|
On August 12 2012 01:38 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:14 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 reincremate wrote:
Governments allow immigration because it fills demands for skilled and unskilled labour. How can people claim things like this with a straight face when unemployment is so high? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rateGovernments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages. You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars. Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”http://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.ca/2009/02/why-diversity-destroys-social-capital.html I'm just as skeptical or cynical about politicians as the next guy, so I'm not basing my claim on government propaganda, but actual data that isn't at all hard to find. We do have a doctor shortage that is relieved to an extent by foreign-trained doctors (and would be relieved to a greater extent if foreign credentials were better recognized) http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17360 Most Canadian-born citizens would not qualify for immigration under the current point system. Most immigrants have professional degrees, can speak English and/or have a large amount of assets. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.aspWhether employers (who are completely independent of the state) want to hire individuals with foreign credentials is entirely up to them. The government doesn't care if people from China or Pakistan with PhDs are running convenience stores and driving cabs instead of being engineers and doctors, because they can't vote and thus have no voice in the democratic process. But by the time they've lived here long enough to become citizens, they've usually moved to the middle class burbs. Just look at the demographics for any Canadian upper middle class suburb of a metropolitan city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia This doesn't make life harder for whitey McCanadian or drive down wages because it's not like their stealing jobs or preventing white/non-immigrant Canadian people from being involved in the political process. Putnam's study is rife with confounds. You cannot infer causation from the correlation between increased diversity and, say decreased civic participation or charity, not just because of all of the other possible causal factors, but because "diversity" isn't even a variable that you can isolate. It's just rubbish. Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:22 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:04 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote:
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails. Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics. So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes? Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. There is nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. It has no tangible effect on freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. You are positing that it does. The burden is thus on you to provide evidence. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do go hand in hand, as immigrants have cultures that differ from those of the host country (i.e., there is a multitude of cultures resulting in large part from immigration).
I started reading your link and saw this:
"Even if government imposed restrictions on the number of doctors being trained in Canada are immediately removed, it won’t have an impact for much of the next decade given the time it takes to train a new doctor. The only short-term solution is to recruit more foreign-trained doctors."
So it seems like Canada could have just not implemented restrictions on how many doctors they train, and long term could just remove such restrictions. This is not a very good justification for immigration, much less multiculturalism.
Even if immigration were needed there's no reason to not target people from nations who share your culture or are similar enough to assimilate within a couple generations.
Canada has sacrificed so many fundamental human rights to promote multiculturalism. Speech crime laws are used to prevent "hate", enforced racial discrimination is used to grant equal income to people with unequal qualifications, billions are spent on advertising, diversity training, anti-racism, etc.
So for all these costs why can you not name one single benefit of multiculturalism? The only resort you have is to conflate multiculturalism with immigration, though they are not the same thing.
|
On August 12 2012 01:40 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:30 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 01:22 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:04 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote:
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails. Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics. So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes? Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice. I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US. I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism. You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two. Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all." And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious. Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report
Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/
You can't isolate and determine absolute values for extremely complicated factors such as "cost of immigration". This is in part because you cannot calculate the amount of money that an immigrant has put into the economy indirectly via work, consumption, etc. Contrary to the report you posted, "Most empirical studies find that immigration has little or no impact on domestic labour markets and government fiscal balances." from: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/grei-rgei/eng/documents/Synthesis_wp_000.pdf
On August 12 2012 01:52 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:38 reincremate wrote:On August 12 2012 01:14 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 reincremate wrote:
Governments allow immigration because it fills demands for skilled and unskilled labour. How can people claim things like this with a straight face when unemployment is so high? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rateGovernments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages. You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars. Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”http://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.ca/2009/02/why-diversity-destroys-social-capital.html I'm just as skeptical or cynical about politicians as the next guy, so I'm not basing my claim on government propaganda, but actual data that isn't at all hard to find. We do have a doctor shortage that is relieved to an extent by foreign-trained doctors (and would be relieved to a greater extent if foreign credentials were better recognized) http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17360 Most Canadian-born citizens would not qualify for immigration under the current point system. Most immigrants have professional degrees, can speak English and/or have a large amount of assets. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.aspWhether employers (who are completely independent of the state) want to hire individuals with foreign credentials is entirely up to them. The government doesn't care if people from China or Pakistan with PhDs are running convenience stores and driving cabs instead of being engineers and doctors, because they can't vote and thus have no voice in the democratic process. But by the time they've lived here long enough to become citizens, they've usually moved to the middle class burbs. Just look at the demographics for any Canadian upper middle class suburb of a metropolitan city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia This doesn't make life harder for whitey McCanadian or drive down wages because it's not like their stealing jobs or preventing white/non-immigrant Canadian people from being involved in the political process. Putnam's study is rife with confounds. You cannot infer causation from the correlation between increased diversity and, say decreased civic participation or charity, not just because of all of the other possible causal factors, but because "diversity" isn't even a variable that you can isolate. It's just rubbish. On August 12 2012 01:22 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:04 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote:
