[RD] Our Children, Their Children, and the Question Dances With Wolves Couldn't Answer.

[rah]

First generation immigrants will usually cluster together, but the next generation rebels and desires to join the wider community.
And after joining the wider community will eventually desire a return to their roots which will keep a spark of their original culture alive. But in general after a few generations, the wider community has a greater hold. We've seen this wave after wave. Each new culture adds to the whole and makes it stronger.

 

[Crezth]

First generation immigrants will usually cluster together, but the next generation rebels and desires to join the wider community.
And after joining the wider community will eventually desire a return to their roots which will keep a spark of their original culture alive. But in general after a few generations, the wider community has a greater hold. We've seen this wave after wave. Each new culture adds to the whole and makes it stronger.

It's like gene-splicing, but for cultures. Meme-splicing.

 

[Ryika]

Well, this is a rather poorly constructed argument. It's unclear whether you are saying that people in fact do not have the ability to go wherever they want (which, well....duh), or if you are saying that we should not understand free movement as a right because the moral case for it makes no sense. Morally speaking, I don't think you have any more right to bar entry to your country than anyone has to enter it. Immigration policy around the world is not a matter of moral enlightenment but of might-makes-right.

Oh, it certainly is might-makes-right(s), no doubt about that. Nations (and property rights as well) require restrictions to where you can go, therefor there is no such thing as a natural right to move wherever you want. Or if there is, then it is not and wil never be accepted by any nation.

"Natural rights" are rights that exist in the state of nature, which governments can attempt to restrict but which practical reality (what some call "natural law") forcibly abides. I think that "freedom of movement" and "freedom of commerce" are moreorless totally natural and go hand-in-hand. Whether or not it's "my country" is an irrelevant proposition to whether or not Johnny Foreigner wants to hoof it over here and do business. The only way I can stop him from doing so is to force him at gunpoint not to. I think this is a waste of state resources and ungenerous to Johnny Foreigner.

I do not regard closing the borders and sticking with "your own only" is a "valid decision" so much as a suicidal one. Case in point, Japan is choking on its policies and despite its desperate attempts to preserve its own culture against foreign influence, it couldn't help evolving into the 21st century. The will of the "nation" or the nation's government are irrelevant to whether or not the policies they support are wise or foolish. So "valid decision" or not, I would not hesitate to call it short-sighted.

Yeah, it's a silly decision. Doesn't make it invalid.

Of course we're not even talking about a stop to all immigration, the thread is about whether it makes sense to just see everybody as "our children", it is built on the premise that all immigration should be allowed, because all immigration is good. When it comes to long-term prosperity, I'm even willing to grant that that is probably true, but it still causes short-term problems, and because people are creatures who live short lives, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not want to have to deal with those.

And Japan is not choking because of immigration, it's choking because of cultural values that have led Japanese people to make few babies. An expectation to "live for your job" and weird gender relations have caused a situation where Japanese people do not form families and instead stay single.

 

[Lexicus]

Or if there is, then it is not and wil never be accepted by any nation.

Which is why I, in turn, do not accept the existence of nations. Not a huge fan of property rights either, as you may be aware.

And Japan is not choking because of immigration, it's choking because of cultural values that have led Japanese people to make few babies.

I think it's rather more down to the fact that the people in charge of its economic policy for the last thirty years have been more worried about non-issues like inflation than the actual economic problems facing the country (at bottom, chronically low aggregate demand).

 

[Ryika]

Which is why I, in turn, do not accept the existence of nations. Not a huge fan of property rights either, as you may be aware.

Oh, but you do accept the existence of nations. Like every other good little citizen, you play by the rules as much as you need to. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to sit there with a device that connects you to the internet where you share your opinions that most people don't agree with - a device that you probably think of as your property, too.

 

[Crezth]

Of course we're not even talking about a stop to all immigration, the thread is about whether it makes sense to just see everybody as "our children", it is built on the premise that all immigration should be allowed, because all immigration is good. When it comes to long-term prosperity, I'm even willing to grant that that is probably true, but it still causes short-term problems, and because people are creatures who live short lives, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not want to have to deal with those.

And Japan is not choking because of immigration, it's choking because of cultural values that have led Japanese people to make few babies. An expectation to "live for your job" and weird gender relations have caused a situation where Japanese people do not form families and instead stay single.

