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.

Yeah, really it's just tribalism masquerading as "nationalism" since true nationalism generally contemplates seeking recognition of an autonomous sovereign state. The appeals to us v. them are transparent as well as promises of tribal/national prosperity. At the end of the day, it's really easy to point at others to lay blame as opposed to formulating real solutions. Preferably others in a relatively weak position so they can't actually do anything about it.

As to finally wising up, not likely. History teaches us that that such rhetoric will always find an audience. And even if they do eventually figure out the con, the damage is done.

 Galas wrote:
I think that the statisc of the high number of Rapes in north countrys has been very mythified. I think that it has to do with the fact that the legislation about what is legally "rape" has been very expanded and a very insistent social campaing to make people more aware of what constitutes sexual assault in Sweden and similar countrys.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

According to Brå, it is likely that as many as 80 per cent of all rapes are not reported, which was confirmed in a 2001 study of the extent of violence against women, funded by the Government of Sweden and the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority.[39][49]

Long before any Inmigration crisis.

EDIT: Ok, I have noticed now that this is totally offtopic, so I'm not gonna continue to discuss this issue here!

Agreed with all your points. The changing of the legal definition is definitely a factor, but unfortunately that just makes things even more opaque and hard to judge what is actually true. It's good that France does not seem to have this degree of a problem with this one issue.

 ph34r wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.

Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.


Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?

I don't know, does it?

 ph34r wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.

Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.


Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?

Absurdity!

Open Borders is what we need!

Is your comment supportive of one side or other of the debate, or is it simply spam?

 ph34r wrote:
unfortunately that just makes things even more opaque and hard to judge what is actually true.

It really doesn't. It makes them the exact opposite.

Macron seems intent on blowing his position. He wins the first round, so he celebrates early victory and seems to take his position for granted:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-election-macron-elysee-idUKKBN17R2HI

Then, he seems unwilling to court the voters of other candidates and touts his "overwhelming" victory in the first round. He won by less than 3%.
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/emmanuel-macron-ce-qu-il-faut-retenir-de-son-interview-sur-france-2-7788288030

And there is still a debate to go.

Meanwhile, Le Pen named Nicolas Dupont-Aignan her prime minister, which could bring along 2 million votes. She continues to see enthusiastic rallies that rail against the likes of Macron, lumping him with Hollande. At this point, she seems to be doing everything right.

Ah, the same fails, again and again. When I was younger, I tought... "Why politicians attack one another? Why they just don't plan all of this so they can have us under control and enjoy the privileges of their position?"

Now that I'm older, I realice why they don't do that. Because they are just as stupid as every other person in the planet. And normally, if they have reached that position, is because they have a total lack of morals, loyalty, and every basic virtue of human nature. Oh, our political class, the best of the best!

 jmurph wrote:
Macron seems intent on blowing his position. He wins the first round, so he celebrates early victory and seems to take his position for granted:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-election-macron-elysee-idUKKBN17R2HI

Then, he seems unwilling to court the voters of other candidates and touts his "overwhelming" victory in the first round. He won by less than 3%.
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/emmanuel-macron-ce-qu-il-faut-retenir-de-son-interview-sur-france-2-7788288030

And there is still a debate to go.

Meanwhile, Le Pen named Nicolas Dupont-Aignan her prime minister, which could bring along 2 million votes. She continues to see enthusiastic rallies that rail against the likes of Macron, lumping him with Hollande. At this point, she seems to be doing everything right.

Yep! They're going to take this with a grinding, ground game just like Trump. Throw in some cockiness from an opponent who just doesn't get it and a dash of Russian thumb-on-the-scale help and voila! Wait, is this the US Politics thread...no, we're good.

 sebster wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
For the most part, at least in my own experience, people that are genuinely opposed to maintaining current levels of immigration are based on cultural matters. Most people don't care if David Wu and a couple of his mates come over for snags around the BBQ, but they don't like the idea of Hassan and his buddies setting up shop here and keeping to themselves and their own exclusive clique. If an immigrant makes an effort to assimilate into their host nation most people that aren't jerks will give them the time of day. If they stick to themselves or try to impose their views on the non-standard then trouble starts.

