Less Immigration is Racist?

[Samson]

Already done, in my two first answers to you in fact :


You're just conflating completely different concepts and pretending it's all the same. I'm curious what would be your actual definition of "racism", but it seems it's basically the entire breadth of "discrimination" that is included.

You're basically saying that territory doesn't exist. Good luck with reality is all what I can say.

As said previously, you're throwing "this is racism" in a completely meaningless way. Using words without actual meaning and just for shock value was precisely what I was pointing, and you're just doubling down on it.
Also, you're being either disingenuous or just straight-up idiotic when asking why adding a lot of people with a different culture would alter the culture of a country.
And I don't even know what to answer when you wonder who would care when their culture is changed. I mean, I didn't expect to have to point out that culture is considered to be a pretty big deal by a lot of people...

I have pointed out 2 or 3 examples where discrimination based on culture is referred to as racism. There is a case to be made that racism is the wrong word to use when people are genetically indistinguishable, and we should use another word (culturist?) However that is not the way the word is used, and also would not change the morality of the action taken.

As far as your statement about territory not existing, I do not know what you are getting at. If you think there is a moral case for discrimination on the basis of culture or place of birth then feel free to make it, I would be very interested and I certainly could have my mind changed.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...)
As far as your statement about territory not existing, I do not know what you are getting at. If you think there is a moral case for discrimination on the basis of culture or place of birth then feel free to make it, I would be very interested and I certainly could have my mind changed.

That happens everyday no ?

Just this morning a small raft was picked up much like this one, the people onboard will be afforded some rights no doubt, but they will not be treated the same as you or I if we were picked up in front of the Belgian coast last night.

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/25680/15-migrants-rescued-off-belgian-coast

In fact they will be "discriminated" against on the basis of place of birth, "not here".

Racism ? Nationalism ? Idk, but certainly quite common

 

[Samson]

That happens everyday no ?

Just this morning a small raft was picked up much like this one, the people onboard will be afforded some rights no doubt, but they will not be treated the same as you or I if we were to be picked up in front of the Belgian coast last night.

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/25680/15-migrants-rescued-off-belgian-coast

In fact they will be "discriminated" against on the basis of place of birth, "not here".

Racism ? Nationalism ? Idk, but certainly quite common

Yes, absolutely. That is what I am talking about, and I think it is morally insupportable.

 

[Snowygerry]

Then the entire concept of rights based on nationality is "morally insupportable" - and that's all we have atm.

That's a pretty far reaching conclusion this early in the morning

 

[Zardnaar]

Except we are discussing New Zealand immigration policy here. If you have an opinion about how particular races come into it - do share it. To my understanding immigration policy change was prompted by the increase in worker inflow during last 3 decades and subsequent strain on infrastructure due to NZ’s attractive economy and climate. The proposed solution is also economical: adjust the balance of skilled workers, thus increasing total productivity of the workforce. If you would like to add race complexion to the matter, I’ll be most delighted to listen.

This the immigration policy was keeping productivity stagnant and stagnating wages.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rnz.co.nz/article/f309c7ec-1d64-4bd0-a834-a6979242ccfe

 

[Zardnaar]

This is usually the problem, not the immigration itself.

There are absurd examples where immigration can collapse the economy (when I talk to my boomer dad about it, he goes WHAT IF 1 BILLION CHINESE CAME TO DENMARK, which is one of those things that actually deserve to be called reductio ad absurdum; he's voting a certain way because of a problem that will never come to be). Especially in wealthy nations, there are more than enough resources to sustain extra hands, and particularly the first wave of immigrants almost always add to the economy due to being very active in the job market. Infact, most Western countries concretely have very tough demands as to immigrants taking on work in return for staying. (Refugees are often treated differently, of course.)

I don't know about New Zealand's particular situation. 30% *is* a lot. It's always helpful to take on these issues concretely and look at the situation and what you can do about it rather than clinging to abstractions. So none of this may apply there, and if my general thoughts here aren't applicable, feel free to ignore them.

For most cases in the West I know of, immigration only really becomes an issue in second and third generations mostly due to ghettoification, which is usually motivated by racism; "I don't want to live with these poor colored people, put them together in poor neighbourhoods. Oh god, now we have an Islamic pocket of poverty, I hate that, how could that even happen???"