I am agreeing with the thread premise that all immigration is good. The short-term problems only apply collectively - individually, everyone has problems. Opposing immigration is not morally justifiable or reasonable IMO regardless of how short people's lives are strictly because I think commerce and movement shouldn't be restricted. If one doesn't want to deal with foreigners in their town, oh-freaking-well. Frankly internal movements within, say, the United States make someone just as much a foreigner in Nebraska if they're from Mexico City or San Francisco or Ottawa. You can bet your sweet bottom that the same applies in places like India, Russia, and China (and frankly even smaller countries like France and Spain). I think maybe one could use the broadened perspective instead of cherry-picked opinions provided by polemics and editorials.

Japan is definitely choking because of immigration and I'm glad you agree: their insular cultural values have driven them into a corner. That might change with a few years of relaxed immigration. Few nations are as privileged as Japan to be so bound-and-determined to keep out foreign influences, but without a doubt they could use the boost that immigrants would provide - culturally, economically, whatever. But they don't want to. I accept the reality of that, but at the same time I can judge them for their foolishness, just as you have also done, and propose solutions, such as to relax their stance on xenophobia. And I'm not blowing hot air: I've lived and worked in Japan as an immigrant and experienced firsthand their perspective on these and similar issues. I find it extremely hard to accept their arguments about cultural purity while the magazine shelves at 7-11 are stacked high with hentai. Not that there's anything wrong with hentai, but I don't think they had 7-11's a hundred years ago.

 

[Ryika]

The short-term problems only apply collectively - individually, everyone has problems.

So let's say your country leaves in a million refugees from countries where people have low views of women.
Some of them sexually assault and rape women in their new host countries.

Are these women not "individuals" for you, or how does that work?

Opposing immigration is not morally justifiable or reasonable IMO regardless of how short people's lives are strictly because I think commerce and movement shouldn't be restricted. If one doesn't want to deal with foreigners in their town, oh-freaking-well.

It's perfectly justifiable. If people want their place to be the way it is, that is there decision.
I find it way more morally questionable that you think you have the right to tell people that they cannot make that decision.

Japan is definitely choking because of immigration and I'm glad you agree: their insular cultural values have driven them into a corner. That might change with a few years of relaxed immigration. Few nations are as privileged as Japan to be so bound-and-determined to keep out foreign influences, but without a doubt they could use the boost that immigrants would provide - culturally, economically, whatever. But they don't want to. I accept the reality of that, but at the same time I can judge them for their foolishness, just as you have also done, and propose solutions, such as to relax their stance on xenophobia.

Your way of thinking here is hilarious. It's so obviously that you've started with "Immigration is the solution to everything!", and then moved on to "So how can it help Japan?" instead of looking at Japan and thinking: "What are possible solutions for this?".

I find it extremely hard to accept their arguments about cultural purity while the magazine shelves at 7-11 are stacked high with hentai. Not that there's anything wrong with hentai, but I don't think they had 7-11's a hundred years ago.

And yet hentai are a thing that's unique to Japanese culture. Not "traditional Japanese culture" maybe, but it's clearly where the Japanese have led their country Everywhere else, Tentacles are usually something you see as part of occult Gods, not inserted into any opening imaginable.

 

[Lexicus]

Like every other good little citizen, you play by the rules as much as you need to. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to sit there with a device that connects you to the internet where you share your opinions that most people don't agree with

[laughs in world government]

a device that you probably think of as your property, too.

Joke's on you because I'm using my work computer right now

I find it way more morally questionable that you think you have the right to tell people that they cannot make that decision.

How far are you willing to take this logic, exactly? Germans decided they wanted a Jew-free Germany so it is morally questionable for me to tell the Germans they can't make that decision?

 

[Ryika]

Joke's on you because I'm using my work computer right now

Work computer? Does that mean you're a slave to a person who employs you?

How far are you willing to take this logic, exactly? Germans decided they wanted a Jew-free Germany so it is morally questionable for me to tell the Germans they can't make that decision?

The Germans were actively treading on the human rights of Jews, some other ethnic groups and handicapped people, I think that's justification enough to call them out.

A restriction on immigration does no such thing, people generally don't agree that you have a right to just go wherever you want and just take whatever you want, so you don't have a justification by which you can hold them to that standard.

 

[Crezth]

So let's say your country leaves in a million refugees from countries where people have low views of women.
Some of them sexually assault and rape women in their new host countries.