I think you are right here in pointing out that the issue is primarily cultural, not economic. The economic stuff actually makes no sense, even on a simple, intuitive level, it is what people add on to bolster their argument, once they've already decided they're resentful of immigrants. After all, the people who are worried about foreign workers coming here are almost always the same people who are also worried about foreign investment, when the latter creates jobs so should be supported by people who are primarily concerned by jobs.

And ask yourself, can anyone name a single person they know who just loves foreign cultures, looks to engage with foreigners to learn about them, their lives and experiences, but then says as much as they love that, they just can't support more immigration.

As to whether the cultural issue is correct... that's a tougher issue. You are right that it is natural for people to resent it when an area they live in or around begins to feel alien. But this has been a concern as long as there's been migration. Here in Australia we hated the Italians and the Greeks because they didn't assimilate, then another generation on their kids were assimilated and we forget that it ever bothered us. By that point we were hostile to the Chinese because they didn't assimilate. But their kids did assimilate, and by then we'd moved on to being hostile at the Somalis and the Lebanese who weren't assimilating. When the history of second generation assimilation is pointed out, people assert this time is different, this group really won't be assimilating. That's almost certainly not true.

So assimilation does happen, but its generational. It is understandable that people don't see, or appreciate, or believe in change at that slow speed. Hence much of the resentment.

You can question if the immigration history of the New World can be compared to current migration to Western European countries like France.

Even if we ignore the larger ethnic homogeneity of the host populations, which might negatively influence assimilation, other factors are involved. In the post war era the migration stream to Western Euope has not been very diverse from an ethnic and socio-economic point of view, mostly guest workers from around the Mediterranean, former colonial citizens and more recently refugees from Africa and the near East. Some countries of origin (for example Turkey, Eritrea) have even started to actively undermine assimilation efforts from economic and political motives.

While the macro economic figures do not support a large impact on the economy as a whole, it is different on the regional and micro level. Wage competition is very real for many forms of unskilled work as real wages among the bottom incomes have not grown with the wider economy in the last three decades. In addition in this period governments have stripped the welfare state bare for budgetary reasons, while non-western (read middle east and Africa) are the largest consumers and this causes much resentment. You can argue that governments have neglected the welfare state on purpose but the Euro stability pact forced austerity in downturns. The high unemployment among this set of migrants is mostly caused by a skill mismatch on the labor market as supply and demand had little to do with the migration decision.

As much as I dislike Macron, I'd just get anyone before the torturer's daughter.

I have family in France, and I'd really hate for them to endure that blonde piece of gak as their president.

 jmurph wrote:
That's the thing, though. Facts don't matter; perceptions do. So if people get fired up that they perceive that they have no jerbs and that immigrants are taking their jerbs, the will act on that, no matter how unfounded in reality it is. The problem is that it is a lot easier to scapegoat people who look different and dress and talk funny than to analyze underlying systemic and economic trends. And guess what reactionaries tend to do (Hint: it's not the analysis option!) Worse, there is that primitive part of the brain that all humans have that desires simple actions, safety, and buys into this at some level (threat of the Other) and has to be overridden by knowledge and experience, so it bleeds over into the mainstream, where it can mobilize just enough to swing elections.

Sure, but on a perception level French consumer confidence is the highest its been since before the GFC. So even on a level of feelz the French aren't that bothered.

What there might be is acute issues, either in certain regions, industries or demographic groups. Okayish unemployment can mask acute unemployment under 25, or large numbers of rural unemployment, or manufactuing jobs declines etc. All of which can lead to big changes in votes among certain groups.

I have no idea if that's happening in France, but it is happening in a bunch of other places, so probably France as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, the Jew? Or the Free Mason? Or the bankers? Or the gays? Or anyone the politicians will decide to scapegoat?

The politician is the next scapegoat. Things go wrong, maybe the politician was responsible for some of it or maybe not, but the politician will be blamed either way and dumped. It's a very rare breed who gets past a second term. Politicians who get to a fourth term are generally world famous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Ah, the same fails, again and again. When I was younger, I tought... "Why politicians attack one another? Why they just don't plan all of this so they can have us under control and enjoy the privileges of their position?"