Still, it is profitable for corps due to keeping wages down and having more available human capital, but the consequences are usually taxed throughout the population.

How can we fix the problem of yours I quoted? Probably can't. Well, it's technically possible, but there's no popular support. You yourself usually note how it's important to work with the middle of the political spectrum and find compromises, since nothing else is really politically possible, and there's no area whatsoever I know of that has any support for fixing how consequences of immigration becomes a problem for workers rather than those that benefit from it. The fix would be to socialize the profits, but it's easier in the discourse to just be afraid of them colored people or to believe that they bring problems to a country.

The potential problems with immigration are so complicated that one can be against it for any number of issues. No, I don't think it defaults you to being racist. But it's kind of a bleak position to have. In many aspects, particularly ghettoification, the problem with immigration actually comes mostly from racism being present. Then you get into a grey area where you are against immigration for practical reasons of consequence (in that it can end up costing a lot of money). But it's important to recognize the housing problems are usually founded in people not wanting to live with scary foreigners (the reason it costs a lot of money is usually racism). So if you focus on the consequences in practical terms, but ignore the racism that destroys healthy economic practice, are you racist? Like, if you're against immigration because it can lead to economic problems, while that result emanates from racism; are you passively accepting this racist structure, or are you working to change that? If you aren't working to change racism, what does it make you different from a racist? And even if that wouldn't technically make you racist due to it being sheer passivity, is there a meaningful difference between believing and practicing racism, and not believing racism while effectively continuing the structure? I'm actually asking here, general you, not personal you.

I have a friend that is kind of against immigration. Not that he think it shouldn't be able to work, since he has no issues with people of any origin, and he understands the numbers in the abstract; he just believes that immigration highly escalates white nationalism in our country. Ie immigration causes fascist movements because he believes the Danish natives are tribal and narrowminded; immigration is solely a problem because it causes stupid people to be racist. The immigrants, on the other hand, are active members in our community and bring wealth and variety to our country. Is he a racist, then? His problem is with his "own" people.

Sorry about using the word ghettoification, I had issues translating from Danish.

Also, someone on CFC has a mantra (was it schlafuchs? I don't even remember) - it's true that more workers drive down wages, but it's not the fault of the workers, nor is it the fault of the immigrants. It's the fault of those that pay the wages, it is very intentional for them to keep wages down. Might even be in this thread, or the very same page as my post (haven't read it yet). The usual phrase is also much clearer than my ramblings.

As I said there's a housing crisis. Someone compared us with Finland which eliminated homelessness.

But Finland had 5% growth rate in same time frame we had 30%.

It would reduce 1.5 million extra people down to 250k.

If we had 1 million less people I would guess we would not have a 900k average house price.

2003 4 million.
2020 5 million.

25% in 17 years.

2003 was when house prices started going up drastically.

US population 290-330 12-13% proportionally.

I don't really care where the immigrant come from but cutting visas by 50-75% would seem to help short term (until Covid changed things).

They could cut the visa numbers and draw names out of a hat for the rest. On NZ social media young people are looking at migrating to USA for cheap housing.

 

[Samson]

As I said there's a housing crisis. Someone compared us with Finland which eliminated homelessness.

But Finland had 5% growth rate in same time frame we had 30%.

It would reduce 1.5 million extra people down to 250k.

If we had 1 million less people I would guess we would not have a 900k average house price.

2003 4 million.
2020 5 million.

25% in 17 years.

2003 was when house prices started going up drastically.

US population 290-330 12-13% proportionally.

I don't really care where the immigrant come from but cutting visas by 50-75% would seem to help short term (until Covid changed things).

They could cut the visa numbers and draw names out of a hat for the rest. On NZ social media young people are looking at migrating to USA for cheap housing.

As we talked about in a previous thread, or they could build more housing.

 

[Zardnaar]

As we talked about in a previous thread, or they could build more housing.

Earthquake a few years back remember. They had to rebuild a city and you don't just magically train up 25% more construction workers.

They're basically running at full capacity already and have been for years.