Are these women not "individuals" for you, or how does that work?

I'm very annoyed you replied to my post piecemeal. Regardless, I'll play along. It's kind of fun like dialectical whack-a-mole.

If people rape and sexually assault women they should be put in prison. It sucks for the victims but you can't have a victim before a crime has even occurred. To wit: if a million refugees come in, and five-hundred thousand of them rape women, then five-hundred thousand should be tried against the law. That's how crime, law and order work.

Now let's suppose you elevate this to some precondition against allowing those refugees in because you assume you can have a reasonable expectation that so many rapes are going to occur and it's going to weigh on your legal system. I can understand that argument from a pragmatic perspective. However, it's still holding people accountable for crimes they have only hypothetically committed, so the legal justification is rather weak; and furthermore it's based on a cultural assumption that I think is challenging to quantify or logic about. I'm sure you can make an argument from praxis in favor of banning immigrants from Rapetopia, but I haven't seen one, and in general I think this is a sensationalist argument.

It's perfectly justifiable. If people want their place to be the way it is, that is there decision.
I find it way more morally questionable that you think you have the right to tell people that they cannot make that decision.

Actually I defer to the legal authority on this point. If a people's (hopefully democratic) fair and legal authority determines that there should be no immigration, then so be it: that's what's going to happen. However I can still argue against it and state my case for immigration. In fact I think I have an inalienable right to do so.

Your way of thinking here is hilarious. It's so obviously that you've started with "Immigration is the solution to everything!", and then moved on to "So how can it help Japan?" instead of looking at Japan and thinking: "What are possible solutions for this?".

Well, no, I actually formulated this opinion based on my lived experience as an migrant worker in multiple countries, including Japan. I brought them up as an example of a place where xenophobic policies have not yielded in great dividends. If you wanted me to propose a slate of reforms to fix all of Japan's problems, I could do that (complete with a smug expression), but it'd be besides the point I was making which is that their cultural insulation has not "preserved" anything and has not made Japan any less appealing as an immigrant destination. I think the kind of open dialogue that comes with immigration is good and might expose them to more positive impressions of, for instance, gender relations, rather than doubling down on "the traditional ways" and spinning the wheels.

To be true, Japan is a rather exceptional case of isolationism as they are one of the most xenophobic cultures on the planet, and have been for large periods of their history, especially during the sankin kotai. However whether this has been to their benefit or detriment is where I propose that it seems mostly detrimental to me.

And yet hentai are a thing that's unique to Japanese culture. Not "traditional Japanese culture" maybe, but it's clearly where the Japanese have led their country Everywhere else, Tentacles are usually something you see as part of occult Gods, not inserted into any opening imaginable.

Maybe hentai was unique to Japan at one point but certainly not anymore. Thanks, Internet!

 

[Lexicus]

Work computer? Does that mean you're a slave to a person who employs you?

No, it means the computer is the property of the organization that employs me and they just let me use it, ostensibly for work purposes...

The Germans were actively treading on the human rights of Jews, some other ethnic groups and handicapped people, I think that's justification enough to call them out.

Yeah I dunno, it seems like forcing people into situations where they drown on crap boats after having been swindled by human smugglers could be described as "treading on their human rights" but I guess you have a pat explanation for why it's totally not Europe's fault this is happening. The US, Europe, and Australia are certainly "treading" on the human rights of prospective immigrants.

people generally don't agree that you have a right to just go wherever you want and just take whatever you want,

That's weird, I genuinely did think lots of people agreed with that. At least, I saw plenty of garbage defending Christopher Columbus a couple of days ago...

 

[Ryika]

Yeah I dunno, it seems like forcing people into situations where they drown on crap boats after having been swindled by human smugglers could be described as "treading on their human rights" but I guess you have a pat explanation for why it's totally not Europe's fault this is happening. The US, Europe, and Australia are certainly "treading" on the human rights of prospective immigrants.

You're not forcing them to do that, they can just stay where they are.

But I actually agree with you on the issue of refugees, we should do our best to help where needed, and stop doing our part in the destabilization of the area with our proxy wars.

That's weird, I genuinely did think lots of people agreed with that. At least, I saw plenty of garbage defending Christopher Columbus a couple of days ago...

Oh, it's okay when we do it to people who can't defend their borders, obviously. Their "state" failed, tough luck!

