Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[BuckeyeJim]

By this logic, immigration itself is a multicultural policy. Should we background check every single person who wants to come here? Put quotas up on certain regions, religions, or ethnic groups?

You can't control everything, and we'll never be able to keep out every bad person. The best way to deal with it is to try and prevent what you can.

Yes, immigration is a multicultural policy. This thread is an example of how immigration policies can vary. In light of political and religious extremism and violent threats that exist from some nations we should most certainly have a rigorous process to vet prospective immigrants. You are 100% right that we cannot be completely effective. We can't control everyone. But when you have a more rigorous process you will have far less of a problem and those who are indeed extremist will be further marginalized and more apt to reject the extreme aspects of their beliefs. It's a lot easier for FGM to proliferate through the west if you have more and more immigrants who adhere to the belief. If you only have a couple hundred slipping through they will be more exposed to western values and less apt to adhere to their old abhorrent cultural practice.

So should we control immigration of Jews? - Mr. Dictator

If there is evidence that they have participated in extremist actions (terrorism, clear evidence of xenophobia, expressed desire to establish a Jewish state in your nation in contradistinction to your pre-existing system) then yes. We should control the immigration of Jews. There are Jewish terrorist groups, and Jews that have committed violence against Arabs in unjust and illegal forms. These people have absolutely no place in a western society.

I have perfectly nice friends who beleive extreme things like "God created the world in 7 days" and "I should not have sex before marriage" and "It is justified to pre-emptiely attack other countries in order to impose democracy" but I don't think they're a threat to anyone.

They're not threats to anybody. There is your distinction.

 

[Arwon]

Ah good, there we go then. Neither are people with other wacky beliefs then.

Incidentally, it's my democratic right to advocate for the total reconfiguration of the state I live in, to form parties, argue, try to convince that it's the right thing. If I want a totalitarian Christian theocracy or revolutionary socialist state I'm free to say that. Why is it not others' rights too?

 

[Bibor]

If you only have a couple hundred slipping through they will be more exposed to western values and less apt to adhere to their old abhorrent cultural practice.

It doesn't matter how many people immigrate. The problem is, as you say, culture. Culture is like a magnet - people are drawn to their own habits, especially in time of crisis (and immigration can be hard on people). One has to apply force (to both residents and newcomers) if multiculturalism is to be achieved. Yes, that means erecting mosques in USA. If you let Muslims immigrate. But that's for another topic.

 

[Bibor]

Incidentally, it's my democratic right to advocate for the total reconfiguration of the state I live in, to form parties, argue, try to convince that it's the right thing. If I want a totalitarian Christian theocracy or revolutionary socialist state I'm free to say that.

No, that's not your democratic right. Your democratic right is to advocate things that are beneficial (i.e. not harmful) to all residents of your democratic community. Neither example emphasizes that.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Ah good, there we go then. Neither are people with other wacky beliefs then.

Incidentally, it's my democratic right to advocate for the total reconfiguration of the state I live in, to form parties, argue, try to convince that it's the right thing. If I want a totalitarian Christian theocracy or revolutionary socialist state I'm free to say that. Why is it not others' rights too?

People with wacky beliefs are not the problem. My statements to you earlier weren't criticisms of people with wacky beliefs, they were criticisms of beliefs that directly result in actions that hurt other people.

If you want to use your democratic right to advocate for the total reconfiguration of the state you live in then more power to you. You do not have the democratic right to export our belief in violent actions to my country. And we also have the right to restrict your immigration to our nation. What is weird about your comment here is that it lies in contradistinction to what you believe. You think it's perfectly fine for people to go into another nation and use their rights to completely transform the western liberal nation into one that doesn't respect other cultures or beliefs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

First you must describe in real terms what qualifies as an extremist.

I'd say someone who deliberate exaggerates how many Muslims are actually "extremists" and who thinks they used our "multicultural immigration policy" to "undermine our nation" is probably a good starting point. This all sounds eerily familiar to Glenn Beck and many other pundits on Fox News.

There are Jewish terrorist groups, and Jews that have committed violence against Arabs in unjust and illegal forms. These people have absolutely no place in a western society.

Well, this certainly doesn't sound like Fox News pundits. But I also don't think it calls for restricting either Jews or Muslims to immigrate here. There are actually very few dangerous religious extremists in this world when compared to those who aren't, and few actually seem to want to immigrate here.