Long wait times for things like renovations although DIY is a thing. Ironically Christchurch is now NZs cheapest city. You can get an average house for under 600k.

 

[Samson]

Earthquake a few years back remember. They had to rebuild a city and you don't just magically train up 25% more construction workers.

They're basically running at full capacity already and have been for years.

Long wait times for things like renovations although DIY is a thing.

You are right, training construction workers is not magic. It just needs money and people and governments have money. If they do not have people, see the subject of this thread. I do not know what it is like there, but the UK hostile environment policy has hurt the construction sector particularly hard. Unsurprisingly the tories have not replaced that with training, even when most of the country was stuck at home with nothing better to do, but they could have.

 

[Zardnaar]

You are right, training construction workers is not magic. It just needs money and people and governments have money. If they do not have people, see the subject of this thread. I do not know what it is like there, but the UK hostile environment policy has hurt the construction sector particularly hard. Unsurprisingly the tories have not replaced that with training, even when most of the country was stuck at home with nothing better to do, but they could have.

They gutted the government support in the 80's. More Thatcher than Thatcher.

In 90's we got told not to do a trade no work lol.

 

[Farm Boy]

As we talked about in a previous thread, or they could build more housing.

Sprawl is not an insignificant issue. It is incredibly destructive. One of the worst things we do as a species. But the profit from the shucking and devouring of the resource is profitable enough that people tend to drop thier qualms and reach for thier rationalizations.

 

[Samson]

Sprawl is not an insignificant issue. It is incredibly destructive. One of the worst things we do as a species. But the profit from the shucking and devouring of the resource is profitable enough that people tend to drop thier qualms and reach for thier rationalizations.

I know what you mean, and I am into high density housing. Looking at the pictures Zardnaar posts there is plenty of capacity for higher density housing around him.

I live in an area which has issues with both sprawl and housing shortage. As someone for whom the prospect of ever owning a house seems fantasy, despite being in a high tech industry and earning over median salary, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the countryside to not have a large proportion of the population paying most of their earnings for a small rented apartment, and the poverty that comes with that.

 

[Farm Boy]

We already have. A lot of it. Enough that bugs themselves collapse in areas. That's a bad sign, and we still have those problems, unfixed. If we sacrifice the rest, will those problems be fixed then?

That's an easy one.

 

[Akka]

I have pointed out 2 or 3 examples where discrimination based on culture is referred to as racism.

Define racism first, then.
Because so far it's been thrown around in a completely ridiculous way (which was, actually, my initial point), so I'd like to have something which as an actual meaning and can have boundaries to discuss.

As far as your statement about territory not existing, I do not know what you are getting at.

You don't see the point between how people (and in fact most animals) relationship with their territory and discrimination with outgroup members ?

 

[Samson]

Define racism first, then.
Because so far it's been thrown around in a completely ridiculous way (which was, actually, my initial point), so I'd like to have something which as an actual meaning and can have boundaries to discuss.

I cannot, english does not work like that. I can only go on how others use it. People call islamophobia racism so it includes discrimination based on religion. People called the discrimination at the heart of the Yugoslav wars racism, so it includes discrimination based on culture. I think people would include the discrimination involved in the Ambazonia War racism, so it includes discrimination based on language.

My whole point is that it does not matter. If you are discriminating on a feature that is not supportable morally then it is wrong. I care less if it is called racism, sexism, homophobia, languagism, culturism or islamophobia than that people are discriminating on something they shoudl not be discriminating on.

You don't see the point between how people (and in fact most animals) relationship with their territory and discrimination with outgroup members ?

Absolutely I do. I think one of the most important things we can all do is to recognise that this in group bias is a feature of how our brains work, and try to prevent it turning into immoral discrimination.

 

[Akka]

I cannot, english does not work like that. I can only go on how others use it. People call islamophobia racism so it includes discrimination based on religion. People called the discrimination at the heart of the Yugoslav wars racism, so it includes discrimination based on culture. I think people would include the discrimination involved in the Ambazonia War racism, so it includes discrimination based on language.

