Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[icehorse]

Immigrants are often scared and wary of locals so I think locals should be friendlier and try and understand them so that we can be on friendlier terms. That would change a lot of the hostility between locals and immigrants. And locals shouldnt be condescending towards them. They come from a traumatic experience and should be welcomed so that they eventually assimilate in functionality (not reject their own culture) and have a positive view of the country and feel protected. And then everything else, such as learning the local language will naturally occur.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply, I agree with most of what you said.

When you say they came from a traumatic experience, I'm wondering, are you talking about refugees? To me, refugees are in a different category than immigrants.

We have a problem like that here where Zama zamas (illegal miners from Zimbabwe) rape and kill people living around the mines they work. We have Nigerians who run prostitute rings and sell drugs. This disrespect of our local people, and the fact that little is being done about it, is a big reason behind the xenophobic attitudes of our people. The xenophobic attitude is wrong though because most foreign immigrants are amazing respectful people. But as usual, us humans are stupid idiots who are too lazy to judge people by their individual actions and lump all people who are in a certain nationality together.

My sense is that xenophobia is usually not a simplistic response. I'm sure that a few people are just simple-mindedly, black and white, xenophobic towards all foreigners. But I think that's not the common case. To take your example, it would make sense to me if locals in your area are more suspicious of Zama Zamas or Nigerians than they are of other foreigners. Based on what you've said, that's not xenophobia, that's more like common sense. I understand that that makes it harder for upstanding Nigerians, and to me that's the real core of the problem:

What to do with the statistically more problematic categories of immigrants?

For the sake of conversation, I'm going to keep using Nigerians as an example. I don't mean to single out Nigerians, it's just convenient for this discussion.

So you seem to b suggesting that locals ought to treat all Nigerians they encounter with respect. That sounds good on paper, but I'm not sure that's what I'd advise my daughters to do.

I think that immigrants ought to go the extra mile towards their hosts. Immigrants have been given an enormous gift. So as an example, I would say that upstanding Nigerian men should avoid walking around in gangs at night - even if they have no ill intent. They ought to see the situation from their host's perspective.

I dont think that immigrants have to assimilate to our culture though. Multiculturalism is awesome. We have multiple cultures where I come from and they are all fasscinating.

Again, I think that there is some important nuance here. There are aspects of culture that are benign, for instance cuisine. But there are sometimes aspects of cultures, that represent sharp contrasts in core values. For example some cultures treat women as equals, some treat women as subservient to men. If the host culture treats women as equals, then I think the immigrants MUST conform to the host's culture.

I think immigrants MUST respect and honor the host country's core values.

 

[Samael_Khan]

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply, I agree with most of what you said.

When you say they came from a traumatic experience, I'm wondering, are you talking about refugees? To me, refugees are in a different category than immigrants.



My sense is that xenophobia is usually not a simplistic response. I'm sure that a few people are just simple-mindedly, black and white, xenophobic towards all foreigners. But I think that's not the common case. To take your example, it would make sense to me if locals in your area are more suspicious of Zama Zamas or Nigerians than they are of other foreigners. Based on what you've said, that's not xenophobia, that's more like common sense. I understand that that makes it harder for upstanding Nigerians, and to me that's the real core of the problem:

What to do with the statistically more problematic categories of immigrants?

For the sake of conversation, I'm going to keep using Nigerians as an example. I don't mean to single out Nigerians, it's just convenient for this discussion.

So you seem to b suggesting that locals ought to treat all Nigerians they encounter with respect. That sounds good on paper, but I'm not sure that's what I'd advise my daughters to do.

I think that immigrants ought to go the extra mile towards their hosts. Immigrants have been given an enormous gift. So as an example, I would say that upstanding Nigerian men should avoid walking around in gangs at night - even if they have no ill intent. They ought to see the situation from their host's perspective.


Again, I think that there is some important nuance here. There are aspects of culture that are benign, for instance cuisine. But there are sometimes aspects of cultures, that represent sharp contrasts in core values. For example some cultures treat women as equals, some treat women as subservient to men. If the host culture treats women as equals, then I think the immigrants MUST conform to the host's culture.

