/* * ======================================== * end IE5/6 hover menu fixes * ======================================== */ #nav_shadow{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/nav_shadow.gif) repeat-x 0 0; height: 4px; font-size: 0; padding: 0; overflow: hidden; } #userlinks, #userlinksguest{ height: 33px; margin: 0; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; clear: both; background: #11191b url(style_images/rts-sanc/userlinks_top.gif) repeat-x 0 0; border-bottom: 1px solid #000; color: #fff; } #userlinks a:link, #userlinks a:active, #userlinks a:visited, #userlinksguest a:link, #userlinksguest a:active, #userlinksguest a:visited{ color: #87e6be; } #userlinks a:hover, #userlinksguest a:hover{ color: #338396; } #submenu p, #userlinks p, #userlinksguest p{ background: transparent !important; border: 0 !important; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: 1px; margin: 0 !important; padding: 7px 0 7px 0; text-align: right; } #userlinks p, #userlinksguest p{ font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: 0; } #userlinksguest p.pcen{ text-align: center; } #submenu p.home, #userlinks p.home, #userlinksguest p.home{ float: left; } #submenu a:link, #submenu a:visited{ background: transparent; color: #3A4F6C; padding: 0 6px 0 6px; text-decoration: none; } #submenu a:hover, #submenu a:active{ background: transparent; color: #5176B5; } .rc{ background: #e6e6e6 url(style_images/rts-sanc/navstrip.gif) no-repeat -7px 2px; } .rc_l{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-y 0 0; height: 100%; } .rc_t{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-x 0 0; height: 100%; } .rc_r{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-y 100% 0; height: 100%; } .rc_b{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_border.gif) repeat-x 0 100%; height: 100%; } .rc_tr{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_tr.gif) no-repeat 100% 0; height: 100%; } .rc_br{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_br.gif) no-repeat 100% 100%; height: 100%; } .rc_bl{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_bl.gif) no-repeat 0 100%; height: 100%; } .rc_tl{ background: url(style_images/rts-sanc/rc_tl.gif) no-repeat 0 0; height: 100%; } .rc_content{ padding: 8px; } #navstrip{ background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; padding: 8px 8px 8px 40px; } #navstrip a:link, #navstrip a:visited{ color: #434547; text-decoration: none; } #navstrip a:hover, #navstrip a:active{ background: transparent; color: #338396; text-decoration: none; } #navstrip h1 { background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: -7px; margin-left: -40px; margin-top: -15px; } #navstrip2{ background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; padding: 8px 8px 8px 40px; } #navstrip2 a:link, #navstrip2 a:visited{ color: #434547; text-decoration: none; } #navstrip2 a:hover, #navstrip2 a:active{ background: transparent; color: #338396; text-decoration: none; } .navsub { background: transparent; color: #434547; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 0; /*there is something being inherited here that is fucking with the margins */ margin-left: 0; /* here too */ margin-top: -7px; } .toplinks{ background: transparent; color: #565656; margin: 0; padding: 0 0 5px 0; text-align: right; } .toplinks span{ color: #565656; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 5px; } .toplinks a { color: #686868; } .copyright{ font-size: 11px; margin: 0; padding: 4px; } .skin_cr{ height: 20px; margin: 0; padding: 7px; background: #11191b url(style_images/rts-sanc/userlinks_bottom.gif) repeat-x 0 0; border-top: 1px solid #000; color: #fff; text-align: center; font-size: 11px; } .skin_cr a:link, .skin_cr a:active, .skin_cr a:visited{ color: #87e6be; } .skin_cr a:hover{ color: #338396; } /* * ======================================== * print page styles * ======================================== */ #print{ margin: 20px auto 20px auto; padding: 0; text-align: left; width: 85%; } #print h1, #print h2, #print h3, #print h4, #print p{ color: #036; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 8px; } #print h2, #print h3, #print p{ border-bottom: 1px solid #999; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; } #print h3{ background: #F5F5F5; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0 0 10px 0; } #print h4{ background: #F9F9F9; font-size: 11px; } #print p{ margin: 0 0 5px 0; padding: 10px; } #print p.printcopy{ border: 0; color: #000; text-align: center; } #networknavbar { background: #11191B url(style_images/rts-sanc/userlinks_top.gif) repeat-x 0 0; color: #FFFFFF; height: 35px; } #networknavbar ul { float: right; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 3px; margin-bottom: 0px; position: relative; z-index: 10000; padding: 0px; } #networknavbar li { color: white; list-style: none outside none; float: left; font-size: 13px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px; } #networknavbar li a { color: #FFFFFF; display: block; padding: 5px 6px; text-decoration: none; } #networknavbar li a:hover { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #0D1B2A; border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px; } #networknavbar .main { width: 955px; }

Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

RTS-Sanctuary _ Politics _ Rampant Immigration

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 9 2014, 12:36 AM

This topic got lost, would be interested in continuing the debate.

