Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dæl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
UKIP is not the BNP. You can be anit-immigration without being a screaming facist, however to the dogmatic admitting that is a no no.

They aren't bend over backwards PC, so that means they must be evil.

Noone has suggested they are fascist, just racist, and when, regardless of the question asked, Farage starts spouting some drivel about immigration you can see where people get the idea that he might be a bit of a xenophobe.

Actually the boot is on the other foot.

Unless you spout the inclusivity BS you are accused of being a bigot. Any form of moderation against is considered an extremist view.

There are problems with immigration policy, if you don't believe that then ask why England of all places is seen as an Islamists recruiting ground. How about companies that openly stated to the Gordon Brown government that they only hire Poles because 'they work harder'. One would have thought that would be a bigoted view, but no.

'multiculturalism' is a beatstick that has come into political useage over the last 50 or so years.

Tony Blair and his Labour government cranked up its use through Labours' spell in office. A buzzword designed to be latched onto, with supposed substance and direction. In essence it is a phantom.

I live in Birmingham, A 'multicultural' city. This is the famous city where a personal definition of multiculturalism almost led to Christmas not being celebrated.

Multiculturalism has ended up being WASP fear to tread.

 Orlanth wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
UKIP is not the BNP. You can be anit-immigration without being a screaming facist, however to the dogmatic admitting that is a no no.

They aren't bend over backwards PC, so that means they must be evil.

Noone has suggested they are fascist, just racist, and when, regardless of the question asked, Farage starts spouting some drivel about immigration you can see where people get the idea that he might be a bit of a xenophobe.

Actually the boot is on the other foot.

Unless you spout the inclusivity BS you are accused of being a bigot. Any form of moderation against is considered an extremist view.

There are problems with immigration policy, if you don't believe that then ask why England of all places is seen as an Islamists recruiting ground. How about companies that openly stated to the Gordon Brown government that they only hire Poles because 'they work harder'. One would have thought that would be a bigoted view, but no.

There absolutely needs to be a proper debate on immigration without anyone being called a racist, but Farage and his party are not the people to have that debate because we also need to have a debate on the economy and other subjects, and UKIP have no idea what they are on about on anything other than EU membership and immigration. Seriously if you were a waiter in a restaurant and asked him if he was ready to order he'd start shouting at you about a referendum on leaving the EU, it's almost comedic his turning of every question into the one he wants to answer.

The reason Britain has become the recruiting ground for Islamic extremism has far more to do with the Covenant of Security (where we allow extremists to live here and plot terror campaigns as long as they don't attack us) than it has to immigration, But UKIP won't talk about things like this because it doesn't further their blinkered view.

 dæl wrote:
As a bit of background the children were only there on a temporary basis, and a judge had previously chastised the council for not taking into account the children's cultural needs.

Do you have more data/an article covering the above? This incident is troubling to me, but if it was a temporary placement, and another home was available, it might cast a somewhat different light on the situation.

Bromsy wrote:I fear that excessive multiculturalism will lead to a brittle society. Everything will be more or less fine as long as times of relative peace and plenty abound, but when the gak hits the fan - the aliens/asteroid/super plague are dropping ninety percent of your city, without a shared culture, a certain level of homogeny, you will lack the level of unstinting trust in your neighbors necessary to pull through as a functional whole.

I take it you're not a fan of steel, then are you? It's the multicultural metal- Iron for structure, and carbon, tungsten, manganese & chromium for hardness.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 dæl wrote:
As a bit of background the children were only there on a temporary basis, and a judge had previously chastised the council for not taking into account the children's cultural needs.

Do you have more data/an article covering the above? This incident is troubling to me, but if it was a temporary placement, and another home was available, it might cast a somewhat different light on the situation.

Absolutely, here you go.

Joyce Thacker, the strategic director of children and young people's services at Rotherham council claimed the children were only placed with the couple as an emergency, and the placement was not a long-term arrangement.

"Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

culture is pretty much what happens when a group of people live together.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

As much as I respect Marx and his ideas, I don't think he got out and about much.

I suspect there is more to it than is currently being reported and that what there is to it is being blown out of proportion by the UK's poisonous right wing gutter press.

 dæl wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

As much as I respect Marx and his ideas, I don't think he got out and about much.

Marx (and Engels) argued that everything was reductible to labour and economy, basically. He wasn't blind to the existence of other facets of human life, just that he thought that they were only historically and socially relevant in their relation to the forces of productions. He thought that the scientific endeavour, for exemple, was understandable as nothing else but the process of industry being given new means. Art was reductible to a mean of validation of the leading class (the group controlling the means of production), etc...

While I think it's reductive, it's a good example to show that all aspects of a culture are somewhat linked to the economy of that culture.

There's also plenty of examples on the relation between cultural values and economy that can be given that do not appeal to academic texts. Who could argue that there hasn't been a significant change in the economy of western countries since women have started to pursue careers?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

Marx would be wrong in practice, as usual.