Now that I'm older, I realice why they don't do that. Because they are just as stupid as every other person in the planet. And normally, if they have reached that position, is because they have a total lack of morals, loyalty, and every basic virtue of human nature. Oh, our political class, the best of the best!

There's a dynamic you're missing here. Thing is, politicians do work together, and they do it on almost everything. Because most parts of government, reworking a law, helping grow an industry, these things aren't contraversial or political, they just need general input from everyone involved, and then to get pushed through government with a bi-partisan bill. But that stuff never gets in the media, because there's no story. "Bi-partisan bill modernises process for economic data collection, breaking news live at five" is not going to get anyone watching.

The media covers the 5% where political parties disagree. And politicians play up to that, they know it's the bit the public pays attention to, it's the bit that wins and costs them votes. The public as a result gets this impression that politicians are constantly fighting over everything.

 sebster wrote:


I think you are right here in pointing out that the issue is primarily cultural, not economic. The economic stuff actually makes no sense, even on a simple, intuitive level, it is what people add on to bolster their argument, once they've already decided they're resentful of immigrants. After all, the people who are worried about foreign workers coming here are almost always the same people who are also worried about foreign investment, when the latter creates jobs so should be supported by people who are primarily concerned by jobs.

And ask yourself, can anyone name a single person they know who just loves foreign cultures, looks to engage with foreigners to learn about them, their lives and experiences, but then says as much as they love that, they just can't support more immigration

As to whether the cultural issue is correct... that's a tougher issue. You are right that it is natural for people to resent it when an area they live in or around begins to feel alien. But this has been a concern as long as there's been migration. Here in Australia we hated the Italians and the Greeks because they didn't assimilate, then another generation on their kids were assimilated and we forget that it ever bothered us. By that point we were hostile to the Chinese because they didn't assimilate. But their kids did assimilate, and by then we'd moved on to being hostile at the Somalis and the Lebanese who weren't assimilating. When the history of second generation assimilation is pointed out, people assert this time is different, this group really won't be assimilating. That's almost certainly not true.

So assimilation does happen, but its generational. It is understandable that people don't see, or appreciate, or believe in change at that slow speed. Hence much of the resentment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Of course immigrants with the same background and culture in common will congregate. How would you fix such a thing? You can't, obviously, breaking up a neighbourhood because it's "too black" or "too white" would be ridiculous and like an extreme reverse of segregation.

You can place visa requirements on people to settle in certain areas, and not in others. Typically this isn't done over ghetto concerns, more to address town population issues, but there's no reason it can't be done to restrict ghettos forming.

But such massive enclaves don't remain self-sufficient and isolated enough to retain their foreign cultural identity if they are not allowed to immigrate in such a large number in the first place. Several hundred immigrants in a city would have to be highly uniform in their exclusivity for them to retain a separate identity, however several hundred thousand can easily retain their distinct cultural identity without ever having to assimilate into the nation after successive generations.

Britain's immigration might be very high by British historic standards, but it's nothing compared to the immigration in to countries like Australia and the US. And despite massive waves of immigration, the experience here has shown that ghettos happen, but then they fade. All the various Chinatowns, that were once strong ghettos, are now just novelties for the tourists. The children of the immigrants moved out in to mainstream society.

One solution is to encourage assimilation into the national cultural norm, whatever that may be.

The solution really is time. You have to trust that in time the awesomeness of the 'native' way of life will win people over. If not the first generation, then the second and subsequent generation.

But certainly there are things you can do to help that process along. Free language classes, for instance.

Well said, sebster. I find myself agreeing with you on several points.

I must however disagree with your apparent view that cultural assimilation or amalgamation is essentially inevitable given time. The Jewish People have been a distinct culturally separate entity in almost any host nation for as long as they have existed. There multitude of different diasporias out there, such as the Armenian Diasporia, that retain a distinct identity and community regardless of where they settle down. There are certainly communities, cultures and religious enclaves that by their own code of conduct and practices suppress any chance of successive generations integrating. Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.


Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.

 Antario wrote:
You can question if the immigration history of the New World can be compared to current migration to Western European countries like France.

Even if we ignore the larger ethnic homogeneity of the host populations, which might negatively influence assimilation, other factors are involved. In the post war era the migration stream to Western Euope has not been very diverse from an ethnic and socio-economic point of view, mostly guest workers from around the Mediterranean, former colonial citizens and more recently refugees from Africa and the near East. Some countries of origin (for example Turkey, Eritrea) have even started to actively undermine assimilation efforts from economic and political motives.

Your argument there assumes that because the ‘new world’ countries are ethnically diverse now, they must have always had ethnically diverse immigration. In the middle of the 20th century Australia at least as ethnically homogenous as anywhere in Europe. We were more white and more British than the British. We even had a formalised, overtly racist immigration policy to make sure we stayed that way. It was called “The White Australia” policy because we were in no way subtle.

Then it changed, and it changed very quickly. It started with opening up immigration to Italians & Greeks, then expanded in to the rest of Europe. Later it switched to Asian migration, and now we’re seeing African and ME immigrants.

And yeah, it caused all sorts of ruckus at the time, and it still does. In the last federal election the overtly racist One Nation party won 5% of the vote. But the point is that immigrant groups assimilate in time.

This doesn’t mean any complaints are invalid or automatically racist. And it doesn’t mean things can’t be done to better manage immigration. Hell, in some countries there’s probably a strong case for reducing immigration numbers.

But what I am saying is that almost every immigrant group, ever, will assimilate over two or three generations. You look at the handful of cases where they haven’t, such as the Amish in America, and it gives you an appreciation of how tight the social controls have to get in order to to prevent assimilation, which should tell you how few will do it.

While the macro economic figures do not support a large impact on the economy as a whole, it is different on the regional and micro level. Wage competition is very real for many forms of unskilled work as real wages among the bottom incomes have not grown with the wider economy in the last three decades. In addition in this period governments have stripped the welfare state bare for budgetary reasons, while non-western (read middle east and Africa) are the largest consumers and this causes much resentment. You can argue that governments have neglected the welfare state on purpose but the Euro stability pact forced austerity in downturns. The high unemployment among this set of migrants is mostly caused by a skill mismatch on the labor market as supply and demand had little to do with the migration decision.

Sure, but the issue is that immigration is being used as an explanation for these problems, when it is a minor cause, at best. Wages at the bottom have stagnated because of automation, a decline in industrial bargaining power, and offshoring of jobs. Stripping back the welfare state has exacerbated these problems, definitely. But immigration is marginally involved, at most.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
The Jewish People have been a distinct culturally separate entity in almost any host nation for as long as they have existed. There multitude of different diasporias out there, such as the Armenian Diasporia, that retain a distinct identity and community regardless of where they settle down. There are certainly communities, cultures and religious enclaves that by their own code of conduct and practices suppress any chance of successive generations integrating.

What does it matter that Jews have a distinct and long standing identity? Setting the measure of integration to Borg is setting an impossible standard, and demanding that people genocide their own cultural heritage to ever truly join your own. It's a bit absurd. So Benny goes to see a Rabbi instead of a Minister when suffering an existential crisis. What per se is the issue there? I remember a time people said the Irish could never embrace democracy because they'd just take their orders from the Pope and what a crock that was.

Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.

Compared to other religions? Most parents are not required to justify as a matter of course raising their children to believe as they do, unless they're different from the perceived norm that is. No one ever told a Christian their religion exhibits a stranglehold on children* dragging them into church and special school every Sunday.

*not without being considered an extremist.

what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration?

What's the moral argument for cutting off immigration? I mean, you literally can't cut it off. Even a puny police state like North Korea fails to completely control it's borders. Immigration policy is a matter of dealing with practical reality. Those policies can be moral or immoral, but their necessity in itself is governed more by physics than philosophy. I'm just curious why this is now a moral argument. Who ever asserted a moral obligation to allow immigration in this thread?

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Well said, sebster. I find myself agreeing with you on several points.

