Provocative questions about immigration

[Winner]

In many, often heated, discussions here on CFC, people seem to use few kinds of arguments over and over again. I'd like to settle this once and for all and answer some basic questions regarding the immigration.

First of all, the purpose of immigration.
There are two approaches to this issue. One economical and the other we may call humanitarian. Immigration is allowed, according to the first principle, because it benefits the recipient country, which is in need of workers. This was the case in Western Europe of 60s and its import of Gastarbeiters from all over the world. People who see the immigration in this way advocate the same approach for today world - are we in need of skilled workers? OK, let's grant them a residence permit. They'll stay until we don't need them and if they show they're a "citizenship material", we let them stay permanently.
The second approach to that is totally different. People who act according to that principle believe, that the Western countries have some kind of an obligation to shelter poor and oppressed people from 3rd world countries, even if they are of no economic benefit to us and even if they refuse to accept the identity of the recipient country.

- So, I'd like to know where you stand. Are you in favour of selective immigration for economic purposes only ("we let in only those we need"), or you're the good samaritan who want to help as many as possible?


Then, there is the question of multiculturalism. In short, multiculturalism is an ideology which says, that the newcomers don't have to assimilate into their new home country's culture. Multiculturalists believe, that there can be two or more culturally distinct communities in one country and that it will in fact strenghten the country.
In opposition to this approach are people, who are in favour of assimilation of the newcomers. They believe, that multiculturalism is in fact fractionizing the country, dividing it into seperate communities existing without much contact with each other, making them a state in state. Assimilation is, according to them, the best way how to deal with immigration, because only those people, who fully accept the new identity, can be productive members of the society.

- Again, I'd like to know, what's your opinion - are you multiculturalists (please note that we're talking mainly about non-European immigrants with non-European culture) or "assimilationists"?


Finally, there is the issue of ethics. I've heard from many people here, that we need immigration basicly because if we stopped it, it would be a sign of our jingoism, racism and xenophobia. Really?
Many countries in Europe have a thousands years long history, an unique set of traditions and values that form their identity. Unlike the US, which is to large extent an immigrant country, people in Europe often don't want to be a melting pot of cultures, even if it would be possible. They want to preserve their traditional values and identity, so they demand that the newcomers either adhere to them or they leave.

- So my final question is: is that wrong? Is it wrong for citizens of one country to set the house rules in their own home? If your answer is yes, I want to know why and I want to hear a very, very good reasoning for that.

I am looking forward to your replies

 

[Babbler]

Small world... I was think of some kind of thread like this.

So, I'd like to know where you stand. Are you in favour of selective immigration for economic purposes only ("we let in only those we need"), or you're the good samaritan who want to help as many as possible?

I don't know. If we can handle them and they follow the rules, they should able to stay.

Again, I'd like to know, what's your opinion - are you multiculturalists (please note that we're talking mainly about non-European immigrants with non-European culture) or "assimilationists"?

Definitely assimilation... sort of. Mostly. Culture is, at heart, is a set of values and mores that a society operates on. The core values of any immigrants should be that of the country the chosen to live, and there loyalties should primarily toward that of their new nation. But they can still practice any trappings of their old countries, so long as they allow other to do so, and it doesn't conflict with the values of the country or its laws.

Is that wrong? Is it wrong for citizens of one country to set the house rules in their own home?

No, that is basis of sovereignty; any exemption to that (i.e. massive human rights abuse, etc.) is beyond the scope of the thread.

 

[.Shane.]

US and European attitudes on this are very different. Mainly because in Europe there is a correlation between nationality and ethnic identity. For instance, in Sweden, the people are overwhelmingly ethnic Swedes. I realize this isn't exactly the case everywhere, but for the most part its true. Its also why smaller countries are created every couple years... an ethnic group wants to have its "own" country, etc...

In the US there is no American ethnicity (thank god). We have been well-served throughout our history by our extremely liberal immigration policies and I can only hope this continues into the future.

 

[Spartan117]

US and European attitudes on this are very different. Mainly because in Europe there is a correlation between nationality and ethnic identity. For instance, in Sweden, the people are overwhelmingly ethnic Swedes. I realize this isn't exactly the case everywhere, but for the most part its true. Its also why smaller countries are created every couple years... an ethnic group wants to have its "own" country, etc...

In the US there is no American ethnicity (thank god). We have been well-served throughout our history by our extremely liberal immigration policies and I can only hope this continues into the future.

what he said...

no more posts for me on this topic

 

[blackheart]

In the US there is no American ethnicity (thank god). We have been well-served throughout our history by our extremely liberal immigration policies and I can only hope this continues into the future.

Some people here would argue with you about this. Factually we may have no defined American ethnicity (except of course for the Native Americans, but let's leave them aside for now) but there is as some would say, the caucasian identity that is the majority.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Notice that in history, economic sucess has often followed large immigration periods. Large groups of immigrants in the late 1890's to early 1900's was followed by the roaring twenties. Immigrants in the late 1930's were followed by a post-war economic boost (although some would attribute that to the war).

