| ▲ | hackinthebochs 6 hours ago |
| I'm not sure why I should care that an ethnic X is supporting a party that defends a homeland mainly for ethnic X's. It's always taken as an axiom by leftists that immigration is an unconditional good, but never actually defended. Why should stable homogenous countries take on unbounded immigration from countries with dissimilar cultures and suffer all the ills that come along with it? Why are white countries moving to preserve their culture, ethnicities, identities supposed to be unconscionable? Can anyone offer a full-throated defense of these claims? |
|
| ▲ | teh64 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Your claims beg the question. Immigration being positive is not taken as an axiom, it is backed by studies [1,2,3,4]. Facts over feelings is truly dead on the right. If you look at the history of crime, we are living in the safest times [5].
The "homogenous countries" started 2 world wars, one of them to "preserve their culture, ethnicities, identities".
Would this not support the worldview that immigration has net benefits? Also, can you explain how ethnic cleansing preserves culture and identities? [1] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/legacy-briefs/2016-01-... [2] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12497/w124... [3] https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeelabeco/v_3a29_3ay_3a... [4] https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annur... [5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/147737081454117... |
| |
|
| ▲ | UtopiaPunk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't want to speak for European countries. Never lived there, and I think people living there should be responsible for deciding how they navigate such issues. In the USA, where I live, there is not much of an ethical or cultural defense to prevent immigration. The dominant culture, white people, are themselves immigrants. To deny others the right to live and work here is selfish at best. If some people are allowed here and some people are not, the only logically coherent next step is to return all land and resources back to Native American hands. If we do not have the stomach for such a bold transition, then the next best thing is to welcome everyone. To do otherwise means allowing and denying people a life here on extremely arbitrary, hypocritical reasons (and usually racist reasons, frankly). So, at least in the USA (and I believe more broadly, North and South America), the political Left must necessarily be pro-immigration if they wish to be anti-racist. Speaking even more broadly, Leftists have generally be in favor of internationalist cooperation (a la the famous song The Internationale). But how exactly that relates to immigration policies is debatable. |
| |
| ▲ | pllbnk an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Legal immigration to the US for an every day person is nearly impossible. You can’t just decide one day that you will move to the US and try to make a life there. European countries are orders of magnitude more open than the US. | |
| ▲ | hackinthebochs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks for replying. I can see your point of view. |
|
|
| ▲ | tastyface 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I live in a "white" country and I like my nonwhite neighbors, some immigrant, some nth-generation, even ones who mostly socialize within their ethnic/cultural enclaves. I believe they belong here as much as I do. I don't want to give any money to racists who want to expunge them for some perceived ethnic transgressions. These parties are one step removed from extolling the virtues of the glorious Aryan race, and we all know where that leads. |
| |
| ▲ | Saline9515 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What happens when they start to see their ethnicity or culture as political and fight to impose it, including using violence? Because at some point it will happen - democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism. The USA, which is often touted as a "successful" melting pot model, is rife with similar problems. | | |
| ▲ | mrtesthah 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism Cite your peer reviewed sources. | | | |
| ▲ | tastyface 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Civil strife? If it comes to violence, I (a white person) certainly won't be on the side of the white nationalists. Same for most of my peers. Many of us love living in multicultural societies and will fight to protect our neighbors and our way of life. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why is "civil war" the default situation here? How about domestic terrorism for instance? Will you be on the side of the muslim terrorists who beheaded teachers and priests (among others), and killed 132 concert-goers (and injured 413 others) at the Bataclan in 2015? Will you tell the french people who were slaughtered that it was the price to live in a multicultural society?Damn. Even if you don't go as far as terrorism, it's simple: multi-ethnic societies favor either identity politics (aka clientelism) or authoritarianism (only way to avoid it). The USA is a great example for this: the previous administration played identity politics to the maximum, and the new one used it to impose authoritarianism. It's very hard, if not impossible to escape this loop once you are in a minority-only society. And of course you have to deal with collapsing social trust. The USA isn't the ultimate lawyer society, and the most armed one by pure chance. It's a logical consequence. | | |
