the BKA, but the Bavarian crime statistics additionally count those who have been granted asylum as part of its figures for the category of immigrants.

tl;dr: Reportings (that is the metric that is counted) of rape have increased significantly, yet immigrants commit roughly 1/5th of the sexual assaults. So they alone cannot account for that increase numerically. Does that mean that Germans are much more likely to rape in 2017 than they were in 2016? No, it doesn't. What really happened is that after Köln many German women realized that being groped did count as sexual assault. most were oblivious, and many judges simply counted groping as "insulting" or some other absolute minor charge. But that has changed, luckily.

This is exactly why I'm asking you for a breakdown by the perpetrators country of origin. "Refugee" doesn't say much in and of itself. It doesn't tell us about the naturalization process. Did they gain German citizenship, and therefore they now count towards German crime statistics?

unless you want to believe that German's are getting significantly more rapey every year while somehow crime statistics on the whole are falling, you have to concede the point that rape statistics are inflated (note: for good reason), because what does or does not count as rape has changed significantly in the last decade, and even the last few years.

Yes, overall crime rates have been going down since the 70's. None of this contradicts what I've said, which is that 3rd world immigrants are still over-represented in crime statistics.

huh, weird isn't it? you somehow cannot produce a single English speaking source on your "statistics", meanwhile I google around for two minutes and find official sources undermining my point.

You undermined your own point? Look buddy, I gave you official sources, with English summary, and provided you with a translation of the exact charts. At this point, you're just jamming your fingers into your ears and screaming "laalalaa I can't hear you".

In 2018, the interior ministry's report "Criminality in context with immigration" (German: Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung) [7] for the first time summarized and singled out all people who entered Germany via the asylum system. The group called "immigrants" includes all asylum seekers, tolerated people, "unauthorized residents" and all those entitled to protection (subsidiary protected, contingent refugees and refugees under the Geneva Convention and asylum). The group represented roughly 2 percent of the German population by end of 2017,[10] but was suspected of committing 8.5 percent of crimes (violations off the German alien law are not included). The numbers suggest that the differences could at least to some extent have to do with the fact that the refugees are younger and more often male than the average German. The statistics show that the asylum-group is highly overrepresented for some types of crime. They account for 14.3 percent of all suspects in crimes against life (which include murder, manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter), 12.2 percent of sexual offences, 11.4 percent of thefts and 9.7 percent of body injuries The report also shows differences between the origin of migrants. Syrians are underrepresented as suspects, whereas citizens from most African countries, especially northern Africans are strongly overerrepresented. Afghans and Pakistanis are particularly overerrepresented in sexual offenses.[7][10]

So it seems like you cherrypicked refugees (Syrians), because it supports your argument

 

[El_Machinae]

We do have to compare like to like. It's hard when it comes to immigration, but I can see why people have standards. Ten years after being born, I don't know of any Canadian citizens that are not still economic drains for another decade. Even when viewed as an entire cohort, the 10 year olds that are economically productive are not capable of overwhelming the average out of negative

I'm just saying it's hard to calculate net economic drain. Anyone native-born has a huge drain component on their resume before they start being productive. And at that point, we're mostly looking at the average. We live in a world where we pretend that people add net productivity on average, but we cheat because we are eroding the ecology in the process.

I also don't want to dismiss the idea that some nations are better at integration than others. Finland has a long history of internal solidarity. Compare that to Canada, which has a good history of bringing in new immigrants, but has been incapable of integrating its native population.

 

[Farm Boy]

Children are not drains, they are the appropriate anchor of communities. Money is one way to score, but it is not the game. I'm really very upset with our current Assclown for attempting to model German and Canadian immigration policy. We're not generally efficient with our economics, but we are, relatively, with our assimilation and for the most part I'd put it on not historically being evil/stupid about families being front and center of value, not God Money. Ah well, his organized competition is dropping off, I suppose that particular worship will mainstream and bigotize a bit more.

 

[red_elk]

Compare that to Canada, which has a good history of bringing in new immigrants, but has been incapable of integrating its native population.

Integrating its native population...
Yes, native population usually doesn't like newcomers who want to integrate them somewhere.

 

[El_Machinae]

Integrating its native population...
Yes, native population usually doesn't like newcomers who want to integrate them somewhere.

I know. But 'integration' isn't necessarily a bad thing. As it is, we have two very different societies that prefer to remain separate instead of joining each other for mutual gain.

I never said Canada failed to 'force' integration. I said they failed integration. A willing integration can always happen, you know ... and that's deemed a success.

In Canada, there's no 'newcomer' with regards to native population. The two cultures have significantly changed since then. There're only historical victims and oppressors now.

 

[Hehehe]

We do have to compare like to like. It's hard when it comes to immigration, but I can see why people have standards. Ten years after being born, I don't know of any Canadian citizens that are not still economic drains for another decade. Even when viewed as an entire cohort, the 10 year olds that are economically productive are not capable of overwhelming the average out of negative

I'm just saying it's hard to calculate net economic drain. Anyone native-born has a huge drain component on their resume before they start being productive. And at that point, we're mostly looking at the average. We live in a world where we pretend that people add net productivity on average, but we cheat because we are eroding the ecology in the process.

I also don't want to dismiss the idea that some nations are better at integration than others. Finland has a long history of internal solidarity. Compare that to Canada, which has a good history of bringing in new immigrants, but has been incapable of integrating its native population.