 

[Arwon]

People with wacky beliefs are not the problem. My statements to you earlier weren't criticisms of people with wacky beliefs, they were criticisms of beliefs that directly result in actions that hurt other people.

If you want to use your democratic right to advocate for the total reconfiguration of the state you live in then more power to you. You do not have the democratic right to export our belief in violent actions to my country. And we also have the right to restrict your immigration to our nation. What is weird about your comment here is that it lies in contradistinction to what you believe. You think it's perfectly fine for people to go into another nation and use their rights to completely transform the western liberal nation into one that doesn't respect other cultures or beliefs.

OK let's see if I have this straight. I, as a citizen of this country who was born here, get to say wacky things I want. However, citizens of this country, who were born in another country, don't get the freedom to believe wacky things, because they might do bad things? (We must be talking about citizens here, because mere residents don't get to vote or form parties.)

There is a very important distinction between having a set of values you personally believe and adhere to, and attempting to impose them on every one else. There's plenty of people with all sorts weird beliefs and political views without acting on them any way other than muttering about it in a blog or to their friends.

I'm not convinced that "the West is waging a war on Islam" as expressed with sadness by many western Muslims is any wackier or more dangerous than the converse belief expressed by non-Muslims. While it's not a great thing, is people empathising with some acts of terrorism by muslims against Israel really any worse than people empathising with, say, ETA or the IRA? I'm certainly not convinced that Muslims having conservative social values is any bigger of an issue than non-Muslims having conservative social values.

Surely this is the essence of liberalism and pluralism and thus multiculturalism - accepting that people are entitled to a wide variety of beliefs and values and political views and that those beliefs and values are not intrinsically a threat, provided they act and operate within the framework of rights and laws we have.

I mean christ, people talk about segregation and social isolation (even though there's not much evidence that persists generationally for the vast majority of any given migrant group), but we already have Hasidic Jews and borderline isolationist Mormons and Amish in Western countries, as well as groups like the Exclusive Brethren. There's not a whole lot of freedom or equality within families in those communities, but they operate within the bounds of the law, and families are pretty sacrosanct so there's not much to be done unless laws are broken.

Nothing you've given us has been anything other than irrational and unrealistic fear that the acting on beliefs occurs in any meaningful or long term way even where wacky beliefs exist.

 

[Singularity]

Firstly, it's not "apologism" to insist that liberalism and pluralism do not stop being important just because we're talking about migrants, and it's not "apoligism" to temper one's desire that patriarchy and conservatism whither away with the recognition that people have a right to their beliefs and practices, and that plenty of elements of our own cultures also have conservative and patriarchal beliefs and practices. That's not exactly a difficult bit of nuance.

But do you recognize that in secluded parts of the minorities you have obstacles that delay a state of multiculturalism? In some cases even past one or two generations if there's enough mechanisms within those minorities this metamorphosis of cultures and end up at the goal that is multiculturalism. I'm sorry to say that cross-pollination and cultural exposation to younger generations is not enough, because I claim that there is a state of willfull segregation on the part of the minority. And that this timeframe is part of the equation that makes people claim that multiculturalism has been a failure in the European states that attempted to embrace it in the past 30-40 years. You're a political representative in a suburb to Paris, Bristol or Hamburg - are you supposed to tell a native voter that they will have to live with the local segregation throughout their natural lives and expect them to keep voting for you? I'm not saying I know what you should say to the voter, but I claim that there is a real problem in Europe that the politicians are struggling with finding a solution to - even within liberal and pluralistic values.

Official attitudes and policy settings do coincide quite substantially with the attidues and beliefs of people. Governments have an important normative role to play.

Telling new arrivals that they're mere guest workers and that their culture is not particularly wanted, never inviting them to become part of the core culture or contribute to it, denying them citizenship paths in the belief that "they'll go home eventually", creates a set of expectations and policies regarding migrants and their culture.

Assuming migrants will give up their cultures, completely assimilate and become the same thing as the host culture with no give and take, creates a different set of expectations and polcies to the guest worker ghetto model.

And both of those approaches are quite different to declaring an official policy of welcoming and respect for other cultures within the bounds of certain essential rights-based expectations. They're different to assuming and insisting that those cultures become part of, and contribute to, the host country's culture on their own terms, and that in exchange they will recieve support and recognition and hey, a multicultural TV station.