I think immigrants MUST respect and honor the host country's core values.

Hmmmm.... you make a good point about refugees vs immigration. What i said applies mainly to refugees. But i do know immigrants who chose to move because of war.

Regarding statistically more problematic immigrants: the average person doesnt care about statistics, just personal experience. Even statistucs are skewed because they provide no context.

If we take the stance that we proverbially " run away from from snakes even though some might be harmless", then one is taking the woke and right wing dichotomy method, which is generalisation.

I think we should find the cause of problems. So in my example, yes zama zamazare problem, so lets target zama zamas. Dont attack the majority of zimbabweans who are unrelated to that syndicate.

Nationality and ethnicity and race are too broad a brush to judge on.

I think a countries core values are reflected in their laws. So even if someone has problematic cultural differences, that will be addressed in law. Such as discriminating against women. If there arenr laws addressing it, then the host country is closer to the foreign culture than one would like to think.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are a tiny fraction of that number of Christian fundies.

~50% of the US population. That's 150 million people right there.

 

[icehorse]

~50% of the US population. That's 150 million people right there.

Hmmm, can you roughly define a Christian fundamentalist? Because that 50% number seems high.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmmm, can you roughly define a Christian fundamentalist? Because that 50% number seems high.

It's the number that believes in magical creation (adam and eve and the magical talking snake in the magical garden with the magical fruit and the eventual magical flood etc).

Aka bible literatists.

 

[Altfish]

Tell me again what's wrong with defending your own culture?

Says newspaper funded by right wing xenophobes

 

[icehorse]

It's the number that believes in magical creation (adam and eve and the magical talking snake in the magical garden with the magical fruit and the eventual magical flood etc).

Aka bible literatists.

Ok, I did say a "rough definition", but that's a bit too rough. For example there are YECs, and that's a very small number. So back to "Christian fundamentalists":

I did a little internet searching:

About 70% of the US population is Christian of some sort
Of those, about 25% are "findamentalists". so total is about 18%, but still, that's a BIG number.

But the Bible - awful as it is - doesn't strongly advocate for theocracy, whereas the Quran does.

 

[icehorse]

Says newspaper funded by right wing xenophobes

Is it possible for a person to be opposed to mass immigration and not be a xenophobe?

 

[Altfish]

Is it possible for a person to be opposed to mass immigration and not be a xenophobe?

Yes, but the Daily Telegraph has fallen deep in recent years.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, but the Daily Telegraph has fallen deep in recent years.

Do you think Europeans have legitimate concerns about the mass immigrations of the last several decades?

 

[Altfish]

Do you think Europeans have legitimate concerns about the mass immigrations of the last several decades?

It has to be controlled BUT I'd rather control it by giving aid to the countries they are fleeing and if they are fleeing war, then we need to mediate where possible.
Europe has always had 'mass' immigration - Irish when the potato famine happened, Windrush, Jewish movement in Nazi times, etc. It is not new.

 

[icehorse]

It has to be controlled BUT I'd rather control it by giving aid to the countries they are fleeing and if they are fleeing war, then we need to mediate where possible.
Europe has always had 'mass' immigration - Irish when the potato famine happened, Windrush, Jewish movement in Nazi times, etc. It is not new.

A big YES in terms of providing aid to other countries.

As far as immigrants are concerned, to me I think immigrants need to assimilate to the core values of their host culture. For example, in a recent poll, half the Muslims in the UK think that being gay should be illegal. To me, that should be a red flag, and if that's a value that a potential immigrant holds, that immigrant should not be allowed entry. That's a specific example of the broader principle of agreeing with, honoring and defending the core values of the host culture. Thoughts?

 

[Sakeenah]

Do you think Europeans have legitimate concerns about the mass immigrations of the last several decades?

I personally don't think immigration is a concern, but illegal immigration is. The European countries have benefited greatly from immigrants. People should be fair and not lose sight of the tremendous contribution that millions of immigrants have already made to modern European societies.