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails. Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics. So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes? Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. There is nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. It has no tangible effect on freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. You are positing that it does. The burden is thus on you to provide evidence. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do go hand in hand, as immigrants have cultures that differ from those of the host country (i.e., there is a multitude of cultures resulting in large part from immigration). I started reading your link and saw this: "Even if government imposed restrictions on the number of doctors being trained in Canada are immediately removed, it won’t have an impact for much of the next decade given the time it takes to train a new doctor. The only short-term solution is to recruit more foreign-trained doctors."So it seems like Canada could have just not implemented restrictions on how many doctors they train, and long term could just remove such restrictions. This is not a very good justification for immigration, much less multiculturalism. Even if immigration were needed there's no reason to not target people from nations who share your culture or are similar enough to assimilate within a couple generations. Canada has sacrificed so many fundamental human rights to promote multiculturalism. Speech crime laws are used to prevent "hate", enforced racial discrimination is used to grant equal income to people with unequal qualifications, billions are spent on advertising, diversity training, anti-racism, etc. So for all these costs why can you not name one single benefit of multiculturalism? The only resort you have is to conflate multiculturalism with immigration, though they are not the same thing.
What do you think these restrictions are? Quotas for the number of white/black/brown people you can admit into medical school? The article doesn't actually state what they are, because they have nothing to do with foreign-trained doctors or multiculturalism. The restrictions are lack of funding, which is due to conservative policies (cut taxes, cut spending). Canadian universities are substantially more meritocratic than American ones. Medical school entrance is based entirely on how well you do in school (e.g., GPA) and relevant experience (e.g., volunteering at a hospital, which doesn't have anything to do with culture).
Canadian universities (and thus medical schools) don't practice affirmative action, with the exception of Aboriginals, who make up a minuscule proportion of student populations. So even if they were favouring Joe Native or Joe Black over Whitey, they would still be letting in as many white people as would qualify as there would be hardly any under-qualified Aboriginals to steal their spot. The problem is that 1) our education system is underfunded and 2) most people don't qualify, because becoming a doctor isn't easy.
|
![[image loading]](http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af167/ii_Giggl3Cr34mz/they_took_our_jobs_tshirt-d23564803.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
Thank god people have finally started accepting the obvious truth, that not all cultures are equal, that some cultures are downright harmful and detrimental to a progressing society.
People looked at racism and xenophobia in the past and then made a knee jerk reaction to support multiculturalism to try and counter that. The problem with that is that there is a big difference between judging people for things like their skin color or country of birth, and judging people for their ideology and behavior. One is justified and the other isn't. That's what's wrong with multiculturalism.
|
On August 12 2012 01:48 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:40 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:30 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 01:22 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:04 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote:
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails. Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics. So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes? Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice. I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US. I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism. You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two. Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all." And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious. Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report
Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/ My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy.
And yet there is no logical reason to adopt a multicultural immigration policy and be forced to deal with all the fallout from it.
All the supporters of multiculturalism have is emotional mush.
|
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote:
Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
The Romans made it work. Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority.
On a personal level I'm very fond of other cultures. There's a lot we can learn from them, especially from those cultures that are not as individualistic as western European or Northern American.
|
On August 12 2012 01:54 Scodia wrote:
It's kind of obscene how some rich assholes (multi-millionaires) can make fun of poor people being tired of competing with poor people for increasingly shittier and less paid jobs.
|
Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority. And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not.
|
On August 12 2012 01:57 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:48 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 01:40 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:30 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 01:22 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:04 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote:
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails. Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics. So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes? Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice. I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US. I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism. You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two. Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all." And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious. Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report
Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/ My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy. And yet there is no logical reason to adopt a multicultural immigration policy and be forced to deal with all the fallout from it. All the supporters of multiculturalism have is emotional mush.
There is - showing that the state is not discriminatory in a state that was already multi-ethnic / multi-cultural, which the US was in the 70s. Excluding people based on their race, ethnicity, culture, etc. invariably puts the majority population and the minority populations at odds against each other, which has always led to civil conflict. The civil rights movement wasn't promoted by the US government, you know - it was a grassroots movement that came about because minorities felt oppressed in the US.
The multi-culturalism that we have today in the US didn't just come about because of a few philanthropic white politicians. It was hard fought for by groups who were long suppressed, against great opposition from conservative segments of society who were finally defeated because the ideologies that underlay their opposition had fallen out of style.
|
On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority. And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not.