Thanks.

I must however disagree with your apparent view that cultural assimilation or amalgamation is essentially inevitable given time. The Jewish People have been a distinct culturally separate entity in almost any host nation for as long as they have existed. There multitude of different diasporias out there, such as the Armenian Diasporia, that retain a distinct identity and community regardless of where they settle down. There are certainly communities, cultures and religious enclaves that by their own code of conduct and practices suppress any chance of successive generations integrating.

Assimilation doesn't mean complete absorption. A person can go to their own church and still be assimilated. A chinese person can open a chinese restaurant, and still be assimilated even though the restaurant has no western menu ingredients. What marks assimilation is inclusion in society, whether their social groups are from the greater population and not mostly their own immigrant group. Where their kids go to school. What nationality they identify with. Whether they look outside their immigrant group when they look to marry.

Fun fact, Jewish inter-marriage is about 50%. That is, about half of Jews marry someone outside of the faith. The culture remains distinct, but the people in the culture freely marry in to greater society.

Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.

There's never been a migrant group about whom that wasn't claimed. Another fun fact, the rate of Muslim inter-marriage is 40%. Not far behind Jews, and miles ahead of groups like Mormons. They're assimilating at a faster rate than most previous immigrant groups.

As a note - the marriage figures I gave were US.

Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.

Moral argument? Outside of refugees, who we’re excluding (and who are a small portion of migration anyway), there isn’t a moral argument. A society has no moral obligation to become multi-cultural.

The arguments for immigration are economic and social. It is better for the economy to have an influx of people in their 20s and 30s, especially when demographics in the host countries are seeing a decline in these prime working ages. Although this is less of a problem in France, which has maintained pretty decent birth rates.

And it is better for society to have diversity and choices. It’s perhaps something of a cliché to talk about this only in terms of food, but it’s the most obvious example.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Ah, the same fails, again and again. When I was younger, I tought... "Why politicians attack one another? Why they just don't plan all of this so they can have us under control and enjoy the privileges of their position?"

Now that I'm older, I realice why they don't do that. Because they are just as stupid as every other person in the planet. And normally, if they have reached that position, is because they have a total lack of morals, loyalty, and every basic virtue of human nature. Oh, our political class, the best of the best!

There's a dynamic you're missing here. Thing is, politicians do work together, and they do it on almost everything. Because most parts of government, reworking a law, helping grow an industry, these things aren't contraversial or political, they just need general input from everyone involved, and then to get pushed through government with a bi-partisan bill. But that stuff never gets in the media, because there's no story. "Bi-partisan bill modernises process for economic data collection, breaking news live at five" is not going to get anyone watching.

The media covers the 5% where political parties disagree. And politicians play up to that, they know it's the bit the public pays attention to, it's the bit that wins and costs them votes. The public as a result gets this impression that politicians are constantly fighting over everything.

Oh, believe me, I'm totally aware of that! Afterall, our political parties, in a hot and boring summer, voted together like the best friends ever to change our constitution, to make paying our external debt the first national priority, before the wellness of the citizens.
But to be honest, I think that I'm biased about politicians, being of one of the most corrupted countrys of Western Europe.

Politicians being what they are is hardly a new development; going back to Rome they were like that. Even the word 'politics' stems from the root 'poly' meaning many, and 'tics' which are bloodsucking parasites.

 Galas wrote:
Oh, believe me, I'm totally aware of that! Afterall, our political parties, in a hot and boring summer, voted together like the best friends ever to change our constitution, to make paying our external debt the first national priority, before the wellness of the citizens.
But to be honest, I think that I'm biased about politicians, being of one of the most corrupted countrys of Western Europe.

I often make that point about politicians actually working together on most things in government, but that those things rarely make the media. Funnily enough, almost every time I mention it the reply assumes that anytime they work together it is to screw everyone else.

Seems the politicians can't win. If they argue then people complain that they can't work together. If they work together then people assume it's backroom dealing done to screw everyone else.

The only thing I think I can conclude about any of this is that whatever politicians do, people will complain about.

 sebster wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Well said, sebster. I find myself agreeing with you on several points.

Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.

Moral argument? Outside of refugees, who we’re excluding (and who are a small portion of migration anyway), there isn’t a moral argument. A society has no moral obligation to become multi-cultural.

The arguments for immigration are economic and social. It is better for the economy to have an influx of people in their 20s and 30s, especially when demographics in the host countries are seeing a decline in these prime working ages. Although this is less of a problem in France, which has maintained pretty decent birth rates.

And it is better for society to have diversity and choices. It’s perhaps something of a cliché to talk about this only in terms of food, but it’s the most obvious example.

I disagree. It seems to me that there is a basic moral argument that freedom of movement is a human right. People are not cattle to be penned up in whatever field the power elite thinks is best for them.

Unless there is a compelling reason not to allow people to move to particular areas, then they certainly should if they want to. On top of that are the various benefits of migration.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree. It seems to me that there is a basic moral argument that freedom of movement is a human right. People are not cattle to be penned up in whatever field the power elite thinks is best for them.

Unless there is a compelling reason not to allow people to move to particular areas, then they certainly should if they want to. On top of that are the various benefits of migration.

Interesting argument, one that didn't occur to me. I think it is fair as a you are right that it is a moral consideration. Although I'll say that with the qualifier that even the most immigration friendly countries maintain migration quotas, so while it does work as a moral argument and answers the question from Humble Guardsman, in the real world the impact is fairly limited.

One of the key points of the EU is free movement of people. There are no immigration quotas between EU member nations. That is something Le Pen and her supporters want to stop.

 ph34r wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.

Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.

Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?

Isn't "correlation does not imply causation" on the Dakka bingo board? Because if it isn't, it totally should be.

 sebster wrote:


Assimilation doesn't mean complete absorption. A person can go to their own church and still be assimilated. A chinese person can open a chinese restaurant, and still be assimilated even though the restaurant has no western menu ingredients. What marks assimilation is inclusion in society, whether their social groups are from the greater population and not mostly their own immigrant group. Where their kids go to school. What nationality they identify with. Whether they look outside their immigrant group when they look to marry.

I agree with all of this.

Fun fact, Jewish inter-marriage is about 50%. That is, about half of Jews marry someone outside of the faith. The culture remains distinct, but the people in the culture freely marry in to greater society.

Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.

There's never been a migrant group about whom that wasn't claimed. Another fun fact, the rate of Muslim inter-marriage is 40%. Not far behind Jews, and miles ahead of groups like Mormons. They're assimilating at a faster rate than most previous immigrant groups.

As a note - the marriage figures I gave were US.

You must be including instances of conversion of at least on of the parties, that's the main method of working around the blanket . Some of these conversions are purely platitudes, others more sincere. The important part in both Jewish and Muslim (and in the case of Catholic/Protestants) intermarriages is what faith the children will be brought up in. And in the matter of Islam, only the marriage of a Muslim male to a women 'of the book' (Jewish/Christian) is technically permitted. It is a controversial Imam indeed who broadens that scope to include marrying Muslim women to men of other faiths.


It is wishful thinking however to assume that Islam is not a different kettle of fish to previous waves of immigration. The violence perpetrated by those of that faith, most worryingly by successive generations raised in the host nation, on behalf of some global agenda is something not seen in previous immigration waves. It is certainly not Asian, European, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist immigrants that have been the source of France's woes as of late. It's attempts to assert their own culture and values on this particular category that has resulted in it coming under attack.

Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.

Moral argument? Outside of refugees, who we’re excluding (and who are a small portion of migration anyway), there isn’t a moral argument. A society has no moral obligation to become multi-cultural.

The arguments for immigration are economic and social. It is better for the economy to have an influx of people in their 20s and 30s, especially when demographics in the host countries are seeing a decline in these prime working ages. Although this is less of a problem in France, which has maintained pretty decent birth rates.

And it is better for society to have diversity and choices. It’s perhaps something of a cliché to talk about this only in terms of food, but it’s the most obvious example.