Many immigrants have become leaders in government, science, academia, sports and the arts. Others are less famous but play an equally important role. Immigrants are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
European societies need immigrants. Europeans are living longer and having fewer children. Without immigration, the population In the European countries that are part of the EU will drop. You can look up the facts.

The majority of immigrants don't want a free ride, they are hard working people( yes, even us Muslim..I know it's shocking). They want a fair opportunity for themselves and their families. They are not criminals or terrorists. They are law-abiding people. Majority of the immigrants don't want to live apart, they want to integrate, while retaining their identity( culture and religion).

The concern should be like I mentioned tackling illegal immigration. I think it would be much more useful if the European countries cooperate on cracking down on traffickers and criminal networks who exploit the immigrants. At the same time provide real channels for legal immigration while safeguarding the basic human rights of migrants.

It's simple logic..but sadly bigotry is blinding.

 

[icehorse]

It's simple logic..but sadly bigotry is blinding.

I mostly agree with you. But where do you stand on the question of conflicting core values. I brought up the gay issue a few posts back. Then there is the issue of theocracy as opposed to secularism. If a potential immigrant wants to promote Sharia once they've arrived, what should we do about that, if anything?

 

[SkepticThinker]

A big YES in terms of providing aid to other countries.

As far as immigrants are concerned, to me I think immigrants need to assimilate to the core values of their host culture. For example, in a recent poll, half the Muslims in the UK think that being gay should be illegal. To me, that should be a red flag, and if that's a value that a potential immigrant holds, that immigrant should not be allowed entry. That's a specific example of the broader principle of agreeing with, honoring and defending the core values of the host culture. Thoughts?

How about introducing and exposing them to a country that values freedom and diversity and teach them what it's all about, so they no longer hold such a limited and closed view of humanity?

(I wonder how many Americans currently think being gay should be illegal? )

 

[icehorse]

How about introducing and exposing them to a country that values freedom and diversity and teach them what it's all about, so they no longer hold such a limited and closed view of humanity?

How is that not what currently happens, albeit organically?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How is that not what currently happens, albeit organically?

It is what currently happens. Which is why I think this whole fear the immigrants thing is overblown.

Nobody wanted my ancestors here practicing their weird religion. Nobody wanted the Irish here when they came. Nobody wanted the Chinese here when they came. Nobody wanted the Italians here when they came. And on and on and now we're a melting pot of all kinds of different people sharing the same basic core values (here in Canada, anyway).

 

[Altfish]

As far as immigrants are concerned, to me I think immigrants need to assimilate to the core values of their host culture. For example, in a recent poll, half the Muslims in the UK think that being gay should be illegal. To me, that should be a red flag, and if that's a value that a potential immigrant holds, that immigrant should not be allowed entry. That's a specific example of the broader principle of agreeing with, honoring and defending the core values of the host culture. Thoughts?

Sounds easy doesn't it?
But what are the UKs core values?
Lower taxes for the rich; hate foreigners; unfair election system; The press owned by non-tax paying foreigners, etc
I think you'll find that a high proportion of Sun readers think being gay should be illegal.

So, please define the core values and we'll make sure that Sun and Mail readers abide by them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In this case Poland wants to defend its culture. It does NOT want Islamists to destroy Polish culture. The EU wants to force Poland (and all EU countries), to accept the mass immigration of Islamists who want to destroy European cultures.

To be clear, Islamists are NOT A RACE. This is not about race. It's about ideas. Islamists promote misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, tribalism, and theocracy.

That's all or even mist Muslims?

 

[icehorse]

It is what currently happens. Which is why I think this whole fear the immigrants thing is overblown.

Nobody wanted my ancestors here practicing their weird religion. Nobody wanted the Irish here when they came. Nobody wanted the Chinese here when they came. Nobody wanted the Italians here when they came. And on and on and now we're a melting pot of all kinds of different people sharing the same basic core values (here in Canada, anyway).

I think Islamic core values are different than all the others you listed, and to some degree all the others you listed share some similarities that Islam does not. For example, Islam sets itself up - in its most basic claims - to be unalterable, and unrefinable. I think Muslim immigrants have the hardest time assimilating, because Islam is so rigorously tribal and so sure that it IS the final word.