America has been built by immigrants, I say keep the doors for immigrants open.

 

[.Shane.]

but there is as some would say, the caucasian identity that is the majority.

But even this "caucasian identity", if ascribe to it, is a mutt. Hell, I'm Irish, German, Dutch, and English. But, I'm 100% American. I have zero ethnic or racial identity in so much as its not something that I've ever consciously wasted time thinking about or trying to identify. It does not matter to me.

 

[blackheart]

But even this "caucasian identity", if ascribe to it, is a mutt. Hell, I'm Irish, German, Dutch, and English. But, I'm 100% American. I have zero ethnic or racial identity in so much as its not something that I've ever consciously wasted time thinking about or trying to identify. It does not matter to me.

Yes I agree, but there is a lot of the White vs. non-White mentalit that goes around.

 

[Rossiya]

it is very interesting the predicament the new world's citizens are in. they are neither "ethnic american" neither a complete foreigner. i say that anyone that knows a family member of theirs was/is a foreigner to their country, should not moan at all about immigrants.

 

[newfangle]

I seem to agree with Winner about most things, so whatever his stance is on immigration is mine as well.

 

[Ethics]

Notice that in history, economic sucess has often followed large immigration periods. Large groups of immigrants in the late 1890's to early 1900's was followed by the roaring twenties. Immigrants in the late 1930's were followed by a post-war economic boost (although some would attribute that to the war).

America has been built by immigrants, I say keep the doors for immigrants open.

More correctly, pre-1870 immigration preceded economic prosperity. Cheap labor allowed for such infastructural growth such as canals and railroads. Post 1870 immigration has been a response to economic prosperity. Now, there is a correlation that this immigration expanded economic prosperity, but it was not the cause of it, as capitol investment was the leading factor in growth during the industrial era. An example of this would be the massive drop in immigration by the end of the 20s due to economic depression.

 

[History_Buff]

- So, I'd like to know where you stand. Are you in favour of selective immigration for economic purposes only ("we let in only those we need"), or you're the good samaritan who want to help as many as possible?

As long as they will obey the law, and will contribute in some way, let em in.

- Again, I'd like to know, what's your opinion - are you multiculturalists (please note that we're talking mainly about non-European immigrants with non-European culture) or "assimilationists"?

Assimilationism. I got nothing against other cultures, and the diversity it brings. Keep your religions, speak your language in your home, teach what you want to your kids. But try to amalgamte yourself into the community; the whole idea of "Chinatown" or "Native Reserves" is still offputting to me. Why is it that they can't live like the majority of the people? And non Indo-European languages really bother me when I have to listen to them on the train. Call me whatever, but it's the truth.

- So my final question is: is that wrong? Is it wrong for citizens of one country to set the house rules in their own home? If your answer is yes, I want to know why and I want to hear a very, very good reasoning for that.

Nope. It's our country, you want to come here, so why would you suddenly want to change stuff about it? Don't move here just to have a replica of your country of origin, except with better economic conditions.

 

[Steph]

Mainly because in Europe there is a correlation between nationality and ethnic identity. For instance, in Sweden, the people are overwhelmingly ethnic Swedes

Can you define what is an ethnic French to support your idea of corelation between nationality and ethnic identity in Europe?

 

[Steph]

My point of view:
We may have a duty to save people from misery, oppression, etc.
Bu we also have a duty to protect our own people, and it should be our main duty. You may find it cynical if you want.
So I'm OK to accept immigrant to help them if we can afford it. Afford it in term of economy, society, politics.

I know Winner is afraid mainly of muslims immigration that will destroy our culture.

Muslims who just arrive may not know our values and our way of life. They know only theirs. They don't really know what is freedom of the press, because the press is not free in their country.

I work with several muslims. When they manage to get a decent job, have money, and live with us and not beside us, few remain fundamentalists very long. They will want to go to night club, they will like to have a drink or a good meal. They will like to listen to our music, watch our movie, play our video games. They will westernize. And they can do so without losing their own culture, they will find a compromise. As all the previous immigration waves have done in the past. The society into which they arrived has shaped them, as they shaped a bit their new society.
I think it's positive when we learn new culture and take the best of each.

But to achieve this goal, we need first to succeed in three key points:
- First, we should not discriminate, and we should really give an economical change of success to imigrants. So they don't have to return to isolationism in ghetto where they are easy prey to fundamentalism, but can really aspire to become "like us"
- Second, we must regain confidence in our own culture and values, we need to be proud of them, and present them as a shining beacon for others to stear their little boat toward. But it's a difficult exercice, because we have to do it without hurting feelings, and without being to arrogant, or we would failed, for we would either become a corrupted goal or an ennemy instead of being an example, or we may give the impression we are untouchable and make newcomers hopeless to reach their place beside us in our society. Currently, we are losing that because we don't put our values under a positive light, while the immigrants do (in their own mind).
- Third, we have to teach our values to immigrants. We have to help them learn our language so they can communicate with us. We have to teach them our laws and customs. Many immigrants don't respect them out of ignorance, not simply because they despise them. And there again, at least in France, we do to little in that regard for our immigrants.