This post is long so I’ve emboldened key words, and organized it in a (hopefully) easy-to-read way.

Every post in this topic has suffered from a lack of nuance because the topic starter (boo j4) proposed the question with an absolute dichotomy: pro or anti immigration. It’s almost impossible to be against immigration outright, it’s also highly unreasonable and to be in favour of unrestricted immigration. The solution is somewhere in between. This is the answer to the immigration question:

First, we must understand what immigration is, it’s more complicated than most of you make it out to be (which no one has yet defined for us, again, boo j4, that was your job as topic starter):

Immigration: Immigration is simply the permanent movement of people from state X to state Y. These people seek citizenship for themselves or their families in their destination state. If their intended stay is impermanent then they are not immigrants, they are temporary workers.

-Immigration can be legal (occurring according to the Law) or illegal (occurring beyond the Law). The Law is not equated with Justice (Law is derived from Justice, Justice is not derived from Law). As a result, saying that something is “legal” does not constitute a value judgement. If you argue that “legal immigration is fine because it’s legal, and that means it’s “good” then you are wrong: go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve said.

-Legal immigration will result in citizenship for the immigrant. A citizen fully partakes in the political community of the state. They have all the rights and responsibilities associated with the state. All citizens are equal before the law.

*What is the purpose of immigration? Immigration is seen as a panacea for veritable liquorice allsorts basket of problems, but fundamentally, immigration MUST be in the self-interest of the destination state. People argue in favour of immigration for two main reasons:

1) Economic rationale. Immigrants may bring capital and/or labour which the destination state requires. They also function as additional consumers. Some common arguments include:
-Immigrants bring money with them to start businesses.
-Immigrants bring skills: eg. If a nation needs welders, they allow welders to immigrate to fill the labour demand.
-Immigrants are connected with their homeland, which may allow the destination nation to benefit from these connections (business connections etc.)
-Immigrants do jobs nationals don’t want to do, which brings the cost of living down (you pay immigrant workers less) and increases the standard of living for nationals (stuff is cheaper, nationals get the higher-paying jobs etc.)
-Immigrants buy stuff, which increases the consumption base, the growth is what drives the economy, growth makes everyone richer.
-Immigrants pay taxes, thus increasing government revenue, thus more social programmes.

2) Social rationale. Immigrants seek to escape hardship, persecution etc. and it is the destination state’s responsibility to shelter them. This logic explains refugees etc.
-Furthermore, much immigration is driven by immigrants in the destination state desiring to be reunited with their families, desiring to bring their friends along etc. Thus, immigration is a self-fueling process, the larger the current immigration base, the larger the demand for more immigration.

- Increasing immigration is a self-fueling cycle because:
1) Immigration leads to economic growth, economic growth leads immigration (more of profession X is needed, more people want a share of the wealth etc.) and
2) immigration leads to immigrants (big surprise) who demand more immigration.

-Because of this, decreasing immigration is impossible without an organized and conscious effort to break the cycle. Furthermore, any attempt to break the cycle will be unsuccessful in the long term unless solutions are found for the problems which immigration allegedly repairs.

QUOTE(Random_Idiot)
But AC, why would you want to break the cycle?  Immigration seems to be very beneficial, both economically and socially.


Well my misguided friend, this only seems the case because I have not discussed the problems associated with immigration, which are as numerous as they are virulent. As a result, the debate is not as clear-cut as it first seemed. The main problems with immigration are:

1) Economic issues.

- Immigration results in a limited short-term gain at the expense of an unlimited long-term gain.

Eg.1) State X requires welders.
Solution A) Welders immigrate to state X. State X has welders.
Sol. B) State X trains welders. State X has welders.
-Solution B is preferable for national self-interest because producing talent/skills is better than consuming talent/skills. When you train a welder the state is not only more self-sufficient, but it now has expertise which provides a comparative advantage in the global market, which attracts foreign investment. Furthermore, the creation of an infrastructure to support skills-training provides additional employment, and fosters domestic innovation and invention.

