Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Yeekim]

Look, all I was doing is that I pretty clearly identified certain positions/mindsets/dogmas that I have a problem with - and giving reasons why I have problems with them. I maintain that these mindsets exist. And I maintain that they constitute at least a subset of the general doctrine of multiculturalism.

I do not see why trying to be precise about my thoughts is "coming up with weird strawmen" or "abuse of the language". I was not claiming my definition is what people universally think of when they speak of "multiculturalism", nor even that is what they should think. Nor do I think I hold keys for any universal solutions.

France is, in fact, an object lesson in the dangers of not keeping pace with the multicultural reality on the ground.

I could not agree more. Point is that they themselves created that "multicultural reality". They accepted a challenge and failed badly. But they might have chosen not to accept it. Maybe it would have been easier than having to keep pace with that reality now.

I have not yet heard an alternative articulated which is appropriate for the context of a country with large numbers of ethnically and culturally distinct migrants.

Oh. Well, I am personally located in a country that does not (yet) have a large number of ethnically and culturally distinct migrants (excluding our Russian population, who are not that distinct anyway). And it should be pretty obvious that solutions not appropriate for Australia might be workable here, no? If you define mc as "policy of following social reality", you might allow for the obvious fact that social realities are different betwen countries.
EDIT:

Don't get me wrong, your insistence that multiculturalism requires a non-unitary legal system is still deeply wacky.

If tou do not account for immigramts with changes into your own legal system then you are not respecting their cultural differences. Or those differences were completely negligible in the first place and do not justify speaking of "multiple cultures".

 

[Arwon]

Ah, so you're arguing against migration, period.

Righteo.

 

[Formaldehyde]

When has Yeekim not been against it? At least he is consistent in this regard.

Is there anybody who thinks that "multiculturalism is a failure", and also supports emigration of Muslims into their own country?

 

[Yeekim]

Ah, so you're arguing against migration, period.

Righteo.

I am willing to accept financially solvent people with university degrees regardless of their religion, color or shape.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I am willing to accept financially solvent people with university degrees regardless of their religion, color or shape.

Do you support deporting those who were born there who are financially insolvent without a secondary education?

 

[Yeekim]

Do you support deporting those who were born there who are financially insolvent without a secondary education?

No, not if they have taken residence here legally. If they have not received citizenship yet, then I suggest that their residence permit be revoked in case they commit a serious criminal offense (and there is a place that can be made to accept them). Not sure how viable that is though.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

No, not if they have taken residence here legally. If they have not received citizenship yet, then I suggest that their residence permit be revoked in case they commit a serious criminal offense (and there is a place that can be made to accept them). Not sure how viable that is though.

You support revoking their residence permit in case they commit a criminal offense?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I am willing to accept financially solvent people with university degrees regardless of their religion, color or shape.

So you discriminate equally against all blue-collar workers, even those who are successful businessmen who own their own companies? Or just Muslim ones?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

So you discriminate equally against all blue-collar workers, even those who are successful businessmen who own their own companies? Or just Muslim ones?

Oh come on, no reason to bait someone like that. Its not like he'd say "yes, I openly discriminate against muslims" anyways.

 

[Yeekim]

You support revoking their residence permit in case they commit a criminal offense?

A serious one*, yes.
*something that is punishable with at least over a year in jail, say?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh come on, no reason to bait someone like that. Its not like he'd say "yes, I openly discriminate against muslims" anyways.

Is Yeekim against other blue-collar workers emigrating?

But I believe he has indeed been quite outspoken in the "Muslims are causing troubles in Europe" threads. I really don't think he's talking about East German or Latvian emigration problems here. Just Muslim and perhaps Russian.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

A serious one*, yes.
*something that is punishable with at least over a year in jail, say?

How do you gauge how likely someone is to engage in a serious criminal act?

Is Yeekim against other blue-collar workers emigrating?

But I believe he has indeed been quite outspoken in the "Muslims are causing troubles in Europe" threads. I really don't think he's talking about East German or Latvian emigration problems here. Just Muslim and Russian.

Well I still don't think there's a reason to bait someone like that. At least give him the chance to say it with his own words before going off on that tangent.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well I still don't think there's a reason to bait someone like that. At least give him the chance to say it with his own words before going off on that tangent.

I wasn't "baiting" him. I was asking him why he had such weird opinion about blue-collar workers and their apparent lack of worth in his eyes. And if he felt that way about anybody but Muslims.

And the Muslim aspect is obvious not a "tangent". This entire thread could be better labelled "The Muslim Problem and what to do about it". What do you think is being discussed here under the code phrase "failure of multiculturalism"? The inability of the Irish to properly assimilate in America?

As I already pointed out, Yeekims opinions about Muslims emigrating to Europe isn't exactly a secret. He has been quite outspoken in a number of similar threads.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I wasn't "baiting" him. I was asking him why he had such weird opinion about blue-collar workers and their apparent lack of worth in his eyes.

Doesn't a lot of Europe have pretty stringent immigration codes? I'm not entirely familiar, but from what I've heard you need at least a college degree to get into the Netherlands, for one.