 

[Lexicus]

You're not forcing them to do that, they can just stay where they are.

The US case wrt Latin America is the most clear-cut (or at least, the example I know the most about). The US government absolutely is primarily responsible for the conditions throughout Latin America that make people desperate to get into the United States, and they regularly die doing so. A similar dynamic is in play wrt Europe and Africa/Middle East, though of course the US government is far more involved in that than any European government is in the Latin American situation.

 

[warpus]

First generation immigrants will usually cluster together, but the next generation rebels and desires to join the wider community.
And after joining the wider community will eventually desire a return to their roots which will keep a spark of their original culture alive. But in general after a few generations, the wider community has a greater hold. We've seen this wave after wave. Each new culture adds to the whole and makes it stronger.

But when you look at the demographics of major American cities, all the white people live over here, all the black people live over there, all the Asians live over therr, and all the Latinos live elsewhere.

 

[Ryika]

I'm very annoyed you replied to my post piecemeal. Regardless, I'll play along. It's kind of fun like dialectical whack-a-mole.

If people rape and sexually assault women they should be put in prison. It sucks for the victims but you can't have a victim before a crime has even occurred. To wit: if a million refugees come in, and five-hundred thousand of them rape women, then five-hundred thousand should be tried against the law. That's how crime, law and order work.

Now let's suppose you elevate this to some precondition against allowing those refugees in because you assume you can have a reasonable expectation that so many rapes are going to occur and it's going to weigh on your legal system. I can understand that argument from a pragmatic perspective. However, it's still holding people accountable for crimes they have only hypothetically committed, so the legal justification is rather weak; and furthermore it's based on a cultural assumption that I think is challenging to quantify or logic about. I'm sure you can make an argument from praxis in favor of banning immigrants from Rapetopia, but I haven't seen one, and in general I think this is a sensationalist argument.

No, that's your sensationalist argument. My argument is that _some_ of them will do something, and that's a fact. Some will, and the percentage of those who will can be assumed to be higher than the percentage of people who are already in the country (because of their attitudes towards women and the lack of access to women who will be willing to have sex with them), so by taking in refugees, you are increasing the risk of rape for women.

Of course the actual number of incidents is way, way lower than 1 in 2, which is why I am generally for taking in refugees who are seriously in need of help, but the difference between me and somebody who is against taking refugees in the current situation is mainly a difference in perceived risk and possibly lower levels of empathy for the people who have to flee from their homelands.

Your stance is basically: "You have no right to evaluate for yourself what you think is more important because I have already decided for you."

Actually I defer to the legal authority on this point. If a people's (hopefully democratic) fair and legal authority determines that there should be no immigration, then so be it: that's what's going to happen. However I can still argue against it and state my case for immigration. In fact I think I have an inalienable right to do so.

Yeah, and that's fine. But when you think that in your opinion everybody who's against mass immigration is immoral, then I can say that I think that in my opinion your position is immoral. Easy.

Well, no, I actually formulated this opinion based on my lived experience as an migrant worker in multiple countries, including Japan. I brought them up as an example of a place where xenophobic policies have not yielded in great dividends. If you wanted me to propose a slate of reforms to fix all of Japan's problems, I could do that (complete with a smug expression), but it'd be besides the point I was making which is that their cultural insulation has not "preserved" anything and has not made Japan any less appealing as an immigrant destination. I think the kind of open dialogue that comes with immigration is good and might expose them to more positive impressions of, for instance, gender relations, rather than doubling down on "the traditional ways" and spinning the wheels.

To be true, Japan is a rather exceptional case of isolationism as they are one of the most xenophobic cultures on the planet, and have been for large periods of their history, especially during the sankin kotai. However whether this has been to their benefit or detriment is where I propose that it seems mostly detrimental to me.

Their position has again nothing to do with their stance on immigration. They've gotten where they are now by internal cultural developments, and they could very well have gotten to a better point, even without immigration. Immigration is now a possible solution for the situation that they're in, but it's not the only one. I mean even if everything else fails, at worst the country will go downhill, crash and burn, become poor and then people will start producing tons of babies, because that's what poor countries generally do. Poverty creates fertility like nothing else.

Maybe hentai was unique to Japan at one point but certainly not anymore. Thanks, Internet!

Hentai is a product that was exported by Japan to the world, the world liked it and has adopted Japanese Culture. And may Allah be blessed for that!