Okay, so basically you're saying that the word can be used to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, and applied to whatever anyone wants it to apply to.
So yeah, my first post was right on point :

Sorry, but that's just straight up stupid, and just another example of overusing a word for shock value to the point it loses all meaning.

You're explicitely validating this, claiming the word has no definition, but using it for moral pressure. I mean, for someone speaking about morality, it seems you have a pretty selective take on intellectual honesty.

My whole point is that it does not matter. If you are discriminating on a feature that is not supportable morally then it is wrong.

Why ? And you'll have to be more precise about what feature is not morally supportable and why discriminating is wrong, because considering how fast and loose you seem to be with word's meaning and concepts, I'm half expecting some other smokescreen where any word can be twisted to be used for anything.

Absolutely I do. I think one of the most important things we can all do is to recognise that this in group bias is a feature of how our brains work, and try to prevent it turning into immoral discrimination.

See above : what or who decides which discriminations are moral and which are immoral ? Definitions and applicable reasonings, please, just throwing "it's racist" isn't helpful and means nothing.

 

[Tee Kay]

Earthquake a few years back remember. They had to rebuild a city and you don't just magically train up 25% more construction workers.

Sounds like they could've used more immigrants then. They come with skills already trained.

 

[Samson]

Okay, so basically you're saying that the word can be used to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, and applied to whatever anyone wants it to apply to.
So yeah, my first post was right on point :

You're explicitely validating this, claiming the word has no definition, but using it for moral pressure. I mean, for someone speaking about morality, it seems you have a pretty selective take on intellectual honesty.

The english language is defined by use. Not by my use, but the general use in the english speaking community in general. This is very different from having no definition. I am trying to use it as it is generally used, not for moral pressure. If you want to define it I shall use your definition for the purposes of this discussion.

My whole point is that it does not matter. If you are discriminating on a feature that is not supportable morally then it is wrong.

Why ? And you'll have to be more precise about what feature is not morally supportable and why discriminating is wrong, because considering how fast and loose you seem to be with word's meaning and concepts, I'm half expecting some other smokescreen where any word can be twisted to be used for anything.

See above : what or who decides which discriminations are moral and which are immoral ? Definitions and applicable reasonings, please.

Why is something immoral wrong? Kind of by definition.
Who decides? It has to be first an individual thought process, then that can be examined and refined by public discussion (as we are doing).
What is moral/immoral? Well, that is a big question. How do you think we should decide?

I have been thinking about it (perhaps I should start by reading, but I have enough reading to do for work). It seems the most rigorous way is to define one's moral axioms and then work from them to practical actions. So you could start with some definition of utilitarianism. From there you could ask whether freedom of movement would increase the sum of happiness and well-being / reduce the sum of unhappiness and suffering. It seems to me obvious that it would, not least as it would reduce the incidence of wars if everyone had friends and family in all corners of the world. How to get there is certainly a question for a utilitarian, as it could cause disruption that harms people's well being, but the goal should be clear from this foundation.

Others may take the teaching of Jesus as their axioms. It seems the most relevant would be the parable of the good samaritan. From that we could derive that we should treat those who come from geographically remote locations, are genetically distinct and have different cultures as neighbours.

Both of these sets of axioms come to the same conclusion, we should not discriminate based on geographic origin, genetics or culture. As I said in the 2nd post of this thread, I am not aware of a set of acceptable (to me) axioms that would result in a different conclusion. I would be very interested in how you would derive a different conclusion. It is worth noting that I do not accept "everyone else thinks X" as any proof of X, as it has been shown to be wrong too many times, both historically and personally.

 

[innonimatu]

Looks like the teaching of philosophy really has deteriorated, this in an age where people spend over 20 years pretending to be having a formal education!

First the "deal with it" argument and now this unwillingness to understand basic facts about morality and community.

Who decides? It has to be first an individual thought process, then that can be examined and refined by public discussion (as we are doing).
What is moral/immoral? Well, that is a big question. How do you think we should decide?

Morality does not arise individually. You learn it, take it, from your community. You can change it, pick and choose, even rebel against it,. but its a community product. And this is the beginning also of why community is important.
Morality is socially determined. Behavior is individually determined (yeah I know free will and all that but let's not get into it, please...)