And it is obvious not a "tangent". This entire thread could be better labelled "The Muslim Problem and what to do about it". What do you think is being discussed here under the code phrase "failure of multiculturalism"?

Does multiculturalism to you mean the western world and Islam coexisting?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Doesn't a lot of Europe have pretty stringent immigration codes? I'm not entirely familiar, but from what I've heard you need at least a college degree to get into the Netherlands, for one.

A quick google search shows that is likely not the case:

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007...gration-increasing-skilled-workers-needed.htm

The hope is that encouraging skilled migrant workers to settle in the Netherlands will alleviate the population drain and assist its already growing economy.

SER also advised that unnecessary barriers to entry for less skilled migrants be lifted, as well as streamlining government organization in dealing with labor migration matters.

Does multiculturalism to you mean the western world and Islam coexisting?

I take it to mean "don't be a xenophobic nativist who thinks everybody else should conform to white Christian culture". What do you think it means?

 

[innonimatu]

I don't know who in this debate wants a single worldwide state with no borders, right now, but I seriously doubt that even a small minority does.

So, if you acknowledge the roles of states, frontiers, and governments, there must be criteria for admittance. Why these continuous attacks on someone (Yeekim) who is, essentially, just laying out his criteria? By all means, attack the criteria, but offer alternatives which are intellectually compatible with the idea of different states and borders. Who would you discriminate at admittance, on what basis? Or would you just impose quotas on a first-come-first-serve basis, which would inevitably be captured by those with the most resources? Or abolish borders and, therefore, states?

For the record, I voted "Populistic" in the pool, but that's just because I know that most politicians are short-sighted. There are better reasons to be wary of multiculturalism - not fear of some getting overrun by migrants, but just the cost of all the small and not so small conflicts. And the oft-quotes examples of the US, Canada, or Australia are not comparable with other, more crowded, countries. Mix immigration with lack of jobs or economic "growth" and you'll be guaranteed to have trouble - in hard times people seek backing on their own networks of support, and those networks develop into fractures between communities and conflict. The USA, Canada and Australia still have plentiful natural resources and land, waiting for humans to take them (wanting humans to take them, to establish control and get rid of those pesky natives). And frontier areas serve as escape valves during economic depressions. Though the US seems to be running out of those, and it's starting to show.

 

[aelf]

Look, all I was doing is that I pretty clearly identified certain positions/mindsets/dogmas that I have a problem with - and giving reasons why I have problems with them. I maintain that these mindsets exist. And I maintain that they constitute at least a subset of the general doctrine of multiculturalism.

I do not see why trying to be precise about my thoughts is "coming up with weird strawmen" or "abuse of the language". I was not claiming my definition is what people universally think of when they speak of "multiculturalism", nor even that is what they should think. Nor do I think I hold keys for any universal solutions.

I am willing to accept financially solvent people with university degrees regardless of their religion, color or shape.

Okay, let's leave aside the finer points of argument and just say that your problem has nothing to do with multiculturalism or indeed with culture in the sense that we have been talking about. It seems to be a class issue.

I don't know who in this debate wants a single worldwide state with no borders, right now, but I seriously doubt that even a small minority does.

So, if you acknowledge the roles of states, frontiers, and governments, there must be criteria for admittance. Why these continuous attacks on someone (Yeekim) who is, essentially, just laying out his criteria? By all means, attack the criteria, but offer alternatives which are intellectually compatible with the idea of different states and borders. Who would you discriminate at admittance, on what basis? Or would you just impose quotas on a first-come-first-serve basis, which would inevitably be captured by those with the most resources? Or abolish borders and, therefore, states?

For the record, I voted "Populistic" in the pool, but that's just because I know that most politicians are short-sighted. There are better reasons to be wary of multiculturalism - not fear of some getting overrun by migrants, but just the cost of all the small and not so small conflicts. And the oft-quotes examples of the US, Canada, or Australia are not comparable with other, more crowded, countries. Mix immigration with lack of jobs or economic "growth" and you'll be guaranteed to have trouble - in hard times people seek backing on their own networks of support, and those networks develop into fractures between communities and conflict. The USA, Canada and Australia still have plentiful natural resources and land, waiting for humans to take them (wanting humans to take them, to establish control and get rid of those pesky natives). And frontier areas serve as escape valves during economic depressions. Though the US seems to be running out of those, and it's starting to show.

Problem being the crux of what you are talking about has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

 

[Arwon]

I'm intersted in the idea that population density hampers multiculturalism. I suspect New York and Singapore may have something to say about that.

 

[aelf]

Well, the argument seems to be that population density hampers immigration in the sense that it makes the latter a potentially explosive issue. I struggle to find any clear connection to multiculturalism.

 

[Arwon]

Bah. Population density is an infrastructure and planning issue. If you're sitting in a crowded bus in Western Sydney, with its decaying underfunded infrastructure and terrible State government, and you're going "bloody immigrants", you might be a bit of a racist.