The key variables are government policy and social attitudes, yes. Both feed each other, but to pretend this is all an unsolvable mystery is disengenuous. You're right that you can't "engineer" culture. And that's exactly why a modest policy, ie, reality-following multiculturalism which allows for flexibility, hybridisation and individual autonomy, is a superior path to wishing away the cultural impacts of economic migration completely, or pretending new arrivials will just adopt the existing culture as it exists.

Proper realpolitik could very well be the cornerstone of successfull implication of multiculturalism. But social attitudes are blind to realpolitik and very attentive to ideological discourse blown up by a media that if it's not owned by the prime minister it's mostly owned by rich autocrats like Rupert Murdoch, thanks for that brilliant individual Australia And after the next election what was realpolitik has been bulldozed over by a good doze of hysteria and propaganda catering to the cultural majority. In an ideal world though, politicians could and should play a vital role in upholding ideals that promote multiculturalism. But if you've majored in international politics you will know that the timespans you're operating with in measuring achieved multiculturalism is simply too long compared to the timetable for the political electorate and the people that will represent them in the next political term.

I don't get how you can call it a "one-way street", the trade-off is respect and welcoming for insistence on recognising certain bedrock rights-based values. What exactly is the core culture losing? How is it a "one way street" when the insistence is everyone gets to practice their culture within the same bounds? I've never understood what people think multiculturalism takes away from the existing culture and the people who live within that culture.

I didn't say that it was a one-way street. I said that your presentation of it was like a one-way street. I think I have a good idea of the theoretical concept of multiculturalism and the fact that it's not a one-way street. But the burden seems to be almost solely on the host with your arguments, and the benefit will be harvested at a very long timescale that goes way beyond the fluctuations of the electorate of any modern democracy. Which is pretty much where I put down the fallacy of multiculturalism, it can never survive multiple political administrations it will take for the voters to see it succeed as something that they can put their vote behind. Read this as if a european politician was trying to sell Canadian and Australian style multiculturalism to their voters.

And actually on that note.



This is also interesting. People used to complain about every migrant group which arrived. Italians, Vietnamese, Chinese, hell even the Irish back in the day. Then most people get over it. Of course now it's Muslim groups. In the future it will probably be Pacific Islander climate refugees.

My personal take is that this "foreigners migrating here" stuff is just newer for most parts of continental Europe, and less omnipresent because the numbers are lower. So you get a lot of people who have never really spent much time around people with various other cultures, and so people just haven't come to the realisation that the presence of other cultures and ethnicities doesn't take anything away from them yet. Y'all will get over it eventually, I reckon.

Yes, we will get over it. But it's my theory that it will not be in a style and format that would be compareable to Canadian and Australian multiculturalism. We need to find our own way in making our society work in the context of international politics that we live in here in Europe.

We're not having difficulties because we're the bogeymen that Formaldehyde is trying to paint us as. Are there elements of Nativistic thought in European politics? Of course, we have a very vibrant and active rightwing that want everything to remain the way it was and shut out the new and foreign. But it's nowhere near a majority. It's cause for concern though, and I think the open debate around immigrational policy and how we envision our various nation states in the future is important instead of leaving the discource to rightwin nutcakes that can only add fuel to the fire.

 

[Arwon]

I think Angela Merkel was actually attempting to sell Australian-style multiculturalism when she was saying German multiculturalism had failed. A take on it from Crikey, an Australian news site:

It’s always dangerous to assume that translation is unproblematic: that words and concepts mean the same in one community as they do in another. Failure to allow for the change in context can result in misleading conclusions — as with the widely reported remarks of German chancellor Angela Merkel on the weekend that multicultural policies have “utterly failed”.

Ironically enough, the translation out of German is the least of the problems. The word Merkel used, “multi-kulti”, is a common shortening of the more formal “multikulturalismus”; either way, “multiculturalism” is the obvious English equivalent. But the English word itself is so freighted with ambiguity that debate can quickly descend into meaninglessness unless care is taken to work out just what people are talking about.