I agree. It'd be boring if everyone became a curly-blonde-surfing, RM-boots-wearing, VB-drinking stereotype the moment they stepped through customs. Killkrazy did address the moral aspect of it anyhow. It's even backed up by international law.* This does not extend to compelling another country to open their borders to you however.
*Article 12 of the ICCPR


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

What does it matter that Jews have a distinct and long standing identity? Setting the measure of integration to Borg is setting an impossible standard, and demanding that people genocide their own cultural heritage to ever truly join your own. It's a bit absurd. So Benny goes to see a Rabbi instead of a Minister when suffering an existential crisis. What per se is the issue there? I remember a time people said the Irish could never embrace democracy because they'd just take their orders from the Pope and what a crock that was.

The Jewish diasporia was just an example. As sebster pointed out, groups with that level of tight social control necessary for such continued self-separation are few and far between.

Compared to other religions? Most parents are not required to justify as a matter of course raising their children to believe as they do, unless they're different from the perceived norm that is. No one ever told a Christian their religion exhibits a stranglehold on children* dragging them into church and special school every Sunday.

*not without being considered an extremist.

Certainly when compared to other religions, at least in the modern day. A Catholic family might shun a son or daughter that refused to even pay lip service to the faith, but no other religion persecutes those that deny their faith with as much conviction and organisation as Islam.


[/spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8ds53dvd2Y[/spoiler]
A primitive way to put it perhaps, but is he incorrect? It is wishful thinking to dismiss these acts of violence and domestic extremism as merely the birth-pangs of a new wave of immigrants.

What's the moral argument for cutting off immigration? I mean, you literally can't cut it off. Even a puny police state like North Korea fails to completely control it's borders. Immigration policy is a matter of dealing with practical reality. Those policies can be moral or immoral, but their necessity in itself is governed more by physics than philosophy. I'm just curious why this is now a moral argument. Who ever asserted a moral obligation to allow immigration in this thread?

Sure you can. Japan is fairly ethnically homogenous, and Australia's own controversial 'operation sovereign borders' would be considered a success if you discount the fact that most illegal immigrants arrive not by boat but by plane, hopping through customs on a travel visa and deciding to stick around. Certainly it's more difficult for France to control their borders than an island-based UK, but it can be done.

If a moral factor was never considered an issue here, why are people criticising Le Penn's anti-immigration stance as racist and xenophobic? Those are immoral traits.

 sebster wrote:

 Antario wrote:
You can question if the immigration history of the New World can be compared to current migration to Western European countries like France.

Even if we ignore the larger ethnic homogeneity of the host populations, which might negatively influence assimilation, other factors are involved. In the post war era the migration stream to Western Euope has not been very diverse from an ethnic and socio-economic point of view, mostly guest workers from around the Mediterranean, former colonial citizens and more recently refugees from Africa and the near East. Some countries of origin (for example Turkey, Eritrea) have even started to actively undermine assimilation efforts from economic and political motives.

Your argument there assumes that because the ‘new world’ countries are ethnically diverse now, they must have always had ethnically diverse immigration. In the middle of the 20th century Australia at least as ethnically homogenous as anywhere in Europe. We were more white and more British than the British. We even had a formalised, overtly racist immigration policy to make sure we stayed that way. It was called “The White Australia” policy because we were in no way subtle.

Then it changed, and it changed very quickly. It started with opening up immigration to Italians & Greeks, then expanded in to the rest of Europe. Later it switched to Asian migration, and now we’re seeing African and ME immigrants.

And yeah, it caused all sorts of ruckus at the time, and it still does. In the last federal election the overtly racist One Nation party won 5% of the vote. But the point is that immigrant groups assimilate in time.

This doesn’t mean any complaints are invalid or automatically racist. And it doesn’t mean things can’t be done to better manage immigration. Hell, in some countries there’s probably a strong case for reducing immigration numbers.

But what I am saying is that almost every immigrant group, ever, will assimilate over two or three generations. You look at the handful of cases where they haven’t, such as the Amish in America, and it gives you an appreciation of how tight the social controls have to get in order to to prevent assimilation, which should tell you how few will do it.

No, I said to ignore the diversity of the host country. I'm arguing there are mechanisms in place now in Western Europe which for part of the migrants prevent the normal assimilation process from occurring or even reversing it.