| ▲ | tastyface an hour ago | parent [-] | | What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? Absolutely nothing. (Or, at least, as much as neo-Nazis have to do with the native white population.) Fact is, most people are extremely normal and just want to live in peace. I'll be on the side of my nice Muslim neighbors (who did nothing wrong to anyone) against the red-faced white supremacist mobs. It is very obviously the correct moral position and will be viewed as such by our descendants. In the US, the most heavily armed communities also tend to be the least diverse. It is largely a consequence of insular paranoia and hatred stoked by ubiquitous right-wing media. | | |
| ▲ | snackerblues an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Muslims when they get a majority will vote to execute gays, censor women and ban abortion. You know what, you libs may be too stupid to see where your ideas will lead but you're actually totally correct Muslims are cool | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? They share the same religion and ethnicity. French muslims were actually a large contingent in Daesh forces. This is a classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. Every muslim will tell you that the Charlie Hebdo covers about Muhammad were "haram" - because that's exactly what their religion says. Not that they are all bad people, just like you had nice soviets, or I'm sure that there a nice North Korean Juche party members, too. You seem to be acting like an ostrich, putting your head in the sand to avoid problems. Face reality and read about Islam, which is inherently a political religion. Read also about the Muslim Brotherhood (or similar orgs). > US armed communities. How about latino gangs? Are they operating with nerf guns? Besides, the safest places in the US are those that are monoethnic, such as New Hampshire. | | |
| ▲ | constantius 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Your observation about multi-ethnic societies is rather interesting (though I would add slme caveats), but then you unfortunately are blinded by your preconceptions. The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism. A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising. I would bet that Americans and foreigners in general are a large minority in Canadian far-right groups, for example. The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer. You can be anti-immigration without descending into racism and Islamophobia, actually it would greatly reinforce your points. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | hackinthebochs 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I believe they belong here as much as I do. This sentiment is just so utterly foreign to me that I can't comprehend how someone could rationally think this way. I mean, I'm a black man whose ancestors have lived in America since the slave ships, and I easily recognize that some people are more American than others. And Americans only have like 1% of the cultural and ethnic identity that most European nations have. Why are you blind to the importance of the deep historical roots that bind a nation together? Why do you think the very force (namely kinship ties) that has driven humanity forward for the last hundred thousand years has, in the blink of an eye, become irrelevant? | | |
| ▲ | b40d-48b2-979e 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As a blacker man whose ancestors found their way to the Americas before the year of our Lord Jesus, what are you even talking about? America has never had "deep historical roots" to bind us together. | |
| ▲ | tastyface 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I come from a family of recent immigrants. We're considered white so we get a pass for behaviors that our nonwhite peers get side-eye for. My ethnicity has its own enclaves. Those enclaves get treated as a cute cultural artifact rather than a threat -- even worth visiting on a tourist trip. My ancestral culture lives under the protective umbrella of "Western culture," but in practice, the overlap with prevailing Protestant/Anglo culture is minimal along almost any axis. And yet, we are all American by almost any reasonable definition. If anything, the people beating their chests for having some random ancestors on the mayflower or whatever are the impostors here. What have they actually done for this country? Also, I'm kind of surprised that you believe these things as a black man. You do realize that a large percentage of the country doesn't consider you "true" American either, right? They can't kick you out, but they will do everything in their power to disenfranchise you and turn you into second-class citizens. The signaling could not be any more clear. | |