Two things to note: in Finland, something like 44% of all taxes are paid by the top 10%. So if we assume that all citizens use government services equally, that would mean that most people are a net drain. The mathematics of this get messy, but generally a lot of the immigrants that come in are unemployed, and most of the ones that are employed work in low skill jobs. These low skill jobs pay so little, that the taxes paid by the low wage immigrants are nowhere near enough to cover for the people who don't work. Second, Canada's immigration policies have been much more successful, not because Canada can integrate immigrants (it can't), but rather because Canada has been able to select and only let in successful immigrants.

I'm not totally against all immigration, very selective immigration policies probably would be a net benefit for the host nation. The problem is that we aren't doing that.

 

[Hrothbern]

"Integration" is a nice high level and therewith also fluffy concept imo.

Integration into what ?

and then I do not mean that I have to drive my car on the other side of the road in for example the UK, and how to tip money when I pay my beer.

Integration means that you would be able to describe the culture and traditions of a country !
Well... you can describe a lot of things that are indeed very practical in avoiding upsetting other people, or having unwanted & unexpected side effects.
But if you live in a normal country you have already between your autochtone people a lot of culture sets... so you need not so much that common denominator, but the most frequent culture elements and traditions (and taboos).
An ocean of fish when you integrate into an urban area.

And hey... surprise surprise, foreign migrants "integrate" much better in urban areas than domestic mobility "migrants" from rural areas of the same country (at least in NL).

And I did not even touch upon foundational culture.
Still struggling with that
And if I cannot properly describe that in words for myself... how do I explain that to others ?

 

[Hrothbern]

I'm not totally against all immigration, very selective immigration policies probably would be a net benefit for the host nation. The problem is that we aren't doing that.

And indeed you should do it.
If only that very small amount of on usefulness "filtered" migrants trickles in... you have at least the process of the widening of cultural tolerance started.

 

[Hehehe]

"Integration" is a nice high level and therewith also fluffy concept imo.

Integration into what ?

That's a good point. I believe that any immigrants can learn their host country's language in 3 generations, but their economic position may or may not become comparable to the native population.

And indeed you should do it.
If only that very small amount of on usefulness "filtered" migrants trickles in... you have at least the process of the widening of cultural tolerance started.

So here's the thing: are immigrants harmful to their host society, because their host society has negative attitudes towards them? Or do people have negative attitudes towards immigrants because immigrants are harmful to their host society? Cause and effect

 

[red_elk]

I know. But 'integration' isn't necessarily a bad thing. As it is, we have two very different societies that prefer to remain separate instead of joining each other for mutual gain.

I never said Canada failed to 'force' integration. I said they failed integration. A willing integration can always happen, you know ... and that's deemed a success.

In Canada, there's no 'newcomer' with regards to native population. The two cultures have significantly changed since then. There're only historical victims and oppressors now.

I understand your point, just reacted to the irony in sentence "integrating native population"
And imagined 2100 year, Finnish Arabian Republic struggling to integrate natives into their society.

 

[El_Machinae]

Two things to note: in Finland, something like 44% of all taxes are paid by the top 10%. So if we assume that all citizens use government services equally, that would mean that most people are a net drain.

There's a fallacy here, thinking that it's the taxpayers are the ones who contribute to society. It's not true. First off, there are two 'contributions'. There's the output of your productivity that goes into benefiting people locally. And then there's the reduction in consumption by someone so that a 'government worker' can partake of that consumption. If someone isn't paying taxes in a progressive system, but is employed in a profitable enterprise, there's a strong chance that they're not a 'drain'. I wrote about this in more depth below.

I have a new way of explaining the idea of who pays taxes, the idea that 'most taxes are paid by the rich' is a trick of math and that's it. The working poor have already been taxed through the function of having their consumption reduced. I hope the next two paragraphs capture the idea.

Consider this, if I buy a plowhorse for my farm, the total taxes I pay goes up because my total income has gone up. If the horse gets better at its job, my taxes go up even more. If I figure out how to cut its feed efficiently, or if I figure out how to cut its living conditions efficiently, my taxes go up (because its feed is deductible). This is because I capture the majority of the horse's productivity as profit and then I am taxed on that profit. Some people would then say "oh, the horse is not contributing very much to society! It pays zero taxes!". But, it's very clear that the horse is a net contributor to the economy as a whole. But if I can cut its wage by reducing its heat or by feeding it less-tasty food, then my taxes go up.

It works the same with my technicians. I bill them out at $100 per hour. I pay them $20 per hour. Marginal costs are $30 per hour. So I make $50 per hour off of their labour. They get taxed on the $20. I get taxed on the $50. If I can reduce their pay to $15, I get taxed on the $55 and it looks like my total tax contribution has gone up and theirs has gone down. Their contribution to society hasn't gone down. If they get better at their job, so that I bill $120 then I get taxed on the $70 and they continue to get taxed on their income. You'll note that in the $120 scenario, it doesn't matter who caused their value-increase. I could have bought a new tool. They could have bought a new tool. Whatevs.

 

[Lexicus]

There's a fallacy here, thinking that it's the taxpayers are the ones who contribute to society. It's not true. First off, there are two 'contributions'. There's the output of your productivity that goes into benefiting people locally. And then there's the reduction in consumption by someone so that a 'government worker' can partake of that consumption. If someone isn't paying taxes in a progressive system, but is employed in a profitable enterprise, there's a strong chance that they're not a 'drain'. I wrote about this in more depth below.

Or you know you could just firmly assert that people are "ends in themselves" and as such considering anyone a "drain on society" is disgusting social darwinist poison