 

[rah]

But when you look at the demographics of major American cities, all the white people live over here, all the black people live over there, all the Asians live over therr, and all the Latinos live elsewhere.

I don't really consider blacks immigrants. And the Asian areas are more tourist traps these days. Younger Asians are more spread out. Especially if you look in the suburbs where the better schools are.

 

[Crezth]

No, that's your sensationalist argument. My argument is that _some_ of them will do something, and that's a fact. Some will, and the percentage of those who will can be assumed to be higher than the percentage of people who are already in the country (because of their attitudes towards women and the lack of access to women who will be willing to have sex with them), so by taking in refugees, you are increasing the risk of rape for women.

This is not a logical argument. "Attitudes towards women" and "access to willing women" are not quantified, in fact you're just making several assumptions about motivations for rape, foreign cultural values, etc. That was my point: your argument is based on an assumption that cannot be justified. Then you turn it around and say it was actually my sensationalist argument. Are you taking the piss here?

Your stance is basically: "You have no right to evaluate for yourself what you think is more important because I have already decided for you."

Yeah, and that's fine. But when you think that in your opinion everybody who's against mass immigration is immoral, then I can say that I think that in my opinion your position is immoral. Easy.

Jesus Christ. I can't believe this is a Red Diamond thread. For someone who cried "Straaaaawmaaaaan!" at the very start you sure do love propping them up and pummeling them.

I have said before (and you have diligently ignored) that my position is that mass immigration, or really immigration of any kind, is defensible along the lines of natural rights and freedom of movement. Obstructing this position enshrines an institutional opposition to freedom of movement which I think no moral justification exists for; particularly no moral justification that is copasetic with my (very American) notions of liberty and justice for all. I have argued against anti-immigration thusly and you have presented no case against it except to try to spin the tables and declare me immoral. It's essentially the debate equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

Part of living with other people's freedom is dealing with disappointment. Sometimes they rape you and sometimes they don't pay taxes. That's what the law is for, and good laws are fair laws that do not issue prejudice. Honestly, if we're going to get into cultural critique, I don't think American culture possesses any superiority over Mexican-American culture or whatever as it regards rape and fiscal honesty, no matter how you try to contrive a hypothetical scenario based on assumptions.

Their position has again nothing to do with their stance on immigration. They've gotten where they are now by internal cultural developments, and they could very well have gotten to a better point, even without immigration. Immigration is now a possible solution for the situation that they're in, but it's not the only one. I mean even if everything else fails, at worst the country will go downhill, crash and burn, become poor and then people will start producing tons of babies, because that's what poor countries generally do. Poverty creates fertility like nothing else.

Their stance on immigration does not help them. That was my point, and has been my point all along, and was the only reason I brought them up. I honestly can't even tell what you're trying to say here. If you said "I just want to be around people just like me forever and ever and that's the end of that and I'll never consider otherwise" then we could put this whole matter to rest because there'd be nothing to argue, except to point out that you're going to inevitably get older, and nothing ever stays the same as it was anyway. People change. Cultures change. Times change. Get with the program.

Anyway I'm through with your intellectual dishonesty. If you want to make a point then make a point. Drop it with the meta-arguments and hypotheticals.

 

[warpus]

I don't really consider blacks immigrants. And the Asian areas are more tourist traps these days. Younger Asians are more spread out. Especially if you look in the suburbs where the better schools are.

Check out a map like this:

Spoiler :

American urban centres seem VERY race segregated. It seems to contradict the "After a couple generations everyone integrates" line. The opposite seems to happen - different races stick and live together.

 

[Crezth]

Check out a map like this:

Spoiler :

American urban centres seem VERY race segregated. It seems to contradict the "After a couple generations everyone integrates" line. The opposite seems to happen - different races stick and live together.

How many generations do you think have passed since this (unlabeled, unreferenced; thanks) urban center amalgamated in the way that it has? Institutionalizing certain aspects of race inequality tends to reinforce the mistrust that drives them. See: apartheid.

 

[warpus]

Those maps have been around more than Trump so I didn't think I needed to hunt down their exact origin. I also assumed most Americans are familiar with this phenomenon but granted you might not be American.

Either way that's the reason I don't buy that after a couple generations everyone more or less integrates. I mean yeah sure, that happens to some degree I bet, but the patterns on all maps like that, of major American cities, seem to paint a completely different picture.