There is a large chasm that must be crossed before you can assume "related to culture" and "the focus of culture" are the same thing.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Marx would be wrong in practice, as usual.

There is a large chasm that must be crossed before you can assume "related to culture" and "the focus of culture" are the same thing.

What does that even mean? You are the one who suggested that economy is unrelated to culture, or not to be included under. Again, can you really say that feminism throughout the 19e and 20e has had no impact on economy? Can you really say that feminist values are not part (or at the least gaining a place) of western culture, or are unrelated to culture?

If we have an economy that appeal to others, it's because of the culture in which it exists. Change the culture, you'll change the economy.

The idea that there is nothing else to culture beyond labor and economy is nonfunctional. Of course I respect your right to enjoy debate for its own sake, but I think this digression is a bit indulgent and in danger of derailing the thread.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The idea that there is nothing else to culture beyond labor and economy is nonfunctional. Of course I respect your right to enjoy debate for its own sake, but I think this digression is a bit indulgent and in danger of derailing the thread.

I actually don't think everything is reductible to economy, but that at least everything is tied to it. If the debate on multiculturalism is on-topic, I was simply hoping to show that immigrants bringing certain cultural values with them might have a negative impact on the very thing that made them come here.

If you say it's getting OP, then I'll submit myself to the Lord of the Banhammer.

Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

Those are reasonable points, KO. I just thought the digression into the rather extreme position you described Marx has holding invited argument on that extreme position, which would be kind of outside the topic.

 dæl wrote:
Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

I think that's now the rule for every western country. Autarcy doesn't have much currency these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Those are reasonable points, KO. I just thought the digression into the rather extreme position you described Marx has holding invited argument on that extreme position, which would be kind of outside the topic.

Noted

You're going all over the place, and using some faulty logic as well. I'm going to try to bring this back on-topic, if it's possible.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

KovnikObama wrote:While I think it's reductive, it's a good example to show that all aspects of a culture are somewhat linked to the economy of that culture.

This is you moving the goalposts.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Marx would be wrong in practice, as usual.

There is a large chasm that must be crossed before you can assume "related to culture" and "the focus of culture" are the same thing.

You are the one who suggested that economy is unrelated to culture, or not to be included under.

Quote me or else stop building a straw man.

I said it's the conomy, rather than the culture, that generally drives immigration.

KovnikObama wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

KovnikObama wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

If we have an economy that appeal to others, it's because of the culture in which it exists. Change the culture, you'll change the economy.

By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive. Likewise, if I were a miner, there would be a good chance that I'd move to Quebec. But that does not mean that I love poutine (I do) and it does not mean that I enjoy speaking French (I don't). It merely means there might be a job for me there. And the presence of that job has nothing to do with the French Canadian culture, outside of a willingness to exploit a natural resource, which, if it exists as a cultural zeitgeist, only does so at such a generalized macro level that it is pointless to this discussion.

So while I'll willingly admit that culture and economy influence one another (claiming otherwise is obtuse); my point is that immigration is typically influenced by economy and not culture (barring hyperbolic anywhere-but-here anomalies, such as a homosexual emigrating from Nigeria, etc. to avoid persecution).

I can tell that this discussion hits close to home and no doubt resonates with the general xenophobia commonplace to Quebec (this is fact, not opinion. "distinct society" is evidence of such). Montreal's Francophone culture isn't what the rest of Canada finds appealing about Montreal: it's the cheap rent and pretty girls.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're going all over the place, and using some faulty logic as well. I'm going to try to bring this back on-topic, if it's possible.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

KovnikObama wrote:While I think it's reductive, it's a good example to show that all aspects of a culture are somewhat linked to the economy of that culture.

This is you moving the goalposts.

No, that's me limiting my adherence to a position commonly held in high regard. I am not Marx. I can give his opinions, and then moderate them. Anything else I need to explain?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Quote me or else stop building a straw man.

I said it's the conomy, rather than the culture, that generally drives immigration.

Oki.

Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

There, happy?

Hey, let's try to keep it friendly. No need to be nasty or dispectful toward folks' home provinces.

I thought KO moderated his comments and made clear that he was arguing that the two are linked, rather than Marx's more extreme position.

There are certainly plenty of historical examples of people moving in part due to culture, such as many folks who fled repressive Communist countries for the West during the Cold War. Greater economic opportunities were no doubt nice too, but wanting to be in a less-repressive society where their kids could have more freedom and more opportunities (beyond just economic) were oft-cited.

 azazel the cat wrote:
By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive.

No, just that there's not enough of them as citizen of those states to really have an influence...

I can tell that this discussion hits close to home and no doubt resonates with the general xenophobia commonplace to Quebec (this is fact, not opinion. "distinct society" is evidence of such). Montreal's Francophone culture isn't what the rest of Canada finds appealing about Montreal: it's the cheap rent and pretty girls.