Eg.2) Canada needs computer engineers.
Sol. A) Computer engineers immigrate to Canada. Canada has computer engineers.
Sol. B) Canada trains computer engineers. Canada has computer engineers.
-Obviously initial immigration to create the infrastructure (assuming none exists) or the immigration of a select few experts for teaching purposes is necessary. However, solution B is preferable because the ability to train computer engineers provides an essentially unlimited supply of them, whereas immigration will only fuel this so long as conditions are favourable. Basically all Canadian computer technology is created by graduates from Waterloo, despite the fact that business conditions in Canada are far more favourable than in the USA. Domestic supply of experts is beneficial to the state, and the people living within it.

Eg.3) Germany and Japan (late 19th C.) require mechanics.
Sol. A) Mechanics immigrate to Germany/Japan. They have mechanics.
Sol. B) Germany/Japan train mechanics. They have mechanics.
-Sol. B. is preferable because both these nations were able to build their own domestic expertise. Temporary workers, and some immigrants taught them mechanical/industrial processes, and as a result, this development/ expertise became part of the national systems. Compare this to late 19th C. Argentina, which relied upon immigrants for skilled labour. All 3 states experienced rapid growth and standard of living increases during this period, however, Argentina’s domestic development was retarded due to reliance on immigration, and when the allure of Argentina died, so to did this stream of immigrants. However, Germany and Japan produced their own skilled labour, and remained rich and powerful states.

-The point here is that massive immigration to acquire skilled labour is a short-term solution, in order to really address the systemic labour problems (not enough X), the system itself must be changed (train X). Immigration retards the development of domestic training programmes and the cultivation of domestic experts. This has social ramifications (which will be explained soon), as well as the salient economic problems.

- Illusion of growth: Population growth does not equal economic growth. Economic growth can be achieved through increased mechanization, production of higher-value goods etc. Any required additional labour can be met through minor specialist immigration and an influx of temporary workers.
-An artificially expanding citizenry (through immigration, as opposed to natural growth) causes pernicious microeconomic effects on the pre-extant citizenry, principally a diminishment of purchasing power and a lack of labour opportunities and domestic oppression.

- Average purchasing power in the destination state is diminished because the average immigrant adds less to economic growth than they add to the population. Say immigrant X’s relative economic value is 2.0 (where 1.0 is average), however his wife (0.5), his mother (0.5), his father (0.5), and brother (0.5) are allowed to enter due to family reuniting provisions in the immigration laws. As a result, the average economic value has been brought down to 0.8, and therefore this immigrant family is now diminishing the average economic output/capita, while increasing the gross output.
-Furthermore, because most Western states are welfare states, there will be a redistribution of wealth to these immigrant citizens, which directly dilutes the purchasing power of the rest of the citizenry.
-Think of it this way, immigration increases the overall economic pie, but not as rapidly as they divide the shares, and as a result, immigration decreases the average share of the pie, despite the increased size of the pie.
*Also note that I’m NOT talking about monetary inflation in this argument, immigration is not the primary cause of inflation, and I’m not making a value judgement on inflation. I’m strictly talking about purchasing power (imagine that inflation is a dollar becoming less over time, purchasing power is a day’s labour buying less over time, which is a new phenomena which began with the massive immigration waves into mature economies).

-Decreasing purchasing power has been the result in ALL Western states since the immigration floodgates were opened. Up until the 1950s, this was rarely an issue, and then only locally.

- lack of labour opportunities and domestic oppression: This argument is very simple.
A) There a finite number of jobs in any given field (this is not debatable, you can’t employ unlimited teachers etc., no matter how much the economy expands due to immigration).
B) Immigrants will often fill these jobs either because the will work for less, because employers have leverage over them until they become full citizens, or because they readily possess the skills which may take time to locally develop.
C) Citizens lack these labour opportunities, and the opportunity to acquire relevant training.
-Consider the university system (most of which are familiar with how this works). There are 10,000 spots available for undergraduate students. 9,000 are filled domestically, although 10,000 applied, the remaining 1,000 are reserved for foreign students (usually from China, usually they are using education as a means of immigration, in Canada anyways) because they pay more money, have higher grades than domestic students etc. This directly damages the cultivation of domestic talent, and actually serves to oppress the domestic population:
-lower performing domestic students tend to be from lower income brackets, these are the people displaced by immigrants, thus the immigrant class joins/replaces the existing elite (for example, East Asians are the highest-earning racial group in the USA and Canada). This is the case with most immigration.
-Using temporary workers to fill low-level jobs, while educating and empowering the domestic population would serve to grow the domestic elite, and greatly increase the quality of life for citizens.
-Actually this happens to be the key behind pre-1950s immigration to Canada/USA. Most immigrants were poor and uneducated, and as a result, domestic citizens became greatly enriched with immigration (although temporary workers would have resulted in an identical outcome), however now that the immigration standards have changed, the opposite is true, and immigration has become pernicious and oppressive to the domestic population.