In the context of a settler society such as Australia, we have at least a rough idea what multiculturalism involves. It signals giving up the attempt to impose the culture of a particular ethnic group — the first settlers, in our case the British — on all newcomers. Settler societies typically start out as outposts of the mother country’s culture, but that status becomes more and more unrealistic as ethnic diversity grows and the old monoculture comes to appear increasingly “foreign” and outdated.

Eventually those societies develop an autonomous cultural identity of their own, which subsumes to a greater or lesser extent the immigrant cultures that have contributed to it. Societies where the distinct cultures remain very much alive may describe themselves as “multicultural”, while those that stress the common identity more may refer to a “melting pot”, but the difference is a matter of degree, and in all cases it is more informative to look at the actual policies and their results rather than the words used to describe them.

A country like Germany, however, is in a very different position. There, the idea that anyone can become a citizen without sharing a particular ethno-cultural identity is still new and revolutionary.

Wherever it takes place, the debate about multiculturalism usually turns out to be a debate about immigration. But whereas countries like Australia are built on immigration, large-scale immigration in Europe is mostly or recent origins, and many European countries are having difficulty with its implications.

For many years, Germany was one of the least hospitable places for immigrants in western Europe. Although it welcomed foreign workers — particularly from Turkey — they were only intended to be temporary residents: they lived separately from the ethnic Germans, it was difficult for them to bring families with them and almost impossible for those without German heritage to become citizens.

While those policies have changed, they have left a legacy of division and ill-feeling. But attempts to overcome that are very much a two-edged sword: they hold out the prospect of genuine integration (with considerable success in recent years), but they also involve making it explicit that the “foreigners” are there to stay and therefore arousing the xenophobia that most countries harbor somewhere beneath the surface - including its fashionable new form, anti-Muslim bigotry.

Merkel is pro-immigration and pro-integration, but she heads a centre-right party with its fair share of scaremongers on the issue. It seems she was trying — perhaps with a degree of clumsiness — to tell them that the old cold-hearted tolerance of immigrants was a dead end and that it’s time to start treating them not as Turks but as Germans.

In saying multiculturalism has failed, Merkel was making what in the German context is a valid and important point. But in the way we use the term — as a genuine acceptance of immigrants and their associated cultures — it would be much more correct to say that the Germans haven’t yet given it a real try.

Maybe it's just me, but the argument doesn't sound like a difficult sell for a skillful politician. Something along the lines of: "Migrants came for economic reasons, but we treated them as outsiders instead of welcoming them as new parts of our society. Naturally, they lived up to that treatment, and became outsiders. Mutual misunderstanding was rife, problems occurred as past expectations clashed with present reality. This cold approach of treating people as labour to be imported and used, then ignored, has failed. These are fellow Germans who are here to stay, and it's time we started treating them as full German citizens and full participants in society, with the same obligations, the same rights, and the same cultural freedoms as other Germans." Or something.

Or just put the Greens in charge, their leader is Turkish-German, he'll fix everything. c

 

[BuckeyeJim]

I'd say someone who deliberate exaggerates how many Muslims are actually "extremists" and who thinks they used our "multicultural immigration policy" to "undermine our nation" is probably a good starting point. This all sounds eerily familiar to Glenn Beck and many other pundits on Fox News.

There's no deliberate exaggeration here. You can actually read about how Muslims used our immigration policy to undermine our nation here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

There are also plenty of other government reports that are accessible which outline the threat posed by sleeper cells. The problem in America is extremely isolated in terms of absolute population and a percentage. That can be seen in my Pew report. But we are talking about the UK, Germany, France, and other nations where these problems are not so isolated and entire sub-cultures are thriving in contradistinction to the nation they've moved to. The US has done a pretty good job with their immigration policies.

I also don't think it calls for restricting either Jews or Muslims to immigrate here. There are actually very few dangerous religious extremists in this world when compared to those who aren't, and few actually seem to want to immigrate here.

I'm not calling for restrictions along religious lines. I'm calling for restrictions along extremist lines. I would not advocate a discriminatory policy based on the name of your religion either. Everyone needs to be vetted to ensure they will not become an internal threat to the pre-existing society regardless of their religious affiliation. A governments duty is, first and foremost, to provide security for its population. And you cannot do this in any meaningful sense without screening people in a meaningful manner. An athiest pedophile Dutchman is just as dangerous to society as a Somali who's gonna mutilate his daughter and directly effect her life.