So you could start with some definition of utilitarianism. From there you could ask whether freedom of movement would increase the sum of happiness and well-being / reduce the sum of unhappiness and suffering. It seems to me obvious that it would, not least as it would reduce the incidence of wars if everyone had friends and family in all corners of the world. How to get there is certainly a question for a utilitarian, as it could cause disruption that harms people's well being, but the goal should be clear from this foundation.

And speaking of philosophy bringing utilitarianism into arguments is regarded as the last refuge of the scoundrel, as it can be twisted into justifying everything.

Others may take the teaching of Jesus as their axioms. It seems the most relevant would be the parable of the good samaritan. From that we could derive that we should treat those who come from geographically remote locations, are genetically distinct and have different cultures as neighbours.

Both of these sets of axioms come to the same conclusion, we should not discriminate based on geographic origin, genetics or culture. As I said in the 2nd post of this thread, I am not aware of a set of acceptable (to me) axioms that would result in a different conclusion. I would be very interested in how you would derive a different conclusion. It is worth noting that I do not accept "everyone else thinks X" as any proof of X, as it has been shown to be wrong too many times, both historically and personally.

One of those moral systems has been around for hundreds of years, the other for thousands, and communities along with its necessary border conditions, those who are in and those who are out, have existed for all that time. Clearly these moral systems coexist nicely with community membership, which be definition means both inclusion and exclusion. You cannot just invoke christianity or utilitarianism and then state that they are agains borders of any kind, because they have been developed, spread, and exercised in societies with lots of borders.

Utilitarianism is hopeless as a moral system, I'm not even attempting to argue about it. Let's just say that the nazis were convinced that "clearing land" for the "superior people" was an utilitarian endeavor and leave it at that.

Christianity is an interesting case. It's universalist in outlook, but you also have the give unto Caesar what is Caesar's - it was already tainted with having to deal with politics even before its supposed founded got nailed (pun intended) over being politically inconvenient. Christianity as it developed never had any problem with gated communities: guilds, cities, kingdoms, national states. Welcoming a neighbor does not mean granting community membership to a neighbor. The neighbor welcomed into christianity would be unable to continue worshiping Zeus, or Isis. He would be required to convert to a different culture in the process. And if you want to invoke the Jesus of the gospels and say that christianity strayed from it, remember the cursing and the demands, not just the brotherhood under god. Remember the conditions for access to the kindgom of god...

Communities have to have borders, they can't just be open to anyone and everyone without requirements else they would cease to be a community. To expand of this discussion: this was and remains the silliness of the people taken in with the talk of "multiculturalism". Even in the cosmopolitan places that are usually given as examples of "multiculturalism" (think Venice of old or any other big trading place) there is a a set of laws, a power, or sometimes several sets and very well-demarcated communities each with its own. And those are the worse places because you can't jump from any group to another without risking being denounced as traitor, ostracized or even killed.
When embracing the current common idea of open and happy multiculturalism you idealize a false myth that never existed in history. Multiculturalism where it existed in some stable way was either closed, policed (think ghettos and quarters, or the ottoman system of separate laws, that kind of stuff...), or not peaceful at all. And sure you can end up with a synthesis but that means you drop the multiple cultures and created a single new one. And the required set of changes is usually traumatic to those involved.

 

[Cutlass]

As said previously, you're throwing "this is racism" in a completely meaningless way. Using words without actual meaning and just for shock value was precisely what I was pointing, and you're just doubling down on it.
Also, you're being either disingenuous or just straight-up idiotic when asking why adding a lot of people with a different culture would alter the culture of a country.
And I don't even know what to answer when you wonder who would care when their culture is changed. I mean, I didn't expect to have to point out that culture is considered to be a pretty big deal by a lot of people...

The point you are missing is that if you let them the culture of immigrants is so entirely submerged into the culture of the place that it's so close to complete assimilation that only racism remains.

As for the rest, no culture is static. No culture can be static. The world changes. If a subset, even a majority of your population, likes your culture as is, they can certainly try to keep it intact. They're going to lose. And immigration is irrelevant to that fact. All you really accomplish is to create discriminated against minority groups. Most of whom were native born.