That's cheap. And wrong, considering that most that emigrates to Quebec comes from francophone countries.

Western (and Pakistani and Philipino) workers in Dubai have little intention of settling there. They are simply attracted by better work and pay than they can get at home.

This is not to deny a cultural component to migration, but I do not think it is the essential motive in the case of Dubai, as is shown by people going back at the end of their tour, which is not true migration.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive.

No, just that there's not enough of them as citizen of those states to really have an influence...

Right, so tell me again how those workers migrated there because they were attracted to the local culture? Because the point I was making is that it's not the culture that draws them there.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive.

No, just that there's not enough of them as citizen of those states to really have an influence...

Right, so tell me again how those workers migrated there because they were attracted to the local culture? Because the point I was making is that it's not the culture that draws them there.

Do we really need to drag this on? My point is that a culture shapes an economy, not that the psychology behind immigration is solely directed by cultural envy... If it attracts enough people that the culture changes radically, then you might see the economy change.

Canada as many values, for exemple, equality of right between the sexes, that have a direct impact on the economy. If enough people came from a different culture and reintroduced machism, it would have serious economical impacts, which would run counter to their point in coming here.

 dæl wrote:
Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

No. Immigration drives down the wages and conditions of unskilled work. You know how many English people work in factories in England? Virtually none.

English people have a nasty tendancy of forming unions, not putting up with terrible working conditions, and reporting bosses who casually grope women on the assembly line. No I'm not making it up, and no I don't think it would happen if everyone who worked there was English. Certainly it doesn't happen in the warehouse where there are far more English staff.

Given the huge surplus of unskilled labour in this country, the argument that importing even more of it will boost economic growth is moot. You can't just add up all the wealth generated by foreign-born people and say that's how much immigration benefits us when it's bs. If wages rose in line with productivity we'd need very little unskilled labour.

Note that skilled labour is something different entirely, and should be permitted as and when shortages in the UK arise.

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

No. Immigration drives down the wages and conditions of unskilled work. You know how many English people work in factories in England? Virtually none.

English people have a nasty tendancy of forming unions, not putting up with terrible working conditions, and reporting bosses who casually grope women on the assembly line. No I'm not making it up, and no I don't think it would happen if everyone who worked there was English. Certainly it doesn't happen in the warehouse where there are far more English staff.

Given the huge surplus of unskilled labour in this country, the argument that importing even more of it will boost economic growth is moot. You can't just add up all the wealth generated by foreign-born people and say that's how much immigration benefits us when it's bs. If wages rose in line with productivity we'd need very little unskilled labour.

Note that skilled labour is something different entirely, and should be permitted as and when shortages in the UK arise.

Minimum wage legislation prevents wages being driven lower than what they actually are for the majority of unskilled work.

Here is an interesting study entitled THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH LABOUR MARKET

Their conclusion-

we find little evidence of overall adverse effects of immigration on native outcomes. If there is evidence of negative effects on employment in any group, then it is for those with intermediate education levels, but this is offset in the aggregate by positive effects on employment among the better qualified. Estimated wage effects, based on a shorter run of data, are if anything positive but statistically poorly determined

 dæl wrote:

Minimum wage legislation prevents wages being driven lower than what they actually are for the majority of unskilled work.

Here is an interesting study entitled THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH LABOUR MARKET

Their conclusion-

we find little evidence of overall adverse effects of immigration on native outcomes. If there is evidence of negative effects on employment in any group, then it is for those with intermediate education levels, but this is offset in the aggregate by positive effects on employment among the better qualified. Estimated wage effects, based on a shorter run of data, are if anything positive but statistically poorly determined

The minimum wage is higher than the real value of labour because there is such an over-abundance of it, due to mass migration. If 90% of people in a factory are migrants, they are obviously jobs that could be held by local English people.

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Minimum wage legislation prevents wages being driven lower than what they actually are for the majority of unskilled work.

Here is an interesting study entitled THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH LABOUR MARKET

Their conclusion-

we find little evidence of overall adverse effects of immigration on native outcomes. If there is evidence of negative effects on employment in any group, then it is for those with intermediate education levels, but this is offset in the aggregate by positive effects on employment among the better qualified. Estimated wage effects, based on a shorter run of data, are if anything positive but statistically poorly determined

The minimum wage is higher than the real value of labour because there is such an over-abundance of it, due to mass migration. If 90% of people in a factory are migrants, they are obviously jobs that could be held by local English people.

They are and at times like this of mass unemployment it would be nice if they were, but a lot of the British workforce (wrongly imho) think those jobs beneath them, and in times of boom our economic growth would suffer without immigration.

That is tory bollocks. People don't turn down or ignore jobs, not in the real world. There is a real stigma out there against the unemployed.

You could have £55 a week on the dole, or £250 a week in a job. What you gonna do?