They both have no basis in reality. The correlation between race and social ills is just as spurious as what you call culture and social ills.
On August 12 2012 01:57 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:48 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 01:40 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:30 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 01:22 Portlandian wrote:On August 12 2012 01:04 Azarkon wrote:On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote:
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails. Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics. So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes? Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice. I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US. I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism. You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two. Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all." And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious. Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report
Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/ My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy. And yet there is no logical reason to adopt a multicultural immigration policy and be forced to deal with all the fallout from it. All the supporters of multiculturalism have is emotional mush.
The logical reason is that we should accept any immigrants who qualify for immigration based on the point system regardless of what country they come from. The point system can be flawed, but you haven't even touched upon that.
|
On August 12 2012 02:10 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote:Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority. And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not. They both have no basis in reality. The correlation between race and social ills is just as spurious as what you call culture and social ills. You're so wrong it's laughable.
If not by behaviour and values then by what is culture defined? If my culture tells me that women are objects to be used and discarded at will and all people who do not share my culture should be scorned and even be fought with violence, you are telling me my culture will not have any bearing on my behaviour towards others?
|
On August 12 2012 02:14 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:10 reincremate wrote:On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote:Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority. And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not. They both have no basis in reality. The correlation between race and social ills is just as spurious as what you call culture and social ills. You're so wrong it's laughable. If not by behaviour and values then by what is culture defined?
I said culture is defined as a shared system of values. I was making sure we were on the same page in this discussion. What I'm pointing out is the fact that you cannot infer that people's value systems are the cause of social ills. More specifically, people do not hold one set of values. Individuals can easily hold conflicting values (e.g., be good to your fellow human, be bad to your fellow human if X) and activate various ones based on the external material conditions acting upon them (e.g., poverty, discrimination).
One example is your own conflicting values in this thread. I assume you hold the basic value/belief that human beings should be treated with dignity, yet you advocate forcible displacement of proponents of Sharia law. Islamic extremists also believe in peace and love and all that good shit, but at the same time believe infidels should be beheaded. You guys share a common ground in your eschewing of basic human rights for what you perceive to be the greater good.
To clarify, I believe that if you treat Islamic or Christian or whatever other religious belief systems as a form of culture (which you can), then you can make a good case for their inferiority to secular humanist belief systems/culture, but I don't think you can attribute socioeconomic woes to people's idiotic beliefs, as if just kicking out the baddies will solve your problems.
|
On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority. And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not.
What.
So you'd be fine if there would be a movement promoting the superiority of the German/American/Russian culture with the obvious incentive to free all people with lesser culture so they can finally live the same dream as everyone who is already part of the superior culture?
Race, culture, religion, actually ANY idea with the built in promise that it's superior and that wrongbelievers (or those with the wrong blood) have to be purged or, sorry, enlightened leads to pretty similar results.
People from different cultures/races/religions are... guess what: Different. No policy and no amount of talk you can do will convince anyone from anything else. People don't want to be from the same tribe so to speak. Encouraging that being different is completely okay would be a start instead of telling everyone that it's not okay and that they should be more similar to each other.
|
United States44283 Posts
On August 12 2012 02:15 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote:Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority. And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not. What. So you'd be fine if there would be a movement promoting the superiority of the German/American/Russian culture with the obvious incentive to free all people with lesser culture so they can finally live the same dream as everyone who is already part of the superior culture? Race, culture, religion, actually ANY idea with the built in promise that it's superior and that wrongbelievers (or those with the wrong blood) have to be purged or, sorry, enlightened leads to pretty similar results. People from different cultures/races/religions are... guess what: Different. No policy and no amount of talk you can do will convince anyone from anything else. People don't want to be from the same tribe so to speak. Encouraging that being different is completely okay would be a start instead of telling everyone that it's not okay and that they should be more similar to each other.
What you've just argued is that purging is bad and therefore any issue which purging could be used as a solution to shouldn't be recognised as an issue. Some cultures are shitty, identifying that homophobic/sexist cultures are worse than none homophobic/sexist cultures doesn't mean I am in favour of purges. Acting like they're all equal but different ignores potential humanitarian solutions through education and aid.
|
On August 12 2012 02:15 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote:Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority. And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not. What. So you'd be fine if there would be a movement promoting the superiority of the German/American/Russian culture with the obvious incentive to free all people with lesser culture so they can finally live the same dream as everyone who is already part of the superior culture? Race, culture, religion, actually ANY idea with the built in promise that it's superior and that wrongbelievers (or those with the wrong blood) have to be purged or, sorry, enlightened leads to pretty similar results. People from different cultures/races/religions are... guess what: Different. No policy and no amount of talk you can do will convince anyone from anything else. People don't want to be from the same tribe so to speak. Encouraging that being different is completely okay would be a start instead of telling everyone that it's not okay and that they should be more similar to each other. How can you even believe crap like this? If my culture tells me that diseases are caused by babies and that the only way to cure a disease is to kill a baby, you are telling me it's okay because being different is okay? Some cultures are objectively inferior. Period. You aren't born with a culture like you are born with skin color and race. Religion and culture are both things that can be inferior. Race and skin color are not. The two are not comparable.