-The elaborate welfare state reduces the incentive to find work and acquire relevant job skills, particular among poor and low educated migrants.
-Modern technology like the cable TV, internet and smartphones allow much more contact with the country of origin. This prevents the acquisition of language skills and reduces the exposure to the local culture even in the third generation.
-Most West European economies are heavily service based, industry and agriculture are mechanized and high minimum wages are the norm. There is little demand for low skilled labor, so there is massive unemployment among non-western migrants.
-The lack of diversity of migrants, mostly from one region in the world and by and large working class, means its harder to prevent clustering to reduce socio-economic disadvantages
-Countries of origin want influence on their diaspora for economic and political advantage, and actively encourage their former citizens not to assimilate.
-EU green(blue) card system is far more restrictive for permanent settlement than refugee regulations.
-Low rates of mixed marriages. Less than 3% among Moroccans and Turks for example.

The basic issue is that specific migrant groups, for example those from the Magreb area in the case of France, live in a parallel society. They behave more like expats than migrants and there are forces at play, both economic and political that prevent integration/assimilation. migration is far more successful when it is based on filling vacancies. We see very little problems with Asians and East Europeans where normal integration does occur. Arguably countries like Australia and the US have far more effective migration policies in place.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
It is certainly not […] European, Christian […] immigrants that have been the source of France's woes as of late.

Well Christian German immigrants really were the worst about seven decades ago .

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Sure you can. Japan is fairly ethnically homogenous, and Australia's own controversial 'operation sovereign borders'

And yet they both still fail at keeping people from sneaking into their countries.

If a moral factor was never considered an issue here, why are people criticising Le Penn's anti-immigration stance as racist and xenophobic?

You answered your own question. Because racism and xenophobia are immoral.

 sebster wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Oh, believe me, I'm totally aware of that! Afterall, our political parties, in a hot and boring summer, voted together like the best friends ever to change our constitution, to make paying our external debt the first national priority, before the wellness of the citizens.
But to be honest, I think that I'm biased about politicians, being of one of the most corrupted countrys of Western Europe.

I often make that point about politicians actually working together on most things in government, but that those things rarely make the media. Funnily enough, almost every time I mention it the reply assumes that anytime they work together it is to screw everyone else.

Seems the politicians can't win. If they argue then people complain that they can't work together. If they work together then people assume it's backroom dealing done to screw everyone else.

The only thing I think I can conclude about any of this is that whatever politicians do, people will complain about.

I have speent some years being a politician of my small city of 20k habitants (Councillor of Sports, Cleaning and Citizen Security) , and yeah, thats basically it. In the low scale, normally politicians are normal citizens that want to make good things to their town/city, but as you go up in the scale, the Realpolitiks hit very very hard on the type of people you encounter in that scale of power. The MAYORITY just see for themself or their group, and thats it.
Obviously, this is a overly generalization, but as I said, my country has very high levels of corruption, so we can argue all day without agreeing about this.
So we just agree to disagree.

But I'll agree in people complaining about everything. You don't want to now how many votes I lost when I make people pay 10€ more a year to pay for a service of a public Crane to collect abandoned vehicles and vehicles badly parked, after years of asking for it. People wan't services, but they don't want to pay for them

If a moral factor was never considered an issue here, why are people criticising Le Penn's anti-immigration stance as racist and xenophobic?

Yeah. People can be anti-inmigration or be pro inmigration control for economical reasons, like Economical Marxism, where the economical job offer of a country is limited, and a constant influx of inmigrants only benefit the ruling bourgeoisie class (Thats why economical libertarians are all about free borders), and one can be anti-inmigration or pro-inmigration control by Xenophofic and Racist reasons. Normally, the people of the second type hide it behind a cover of the first type, but that cover is easy to set appart. And thats the case of Le-Pen.

What are the current poll ratings in France? Who's in the lead?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are the current poll ratings in France? Who's in the lead?

I don't what what pollsters in France are good, so I just did the lazy thing and went to Wikipedia to find this aggregate chart XD