- Strain on the welfare state : this is possibly the most pernicious economic burden of immigration. Newly immigrated citizens require additional government services (education for their children, health care, old age security, additional police, legal services etc.). Depending upon the state, immigrants may be able to become citizens before arriving, it may take many years, however at some point immigrants become citizens.
-As has already been demonstrated, because immigrants bring their families and friends (due to a ridiculous set of clauses regarding family reunification, which is quite common in the West) the burden on the economic system is greater than the value of the immigrant.
-Furthermore, there’s no way that the immigrant will generate the amount of tax revenue that they cost the government in terms of services, especially since immigrants tend to have many children, and they bring their aged parents etc. For example, If an immigrant arrives in Canada and makes $100,000/year salary (a very good salary), he will pay roughly $35,000 of this in tax, which does not cover the cost of his 4 children’s education, health care for his whole family, the pension he will receive (despite not having paid into the CPP his whole life etc.). Costs to the government will likely total well in excess of $100,000. This money is generally borrowed as debt.

-The debt burden of the welfare state is a comedy of errors. Hypothetically speaking, a lavish welfare state should be entirely economically feasible. For example, government pension plans should simply operate the way a private plan would work (you pay into it your working life, you get it back when you retire, interest accumulated on the pot actually makes the government money). However, because of the massive immigration boom, these social services, which would otherwise be entirely stable, are haemorrhaging money because far too many people are withdrawing, and people aren’t paying in as long. This is the case with most aspects of the welfare state: the economic feasibility of the welfare state is jeopardized by significant immigration.

Eg.) Immigration is ballooning health care costs in Canada. In cities like Toronto where 52% of the population are immigrants, it’s fairly easy to see that when 500,000 immigrants whom just received their citizenship in the last 5 years are using the heath care system the economic vitality of this system will be significantly diminished.

*Furthermore, almost ALL of the economic benefits of immigration could be gained through employing temporary labour, immigration is almost completely economically unnecessary, and actually has pernicious negative consequences.

2) Social issues. These are more straightforward than the economic issues, they are also more open to subjective criticism, so they will not require as much analysis. Furthermore, J4/company have articulated a number of them. I will simply list a number of the key ones, and offer cursory explanation if necessary:

- Homogeneity bonds people, this creates a strong society. Bonds reduce crime, increase altruism, increase social cohesion etc. Essentially, society, and by proxy, the state functions much better with a homogenous population than with a cosmopolitan population. Homogeneity can be manufactured through similar beliefs, values etc.
-However natural homogeneity is indicated by physical features (race etc.). These distinguishing features are the result of selective pressures in order to reinforce insider-outsider boundaries, because cohesive societies out-competed those which cohesive (yes there are other relevant factors here, yes I am also aware that I have levied a critique of evolution, but this isn’t speciation).
-Anyways, the point is that these structures developed over 1000’s of years because they offered survival benefits. Even if we disagree with the principle behind physical discrimination and segregation, we must recognize that the logic of mother nature is impeccable. Be this compelling or not, it must be recognized that all things being equal, a racially homogenous society is superior to a cosmopolitan society (now before someone calls me a racist etc. let them know that this logic applies in all directions, and is not “racist” because I’m not offering a value judgement regarding different races).

-The criticism can be levied that “people will simply find a way to divide themselves, if racial difference isn’t present, they will divide according to class etc.” There is some credence to this in a sociological sense, but due to psychological heuristics, there is a difference.

*All of the other arguments regarding crime, lack of integration, natural segregation (which J4 astutely brought up) etc. are all derived from this principle. Immigration damages social structures, immigration of physically distinguished groups greatly magnifies this problem.

3) Political issues.

1) That mass immigration damages destination states is evident, but origin states are diminished due to emigration.
-vis-à-vis brain drain. If you don’t understand, ask. This post is fruiting long, and while I enjoy doing this, I also get tired.

2) Mass immigration can create large ex-pat groups which can negatively impact the political landscape of the destination nation.
-eg. Cubans in Florida.
-eg. Russians in Ukraine.
Need I say more on this?


The solution to the “immigration problem”
-I’ve alluded to it throughout my reply, here it is explicitly stated:

Immigration (that is the granting of citizenship) should be minimal. Immigration should target exceptional or absolutely necessary individuals who can significantly increase domestic knowledge, productivity etc. Immigration should not allow for extended family reunification. Immigration should favour homogeneity.

The majority of current immigrants should be accepted as temporary workers. They provide almost ALL of the economic benefits that immigrants do, but incur almost NONE of the costs associated with citizenship.