I'm telling others they should stop harming and oppressing others. Where is the wrong in that?
One example is your own conflicting values in this thread. I assume you hold the basic value/belief that human beings should be treated with dignity, yet you advocate forcible displacement of proponents of Sharia law. Islamic extremists also believe in peace and love and all that good shit, but at the same time believe infidels should be beheaded. You guys share a common ground in your eschewing of basic human rights for what you perceive to be the greater good.
I don't care because what I believe is objectively better. I am tolerant of everything except the harming and/or oppressing of others. I will not stand for the destruction of a peaceful society by people who want to oppress others. And besides, I have no wish to harm anyone. I just want them to not fuck up my country.
To clarify, I believe that if you treat Islamic or Christian or whatever other religious belief systems as a form of culture (which you can), then you can make a good case for their inferiority to secular humanist belief systems/culture, but I don't think you can attribute socioeconomic woes to people's idiotic beliefs, as if just kicking out the baddies will solve your problems. I hope I'm understanding you correctly as I'm already having troubles conveying my thoughts on this matter into English. Where did I say anything about socioeconomic woes? I'm talking about culture here and how multiculturalism creates culture clashes. I'm talking about my fear that one particular inferior culture will become more prevalent (and is becoming more prevalent, althought not to the point of Sharia law introduction being imminent).
|
On August 11 2012 21:06 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote:
Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English. I'm pretty sure this is okay. As long as no one breaks the law, there's nothing wrong with having cultural geographical groupings. There are generally locations where Aussies go, Polish go, Spanish go as well as Africans and Orientals. There are grouping areas for the English in almost every country. There are plenty who come from these areas who branch out, the next generation will intermarry with other cultures. It takes a while but divisions get broken down. And as a reward we get a shitload of talent across the gene pool of humanity. Worked for the US as far as I can see (although the incredible influx of Mexicans has sort of upset the apple cart). Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote:
I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant. This isn't really a complaint about multiculturalism, rather a complaint about the state of the Finnish legal system and the weakness of its determination process for working out validity of benefit claims.
There is no need for more "shitload of talent" in this country.
|
|
|
OP or a mod please add include quotes of the talk because no one bothered to read or listen to it.
Malik really does have a few interesting points. However I'm feeling too lazy to summarise all of it.
He's main idea is to challenge the effectiveness (destructiveness) of the policy of multiculturalism:
He points to how the 1st gen Turks in Germany were very secular and more than 1/3 of them go for Friday prayers now. According to him multicultural policies basically fueled the present segregation and discrimination. Very few German Turks were granted citizenship which would make them actually feel like Germans so that they are accepted by the others.
His conclusion:
Multiculturalism, on the other hand, by reposing political problems in terms of culture or faith, transforms political conflicts into a form that makes them neither useful nor resolvable. Multicultural policies both constrain the kinds of clashes of opinion that could prove politically fruitful, and unleash the kinds of conflicts that are socially damaging. They transform political debates into cultural collisions and, by imprisoning individuals within their cultures and identities, make such collisions both inevitable and insoluble.
The lesson of Europe, it seems to me, is that if we want to preserve diversity as lived experience, we need also to challenge multiculturalism as a political process.
He supports it by disproving myths:
The first is the idea that European nations used to be homogenous but have become plural in a historically unique fashion.
The second claim is that contemporary immigration is different to previous waves, so much so that social structures need fundamental reorganization to accommodate it.
And third is the belief that European nations have adopted multicultural policies because minorities demanded it.
Both sides in the multiculturalism debate accept these claims. Where they differ is in whether they view immigration, and the social changes it has brought about, as a good or as an ill. Both sides, I want to suggest, are wrong, because these three premises upon which they base their arguments are flawed.
|
Some cultures are shitty, identifying that homophobic/sexist cultures are worse than none homophobic/sexist cultures doesn't mean I am in favour of purges. Acting like they're all equal but different ignores potential humanitarian solutions through education and aid.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
|
It only ever works when the cultures in question are reasonably similar. Something as diametrically opposed as a western democracy and islamic sharia law can never coexist peacefully.
And neither should they. Ridding ourselves of intolerance and biggotry was never going to an easy process, conflicts are to be expected.
It is my firm belief that some cultures and values are just plain better than others, and can never be allowed to be diluted by misguided attempts to achieve integration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
