The neoliberal left

[innonimatu]

If everyone is treated equally, then there is no threat of opposing ethnic groups forming a competing identity in conflict with existing identities. The whole reason that was and continues to be a thing in the U.S. is the widely disparate treatment people receive, based purely on superficial notions of race. So to argue they need to be kept away seems like an admission that they will be treated poorly and unequally; otherwise, there is no reason for conflict.

That is, unfortunately, usually the case. Economic migrants (the vast majority, outside of war zones) and invited or tolerated in either because they provide cheaper labour than the locals, or because they carry some actually new know-how. In the first case they will be treated worse, that is the economic motive being their coming. It the second they may or may not be treated worse, depends on what situation their coming is upsetting. In any case they'll land in a foreign land without the usual networks of family and friendship one can rely on, which also puts them as a disadvantage and more exposed to be exploited.

These are problems that can lead to immigrant communities "defending" by creating ghettos and ethnic "networks". There are ways to defend equal treatment for immigrants but those are hard, they require oversight that actually works, they also require an economy where immigration doesn't particularly disadvantage some groups of the local population thus setting the stage for conflicts. The greater the influx the harder it is to handle these problems adequately.
Of course the proponents of multiculturalism seem to believe that ghettos may even be desirable! The invisible hand will also work for immigration, nothing to worry about... The proponents of integration believe otherwise and usually oppose large influxes, the definition of "large" being up for debate.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, it is. You too, btw. It's one of the reasons I distrust the expansion of government, generally.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, it is. You too, btw. It's one of the reasons I distrust the expansion of government, generally.

I think it's better framed as racism than as expansion of government.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If everyone is treated equally, then there is no threat of opposing ethnic groups forming a competing identity in conflict with existing identities. The whole reason that was and continues to be a thing in the U.S. is the widely disparate treatment people receive, based purely on superficial notions of race. So to argue they need to be kept away seems like an admission that they will be treated poorly and unequally; otherwise, there is no reason for conflict.

What a stupid and impractical idea of treatening people equally! The only highly meanigful exception is before the institutions of law. If you think about it most of the time we dont treat people equaly and for a many good reason! Are you going to treat fool and wise person the same way? The one who respect you as the one who does not? Adult as a child? Fit person as a disabled? Nonse! And the list is endless.
Simmilary how are you imagining that people of different competing ideologies get along instantly without some educational and behavorial advancement? Do you think that the western culture is that advanced and superior that it automaticaly absorbes any influence? Apparently not or otherwise racism or any other prejudice wouldnt be a problem. To be clear ideology is a weapon as have military institutions recognised it long time ago. But you seem to be naively suggesting the use one of the most powerful tools as its some kind of children plaything.

 

[Katie88]

Thus "everyone a citizen" view, as opposed to the "multiculturalist" view, seems to be an underlying reason for the rhetorical clashes between europeans and "usaians" - not to call them americans in this case because the Americas are larger than the USA (and Canada) where this idea has taken root. This is one issue where I can understand very well people with whom I disagree often (Akka, even Luiz!).

* And I do mean should not be allowed. If there are laws against racism, they must apply also to attempts to create such racial-based "identities" or groups where they previously did not exist. I don't want the kind of crap I see on the other shore of the Atlantic imported here.

There is the same divide within Europe between, say, the UK ('multiculturalist') and France ('everyone must be French'). Neither approach works, and both countries have similar problems with certain groups. Of course it's different from the US in the sense that the US always had a significant non-white population, whereas in Europe non-white residents are a much more recent phenomenon.

And I'm not sure how you can prevent people forming identities or maintaining, to some extent at least, the ones they come with.

 

[Akka]

I'm starting to get the idea that you haven't any arguments beyond screaming 'racist!' at anyone who doesn't view things through the same prism as you.

It took you that long to figure this out ? ^^

 

[Katie88]

It took you that long to figure this out ? ^^

I haven't been here long, but it's a tactic I've seen used before by others.

'Oh [dear]! I haven't any argument against that. I know: I'll deploy the magic word.'

 

[Tahuti]

they also require an economy where immigration doesn't particularly disadvantage some groups of the local population thus setting the stage for conflicts.

That's generally because immigration restrictions force illegal immigrants to go underground, making them easier to exploit by businesses yet also more competitive with labourers from the local population.

 

[innonimatu]

There is the same divide within Europe between, say, the UK ('multiculturalist') and France ('everyone must be French'). Neither approach works, and both countries have similar problems with certain groups. Of course it's different from the US in the sense that the US always had a significant non-white population, whereas in Europe non-white residents are a much more recent phenomenon.

And I'm not sure how you can prevent people forming identities or maintaining, to some extent at least, the ones they come with.

Agreed, you can't. Immigrants always carry some of their cultural customs with them and that is fine. What I mean is that they should not live in their own bubble apart, which was what a certain interpretation of "multiculturalism" advocated for, even going as far as wanting separate laws (for family issues, especially) for such groups. There is actually a tradition of doing that (the big trading cities and their nearly extra-territorial enclaves of traders, etc), but I don't believe it is a good idea in out present-day world where people mingle a lot.

The idea of enshrining any kind of different treatment, whether negative or positive, in law for some group is anathema for quite a lot of people here. Thus talk of positive discrimination we see from the US sounds... weird.