So I'm against the people who shout after the wolf here, and are ready to throw all the immigrants here back into the sea, simply because they are evil muslims, for these people are as evil as what they claim to fight against.

However, I agree that we cannot have any rabid uncontrolled immigration. We should use some kind of quota, to select immigrants who have the most chance to pass through condition 1, finding a suitable place in our economy. Therefore, we should favorized the immigration of people with the skills needed for the jobs we lack, and try to limit the number of immigrants to a number our economy can manage to integrate.
Then they will adapt our values, for most of the people who immigrate here think they will come to a paradise of tolerance, good job and prosperity. But they discover it's just another one of the 666 layers of the Abyss that await them, peopled by little Winner-devil ready to poke them with their little trident.

The strenght of Europe should reside in our hability to inspire, not in our capacity for hatred.

So, to summarize

- So, I'd like to know where you stand. Are you in favour of selective immigration for economic purposes only ("we let in only those we need"), or you're the good samaritan who want to help as many as possible?

Selective immigration (we let in mainly those who can integrate in the economy, which is slightly different from those we need), and then some for humanitarian reason, but not to much (those we can support).

Again, I'd like to know, what's your opinion - are you multiculturalists (please note that we're talking mainly about non-European immigrants with non-European culture) or "assimilationists"?

Hard to answer. I think we should be ready to assimilate a part of the immigrant culture into our, they should assimilate a larger part of our culture into theirs, at least language (even if they keep their own, they should learn the new one), and respect for the law. And we can still keep a part of multiculturalism (example: religion), as long as it does not conflict with our current culture.
Example: If a muslim wants to pray 5 times a day, I have no problem with that. If he wants to live by the religious law, then he should not come but try Saudi Arabia instead.

So my final question is: is that wrong? Is it wrong for citizens of one country to set the house rules in their own home? If your answer is yes, I want to know why and I want to hear a very, very good reasoning for that.

Is it not wrong, as long as they are general rules that apply to everyone.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Immigration is good. Although you need good immigrints that work hard and follow the law. The rest should be kicked out. They should only be let in if there is room for them (Like if unemployment is low).

 

[Grisu]

In the past, my country has benefitted greatly from immigration, so I'm pretty much in favour of it. My parents supposedly heard the same kind of arguments we hear today back in the 60s when italian "hordes" were threatening to overrun switzerland with their strange culture and force the natives out. What really happened is that they added another flavour to switzerland, enriching our country (and I'm not merely meaning in the monetary sense), making it stronger. I have no reason to believe that it will be different in the future.

So, I'd like to know where you stand. Are you in favour of selective immigration for economic purposes only ("we let in only those we need"), or you're the good samaritan who want to help as many as possible?

A mix of both. let in immigrants for economic purposes, but also let in refugees/immigrants from poorer nations up to a limit. The hard thing, of course, is to determine how high said limit should be

Again, I'd like to know, what's your opinion - are you multiculturalists (please note that we're talking mainly about non-European immigrants with non-European culture) or "assimilationists"?

a mix of both. People who move here, should adopt one of our languages, and must respect our laws.
But I have no problem if the keep their religion, their customes, culture or language, as long as they aren't in direct opposition to our laws. I have no problem if I hear people speaking turkish on the train, I love it when they bring additional culinary options, I don't mind if they want to wear a burkha in public, as long as they respect our laws.

is that wrong? Is it wrong for citizens of one country to set the house rules in their own home?

No, it's not wrong. It's their (our) perfect right to do this, as long as the rules apply to everyone, I don't see a problem.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Steph, The Wise Man from Pont de l'Arn, said all needed to be said about this issue. I can't add anything better.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

- So, I'd like to know where you stand. Are you in favour of selective immigration for economic purposes only ("we let in only those we need"), or you're the good samaritan who want to help as many as possible?

I go with the economic one, the reason for immigration is to inprove the lives of both the recipients(need workers) and the immigrants(need/want a better life)

- Again, I'd like to know, what's your opinion - are you multiculturalists (please note that we're talking mainly about non-European immigrants with non-European culture) or "assimilationists"?

Multiculturalism is a weakness. It encourages people to retain their identities as foreigners when they should be viewing themselves as (insert nationality receiving the immigrants here). If you are moving to another country, you should try to fit in and assimilate.

- So my final question is: is that wrong? Is it wrong for citizens of one country to set the house rules in their own home? If your answer is yes, I want to know why and I want to hear a very, very good reasoning for that.

No, if you stay in my house, you must abide by my rules or leave. Foreigners should abide by our rules and culture when they move here, and if I were to move to their homeland I would be expected to do the same.