OK let's see if I have this straight. I, as a citizen of this country who was born here, get to say wacky things I want. However, citizens of this country, who were born in another country, don't get the freedom to believe wacky things, because they might do bad things? (We must be talking about citizens here, because mere residents don't get to vote or form parties.)

No. Everyone should have the freedom to say wacky things. We already made the distinction between wacky beliefs, and violent actions. Distinctions can be made regarding saying dangerous things. If I went outside the White House with signs saying I was gonna kill a politician or overthrow the government it wouldn't go over too well.

There is a very important distinction between having a set of values you personally believe and adhere to, and attempting to impose them on every one else. There's plenty of people with all sorts weird beliefs and political views without acting on them any way other than muttering about it in a blog or to their friends. I'm not convinced that "the West is waging a war on Islam" as expressed with sadness by many western Muslims is any wackier or more dangerous than the converse belief expressed by non-Muslims. I'm not convinced that Muslims having conservative social values is any bigger of an issue than non-Muslims having conservative social values. This is the essence of multiculturalism - accepting that people are entitled to a wide plurality of beliefs and values, and that those beliefs and values are not intrinsically a threat, provided they act and operate within the framework of rights and laws we have.

I agree. But you seem to be avoiding the points I brought up earlier. Your points are salient, but they ignore the fact that actions have transcended belief and that it's been a pragmatic failure in policy (some that you talk about, some that others talk about) that have led to these actions. If the problems began and ended at what you describe there would be no debate, and certainly no political outcry.

I mean christ, people talk about segregation and social isolation (even though there's not much evidence that persists generationally for the vast majority of any given migrant group), but we already have Hasidic Jews and borderline isolationist Mormons and Amish in Western countries, as well as groups like the Exclusive Brethren.

Hasidic Jews aren't committing violent actions. The Mormons and the Amish have been targeted for institutionalized child abuse. Western Liberal Democracy is supposed to reform abusive, neglectful, and violent abuse. It isn't tolerated within Amish or Mormon communities. Again, that's why we have laws and enforce them. Loose immigration policies that emerge from multicultural policies that you advocate results in a real nominal increase in the same cultural behaviors we're seeking to avoid. Immigration policies should stand against allowing immigrants with a history of child abuse or support for terrorism/destruction of Israel to enter our country. We already have big enough internal problems that we need to deal with and address. The protection of the citizens and children should be the largest concern of any western liberal democracy. Multi-culturalism should play its part by being sensible and vetting immigrants.

Nothing you've given us has been anything other than irrational and unrealistic fear that the acting on beliefs occurs in any meaningful or long term way even where wacky beliefs exist.

First, I have done plenty to show that these are meaningful problems. The existence of tens of thousands of young girls and women who've been exposed to FGM while residing in western nations is meaningful by any measure. The other stats that show support for violence are meaningful. The stats that show support and desire to impose Shariah law are meaningful. These aren't wacky, these are dangerous. And evidence of action may be undefinable, and stats on how many people are taking action are not available to us. If you are going to be admitted to a nation on a multicultural basis then you need to, in turn, respect other cultures yourself. And this isn't what is happening in many places and nations in Europe.

 

[Arwon]

This really isn't about multiculturalism, it seems to read like a generalised argument that immigrants cause problems. You're talking about the mere presence of people being a problem, not policy responses being a problem.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There's no deliberate exaggeration here. You can actually read about how Muslims used our immigration policy to undermine our nation here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.

That is patently ridiculous. There were 19 terrorists and a few people who helped them. Do you have any idea how many completely loyal Muslim-Americans there are?

This is nothing but xenophobia and exaggerated fear of Muslims.

And I've read that report cover to cover. It says nothing whatsoever about what a grave peril exists in the US from extremist "sleeper cells", or how we need to "vet" competely loyal Muslims.

 

[Singularity]

I think Angela Merkel was actually attempting to sell Australian-style multiculturalism when she was saying German multiculturalism had failed. A take on it from Crikey, an Australian news site:



Maybe it's just me, but the argument doesn't sound like a difficult sell for a skillful politician. Something along the lines of: "Migrants came for economic reasons, but we treated them as outsiders instead of welcoming them as new parts of our society. Naturally, they lived up to that treatment, and became outsiders. Mutual misunderstanding was rife, problems occurred as past expectations clashed with present reality. This cold approach of treating people as labour to be imported and used, then ignored, has failed. These are fellow Germans who are here to stay, and it's time we started treating them as full German citizens and full participants in society, with the same obligations, the same rights, and the same cultural freedoms as other Germans." Or something.