| ▲ | Capricorn2481 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This sentiment is just so utterly foreign to me that I can't comprehend how someone could rationally think this way For someone who is so befuddled by the idea of being unbothered by a heterogeneous culture, you don't make any convincing argument against it. Why are you complaining about leftists who see immigration as inherently "good" if you can't even explain why it's bad? If it's so obviously bad, surely you can outline what will tangibly happen? > I'm a black man whose ancestors have lived in America since the slave ships, and I easily recognize that some people are more American than others If it's so easy to recognize, then what is it? What makes you American, and what makes you not American enough to be worthy of deportation? You aren't "easily recognizing" anything, you are having a feeling about people different from you and trying to rationalize it afterwards. There is an obvious argument for immigration as an inherent good. It brings business, it brings talented specialists, it brings new ideas, it brings a bigger market. We are one of the most powerful countries on earth. If immigration was so obviously bad, do you think a nation of immigrants would be able to get to this point? Culture is our main export. We are a cultural powerhouse. We are envied by other countries for our soft power. That's what the Riyadh comedy festival was about. We are strong arguably because we are such a melting pot, and we have a rich cultural tapestry. Black culture exists specifically because people didn't assimilate to white culture, and it's fascinating to enough people that Koreans halfway across the world are emulating it. The idea that we suddenly have a homogeneous "way to act" that is easily identifiable, and we need to deport people that don't act that way, is farcical and stupidly self-defeating. It's also laughably overconfident for a country that can't make cars or keep employed, tax paying citizens from drowning in medical debt. We should probably play to our strengths, not self-sabotage. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 an hour ago | parent [-] | | If the nation of immigrants is so great, why are so many people protecting themselves with guns and why are there so many lawyers to compensate for the absence of social trust? And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success? Having a good cultural distribution channel doesn't mean that it's inherently good. Japan has a great cultural soft power too, however I don't know if many people would tolerate life in Japan (for real). On the other side most people can't locate Denmark on a map but would love the life there. | | |
| ▲ | zimpenfish an hour ago | parent [-] | | > If the nation of immigrants is so great, why are so many people protecting themselves with guns I think you'll find that's a particularly American problem - the UK, for example, is a nation of immigrants and we have basically zero guns (compared to the US.) > And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success? Because they have been told that immigrants are bad, that immigrants take their jobs, that immigrants sponge off the state[0], that immigrants are eating their pets, etc. All easily fact-checked and debunked but people, alas, are easily lead by media-driven bigotry.[1] [0] Schrodinger's Immigrants: simultaneously taking your jobs whilst also sponging off the state. [1] Now this we -do- have in the UK, largely from the same Murdochian sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | DivingForGold 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not a defense, but rather support for your opinion, just take one look at Europe. Previously, they welcomed Syrians and middle Easterners escaping conflict. But in the last years, right wing majorities have emerged and grown based on increased crime and general nuisance, many are now against immigrants. Just yesterday the Danes are insisting on eliminating these nuisance loud "calls to worship" from Mosques. Immigrants that are not really being hired by locals, or not successful starting their own legitimate businesses, too often turn to organized crime - - they have to make a living somehow. Witness the violent protests recently in Ireland against immigrants. Witness all the bombings in Sweden, and of course the rapes of local women. Many of these immigrants come from less lawful countries, where it's often "dog eat dog" for survival. |
| |
| ▲ | deeg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I can't speak for Europe but in the US crime has been on a downward slope since the 90s, all while the percentage of immigrants in the US has gone up. A few studies have shown that immigrants have a lower incidence of crime, especially undocumented ones. I don't know of any reputable studies (in the US) that show otherwise. | | | |
| ▲ | tastyface 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The violent protests in Ireland were explicitly enflamed and coordinated by Musk and other right-wingers over social media: https://newrepublic.com/article/211936/elon-musk-race-war-be... |
|
|
| ▲ | rationalist 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's always taken as an axiom by leftists that immigration is an unconditional good, but never actually defended. I'm not sure that is correct. Before Trump, "left" politicians (in the U.S.) campaigned on controlling immigration and deporting illegal immigrants. |
| |
| ▲ | hackinthebochs 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not in my experience, at least not at the national level. It's been said that Obama deported more illegals than anyone that came before. But Democrats couldn't run on that record because it was toxic to the progressives. | |
| ▲ | UtopiaPunk 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The USA has never had a leftist president. No president of the USA has ever sought to end capitalism. I think you know that, and that you are alluding to that with quotation marks. But I'm not sure how the person you are replying to is using the term "left." I feel it is important to clarify when discussing how the Left views immigration. Clarification aside, I agree with what you said. |
|
|
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
