Less Immigration is Racist?

[Farm Boy]

No.

The question is irrelevant and almost guarantees willful misreading. All it does is rephrase the quote in a lying -=fash=-ion.

Does that help?

 

[Samson]

I don't think less immigration is racist. Sometimes it just makes economic sense if you don't want your country to experience overpopulation.

I am not sure that overpopulation of a country is a real objective phenomena. Does it make more sense to say that the Netherlands is overpopulated than to say that LA is overpopulated? Both are high population density areas surrounded by less so areas.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Better" or "worse" will more depend on country of origin than race, no?

I'm not sure even country of origin would (by itself) inform sufficiently. There are low and high performers from every country and when high performers want in countries should generally take them.

I will always emphasize that immigration is different from refugee policy. One is a geostrategic decision, the other is a humanitarian obligation

There are complicating factors for refugees. There is obvious incentive for non-refugees to claim to be refugees, or to overemphasize the degree to which they are. There is also the danger of the travel, and at least some removal of incentive to fight back in the country in question rather than flee, which leaves the people who remain in country of origin in a worse position. Taking refugees has humanitarian justification, but doing it no-questions-asked risks causing more harm than good in some cases. I wonder if we have data available on this that would inform policy choices?

 

[Senethro]

There is obvious incentive for non-refugees to claim to be refugees, or to overemphasize the degree to which they are.

lol

There is also the danger of the travel,

as if you give a crap

and at least some removal of incentive to fight back in the country in question rather than flee, which leaves the people who remain in country of origin in a worse position.

lol again

Taking refugees has humanitarian justification, but doing it no-questions-asked risks causing more harm than good in some cases. I wonder if we have data available on this that would inform policy choices?

Have some courage in your terrible convictions dude. You don't believe in good outcomes for people at home, so why feign humanitarian concern for others?

Also, sending jewish people back to fight the nazis is a 10/10 big brained idea.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are some countries that will get wrecked because of mass migration.

It's made a bad situation worse as they lack the young people to recover. Eastern Europe comes to mind.

Cheap labour in the west, demographic disaster back home.

Per capita I think NZ was twice as much as USA and 7 times the amount of Finland.

1990 3.4 million approx right now 5.1. More or less 50% in 30 years.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, I tried to get you to stop from scoring an own goal, but oh well. Your opposition to X is racist, provided whatever X is can be expressed in cultural terms. And since you see yourself as a racist, yes, it's enormously hilarious.

So words don't have meaning to you and you just make up whatever meaning you want them to have?

 

[Rashiminos]

Well, I tried to get you stop from scoring an own goal, but oh well. Your opposition to X is racist, provided whatever X is can be expressed in cultural terms.

So words don't have meaning to you and you just make up whatever meaning you want them to have?

I was not going off my definition there. Back to you? Alternatively, do you recall what Akka was saying?

Also, sending jewish people back to fight the nazis is a 10/10 big brained idea.

As I recall, the solution to that refuge problem was to support an invasion of some coastline around the Mediterranean. Probably the most prominent example of justified aggression in our time.

 

[innonimatu]

There are some countries that will get wrecked because of mass migration.

It's made a bad situation worse as they lack the young people to recover. Eastern Europe comes to mind.

Cheap labour in the west, demographic disaster back home.

Not just eastern Europe and not just demographic disaster. The better qualified are being sucked out of Africa also, out of poorer countries in general. That causes a series of weaknesses in the country left behind. As with economic investment, the "globalized" world also concentrates talent and knowledge, instead of sharing it. And that's even before getting into the whole imaginary property monopolies thing, another phenomenon that was spread as part of this "globalization".

It's intellectually dishonest of the advocates of "migrations are good" to claim that immigrants are a plus because they are younger people working to support the economy or whatever, and pretending not to notice that its increase in such younger people in one place comes an the cost of decreasing them in another.
Not that I agree with the argument in the first place, mind you. But those who make it cannot claim that it proves some global good associated with promoting migrations. The "human resources" (how I hate that expression...) brought to one place are taken out of another. The analysis of the consequences can never be simple and is never the same for two different migrations.

 

[Senethro]

Lots of people here coming up with reasons to treat the symptoms and not the disease.

 

[Lexicus]

Not that I agree with the argument in the first place, mind you. But those who make it cannot claim that it proves some global good associated with promoting migrations. The "human resources" (how I hate that expression...) brought to one place are taken out of another. The analysis of the consequences can never be simple and is never the same for two different migrations.

True to a certain extent, but it's also true that the source countries often lack the infrastructure to make the best use of the "human resources" they have...so I think it's probably the case that there *is* a global (net) benefit to immigration insofar as people can get education and pursue careers in the destination countries that are just not as widely available in the source countries. It's also the case that countries with higher birthrates can more quickly replace population lost for whatever reason.

And while I agree that ultimately our task is to fix that disparity in resources and infrastructure so that some kid born in Lagos and some kid born in New York City have roughly equal chances of ending up doctors or engineers or whatever, that ain't gonna happen overnight.

 

[Farm Boy]

Lots of people here coming up with reasons to treat the symptoms and not the disease.