Or just put the Greens in charge, their leader is Turkish-German, he'll fix everything. c

Sadly it's still very much an ideological debate and not a logical and pragmatic one. And she might as well try to convince all germans to drink nothing but Foster's Lager and probably have more success at that.

Also, we're in the middle of a financial crisis still in Europe. And the climate for long term realpolitik seems to be centered around who has to suffer cuts in the next budget. Which makes me suddenly think that the whole multiculturalism debate is an attempt at political distraction more than anything. They realize that nothing creative will get done in solving it, but throwing it on the table will take some heat away from unpopular cuts in the coming budgets. Which smacks quite distateful tbh if that is the political motivation behind it

 

[Arwon]

Foster's is gross and un-Australian. ):

 

[Tee Kay]

You're right. It would be a hell of an Army. Especially if you dispersed them into western cultures using their own policies against them.

Why are you insecure? Do you think if Western culture is so weak that it can't stand even relatively weak competition? Maybe in the case it shouldn't be preserved.

 

[wolfigor]

Maybe it's just me, but the argument doesn't sound like a difficult sell for a skillful politician.

It is a difficoult sell, especially in this time of economic contraction.
The problem is not entirely rational, and politicians have to fight against a very disillusioned and upset voters base.

These are fellow Germans who are here to stay, and it's time we started treating them as full German citizens and full participants in society, with the same obligations, the same rights, and the same cultural freedoms as other Germans." Or something.

It's very important to start understanding that most Europeans expect immigrants to make a very large effort to integrate themselves into the society without the society itself having to change in any radical way.

Europeans do not expect their the core parts of their laws to change to satisfy the needs of a minority.
For example, we don't want to impose censorship against publications that may say something against the prophet Mohamed.
Law is above religion. full stop. this is one of the core beliefs of most of European countries.
Other example, European countries do not tolerate female genital cutting and infibulation.
No matter how important for any culture, this is a no-go area (e.g. female genital cutting is punishable as a criminal offence under Norwegian law even if the offence is committed abroad).

These are just a couple of the more extreme examples, just to exemplify some of the core beliefs that Europeans feels threatened.
Maybe these core beliefs are not really threatened but European voters wants to feel themselves reassured that their core beliefs and laws will be not changed.

 

[Arwon]

What, you think more successful multicultural societies such as Australia allow these things? Wow, I see where the confusion may be coming from. Yeesh.

 

[Formaldehyde]

For example, we don't want to impose censorship against publications that may say something against the prophet Mohamed.
Law is above religion. full stop. this is one of the core beliefs of most of European countries.

Full stop?

How many immigrating Muslims aren't completely willing to accept those standards? The only people who do want to change the laws are a handful of extremists. How is that any different than how the extremists act anywhere? It is equivalent to those Tennesseeans who think Muslims are "bringing Sharia law" to their state and want to change their state laws accordingly, only on a much smaller scale.

Once again, Muslims respresent an incredibly tiny fraction of the population. There is simply no way they are going to change the laws of Norway, or any other secular country, even if they wanted to do so.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

This really isn't about multiculturalism, it seems to read like a generalised argument that immigrants cause problems. You're talking about the mere presence of people being a problem, not policy responses being a problem.

No. You are making an error that many bad managers and business owners make. You're trying to nail down one specific root cause when one does not exist. What's worse is that you're purposefully using my own words to accomplish this when it isn't what I am communicating. There are different approaches to identifying the causes of problems: human, process, system, 5 whys etc. So it's foolish for any participant in this discussion to hammer out a singular cause of the problems.

But first, you and Formaldehyde have to realize that there are problems. FGM is a problem. 9/11, 7/7, Bali, and many other attacks are real problems with various causes. But let's take a quick examination of this.

1. These problems exist within our societies. But why, and how can we prevent it?
2. They exist because people have extremist viewpoints that have transcended into violence and threaten our citizens.
3. They exist because they imported their extremist viewpoints from other countries.
4. They were able to import their extremist viewpoints because of loose immigration policies.
5. We have loose immigration policies because we want a multi-cultural society.
6. We want a multicultural society because it can be a strong tool in highlighting and strengthening liberal western values that we remember.

And we can actually go on and on and on defining reasons and creating flow charts about why people in other countries have extremist ideologies in the first place.

All points above are objectively valid.
The protection of citizenry is also an objectively valid desire.

When an organization, a business, a government agency, a government body, or a household identifies a problem it does no good to ignore it if there are mutually exclusive alternatives that can correct the problem. You mention a number of ideas that can correct these problems that I agree with earlier in this thread. But it's foolish to ignore 4 and 5 just because you have a vested interest in promoting multiculturalism at all costs. If we had more pragmatic immigration policies it would have far reaching effects.

1. We would better secure our respective nations.
2. We would not have to miss-allocate financial and human resources to unnecessarily policing immigrant populations after they have already immigrated.
3. We could import a higher quality immigrant population.
4. It would be better for all immigrant populations and reduce stigmas associated with them.
5. It would reduce faux anxiety associated with nationalists.

Adopting more stringent policies would serve to strengthen multiculturalism. It would strengthen the quality of a nation as well.

I just don't get it. Why would you want to blindly admit anyone into your nation when you can filter out those who would be a negative force on your society and get the best quality immigrants possible. With such an incredibly large pool of potential immigrants, why settle on the ones who are most eager to get in line without examining their backgrounds, desires, aspirations, or skills?

Also, you are from Australia, and you talk about Australia being a bastion of multiculturalism. Well, you don't have a lot of Muslims, and you don't have a lot of them coming from problematic societies. You do not have a lot of immigrants lend themselves to problems. And even with that there's been plenty of problems with Muslims in Australia. You have no shortage of globally controversial Islamic clerics per capita. Why would you want to have an influential Islamic cleric comparing women who utilize western liberal freedoms as "meat," and blaming the victim when they are victims of sexual assaults? Wouldn't you rather keep that guy out of your country and import a talented Islamic doctor who will be a patriotic Australian who fully supports your system and values?

But really, you don't have enclaves of problematic communities. Your Muslims are Turkish, Bosnian, Lebanese and Indonesian, traditionally more liberal societies. Start importing Somalis, Yemeni, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Syrian, Libyan, and Sudanese immigrants in large numbers. As I said before, the smaller the number of problematic immigrants you have per unit area, the less liable they will have to adopt a group mentality and practice extremist ideologies and turn them into actions. You don't have a nominally large number of immigrants from problematic societies concentrated in any given place. So why would you have problems? It's not a mutually exclusive comparison.

That is patently ridiculous. There were 19 terrorists and a few people who helped them. Do you have any idea how many completely loyal Muslim-Americans there are?

This is nothing but xenophobia and exaggerated fear of Muslims.

And I've read that report cover to cover. It says nothing whatsoever about what a grave peril exists in the US from extremist "sleeper cells", or how we need to "vet" competely loyal Muslims.

If you'd stop distorting my simple, straight forward statements, and try to spin them into hyperbole, it wouldn't seem so extreme to you. If you had taken the time to read other posts you would have come across the Pew Research Poll that examines American Muslims. So yes, I am well aware that the US generally does a pretty good job with their Muslim populations. And I am proud of that. But just because we have a good system doesn't mean that we can't improve upon it. And it doesn't mean that 9/11 couldn't have been prevented with a better immigration system. As a communications major, I am clearly stating what I actually feel in a non-partisan manner. There is nothing xenophobic about what I have written. Do you know what xenophobia is? If you do, then what part of my comments (in context) leads you to think I'm xenophobic?

I never said that the 9/11 Commission was a study on sleeper cells. I said it was an example of a study of a single sleeper cell that existed because of our immigration laws. It was an analysis of how 9/11 happened, and provided recommendations on how to prevent from happening again. I clearly said that there are other studies that go into more depth about the problem of sleeper cells within our society. They won't show up in any survey.

I have to tell you, you cannot pigeonhole me, or make me mad, simply by attempting to distort my positions or create faux anxiety about my positions. So, I will kindly ask you to knock off your openly hostile and dishonest approach to debating me.

 

[JollyRoger]

So, I will kindly ask you to knock off your openly hostile and dishonest approach to debating me.

You are only about 1 of 19 or so that get that kind of treatment.