Spoiler :

True to a certain extent, but it's also true that the source countries often lack the infrastructure to make the best use of the "human resources" they have...so I think it's probably the case that there *is* a global (net) benefit to immigration insofar as people can get education and pursue careers in the destination countries that are just not as widely available in the source countries. It's also the case that countries with higher birthrates can more quickly replace population lost for whatever reason.

And while I agree that ultimately our task is to fix that disparity in resources and infrastructure so that some kid born in Lagos and some kid born in New York City have roughly equal chances of ending up doctors or engineers or whatever, that ain't gonna happen overnight.

We don't even do this properly between Indiana and New York state. Or within New York state. You really think Pakistan couldn't find a use for all these MDs we have around here, suspiciously lacking their extended family infrastructure that raised them? I stand behind my assessment of work visas, they're the "trash racist immigration policy" foundation, anymore.

 

[Rashiminos]

Lots of people here coming up with reasons to treat the symptoms and not the disease.

And while I agree that ultimately our task is to fix that disparity in resources and infrastructure so that some kid born in Lagos and some kid born in New York City have roughly equal chances of ending up doctors or engineers or whatever, that ain't gonna happen overnight.

Well there are some possibilities if we want to expedite that process.

 

[El_Machinae]

I remember when I used to think remittances were the answer to the problem of sucking human capital from a region

 

[Farm Boy]

Buttermilk is better than nothing. But ew, Dad is the only person I know who still likes that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Buttermilk is better than nothing. But ew, Dad is the only person I know who still likes that.

Pancakes?

 

[Akka]

Sure, in theory there is a hard and fast line here...in reality, not so much. For reasons spelled out here:

That's unconvincing to say the least. It just repeats the "any discrimination toward a group is racist by essence" idiocy combined with the "guilt by association" fallacy.

Most particularly, racists have learned to couch their talk of biological difference in terms of cultural difference instead, but "culture" can function quite similarly to "race" as a form of essentializing difference between people.

Yeah, and "anti-racists" are abusing the "racism" word like there is no tomorrow, does that mean racism stops to exist too ? That's just the same "guilt by association" fallacy as above. It's not because John Doe abuse the meaning or hide his intent behind an argument, that this argument suddenly stops to be real for others.

I would say that openly claiming your culture is superior to others and should be "preserved" by repressing people is pretty troubling regardless of whether we label it "racism" or not.

There is no claim about a "superiority" nor "repressing". Try to actually read what people write maybe and not be so completely blinded by your own bias.

So words don't have meaning to you and you just make up whatever meaning you want them to have?

Wait wait wait... weren't you the one completely twisting the meaning of "racism" to the point of meaninglessness ? You really shouldn't use this argument here...

 

[Farm Boy]

Pancakes?

No, not the new stuff, the old stuff. What you get leftover when you've already churned the butter from the milk.

 

[Gorbles]

Try to actually read what people write maybe and not be so completely blinded by your own bias.

This comes after your alleged reading of a Wikipedia article and subsequently dismissing it on grounds of fallacy and "idiocy". Maybe it's just saying things you don't want to read? Would it help if you went through the article's citations, or would you find some way to deny those, too?

(also I don't think Lexicus is accusing you of the thing you're kneejerking about here, but I could be wrong)

 

[Senethro]

To me this just looks like a guy whos primary language is prescriptive not quite getting that you can't rule an argument as being somehow "offside" in English through using dictionary definitions.

The concept of systemic/institutional racism exists whether Akka likes it or not. Calling it a perversion of the word "racism" is a kinda dumb way to engage with it.

 

[Lexicus]

It just repeats the "any discrimination toward a group is racist by essence" idiocy combined with the "guilt by association" fallacy.

No, it doesn't do either of those things. Did you read what it actually said?

Yeah, and "anti-racists" are abusing the "racism" word like there is no tomorrow, does that mean racism stops to exist too ? That's just the same "guilt by association" fallacy as above.

I don't disagree that people sometimes misuse the word racism, apply it to situations where it doesn't really apply, or one-dimensionally characterize things as "racist" when there is more going on.

There is no claim about a "superiority" nor "repressing". Try to actually read what people write maybe and not be so completely blinded by your own bias.

This is rather disingenuous. Maybe you aren't talking about these things, but in the context of my country, at least, people who take this position:

"being attached to one's culture and wanting to preserve it"

absolutely are in favor of repressing immigrants from countries whose cultures they see as diluting or harming their culture. That is also demonstrably true in many other countries.

At any event, I would argue that cultural discrimination, or cultural supremacism, even if you want to pedantically insist it must always be considered completely separate and distinct from racism, is also a bad thing that leads to bad real-world consequences.

We don't even do this properly between Indiana and New York state.

Bit ironic, when we both know that if we did try to do this properly between Indiana and New York state, you'd be complaining bitterly about coastal liberal elites trying to commit cultural genocide against rural America.

You really think Pakistan couldn't find a use for all these MDs we have around here,

I'm sure they could, what I'm unsure of is that all those MDs could get have gotten a quality medical education in Pakistan. There is also the matter that in this position you are essentially telling people they do not belong here and should go back where they came from. Maybe you don't have any neighbors from Pakistan, but I do.