Of course there is the issue of a diminishing population, this is a cultural problem, and immigration, in its current form, is not the answer.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 9 2014, 02:10 AM

Bullpoopie on "all things being equal, a racially homogenous society is superior to a cosmopolitan society".

Even from a purely natural stand point, this kind of thinking is false as a genetically more diverse society is less susceptible to disease.

A racially diverse society also has an easier time engaging in trade with other societies because they have better knowledge of cultural differences and are linguistically more adept and thus are more successful at establishing trade relationships with others.

Also, did you just invoke the "immigrants are stealing our jobs" argument? You should add the "and women" part too just for completeness sake.

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 9 2014, 10:06 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 9 2014, 01:10 AM)
1) Bullpoopie on "all things being equal, a racially homogenous society is superior to a cosmopolitan society".

Even from a purely natural stand point, this kind of thinking is false as a genetically more diverse society is less susceptible to disease.

2) A racially diverse society also has an easier time engaging in trade with other societies because they have better knowledge of cultural differences and are linguistically more adept and thus are more successful at establishing trade relationships with others.

3) Also, did you just invoke the "immigrants are stealing our jobs" argument? You should add the "and women" part too just for completeness sake.
*



1) The fact that race exists is due to homogeneity being advantageous. Like groups outcompeted disparate groups throughout history, which has intensified superficial genetic divergence.

Furthermore, race is mostly superficial, and plenty of studies have been done which find that non-superficial genetic diversity within any given race is as diverse as when all races are accounted for (meaning that there is as much meaningful genetic diversity within "whites" as there is within "whites and blacks"). This means that your point about diverse societies being more genetically resilient is categorically incorrect.

2) That's just simply wrong as well. All all of the great trading societies throughout history were ethnically homogenous, because it was clear who was "in the network" and who was not. For example, the Phoenicians, Jews, Arabs, Venetians, Dutch, English. All were ethnically homogenous, and this contributed to their superior ability to establish resilient trade networks and empires (in fact, it is impossible to think of a historical example of a cosmopolitan society which was successful at trading).

Actually, your argument is in diametric opposition to a study from the Fraser Institute, which details how the ethnic diversity of Canada has failed to produce any meaningful trade relationships with countries-of-origin.

3) Disparaging the argument is not engaging with the argument, nor does it do anything to dismantle the validity of the argument. Unfortunately for you, all of the evidence, and all of the logic, is against you my friend.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 10 2014, 12:16 AM

1) Nope, check up on the amount of obesity and health problems with the first nation peoples for example. Or any number of localized genetic diseases. Without change, such populations would suffer greatly.

2) Your talking past tense. I'm talking about the present. If you're going to reference a study, I'd appreciate you sourcing it. Thusly: according to a report by http://www.cedec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Canada-Bilingualism-and-Trade_English.pdf, proficiency in French is the sole reason for bilingual Canada having much better trade volumes with countries that have French as an official language.

3) I didn't realize that I had to engage in an argument against "immigrants are stealing our jobs", but fine. If an immigrant gets a job that a native doesn't, it is because the immigrant was better qualified for it or offers some other advantage to the employer that the native can not. Thus, the employer benefits and the society benefits. Why else would companies employ immigrants if not for some gain?

"Citizens lack these labour opportunities, and the opportunity to acquire relevant training." Sooo... a country needs immigrants because citizens lack education and immigrants are just superior? Ok, so everyone should totally employ immigrants but not allow them to become citizens because that would be bad for the society because... why exactly? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you get the expertise that immigrants can provide and allow them the chance to become citizens or you lose the expertise.

In general, I think you're trying too hard to concoct an overwhelming argument against immigration. You lump everything you can think of into one big ball and expect it to counter immigration in its entirety. While enforcing limitations on and reviewing immigration policies might or might not be a good idea, you're trying to argue that the entire notion of immigration and mixed societies is flawed. Heck, you only need to look at your superior Southern neighbour for an example of a successful mixed society. I honestly think your argument would fare better if you limited its scope.

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 11 2014, 12:17 AM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 9 2014, 11:16 PM)
1) Nope, check up on the amount of obesity and health problems with the first nation peoples for example. Or any number of localized genetic diseases. Without change, such populations would suffer greatly.
*



Your sample of "first nations" peoples (I am assuming you're talking about American natives?) cannot be used as evidence for anything, there are too many other factors at work there (cultural, historical, etc.).

You seem to be confusing race (that is the broad physical markers which divide people visually) with local/isolated gene pools. Genetic problems are not an issue when we're talking about all "white people", or all "black people". Race is a socially constructed from visual characteristics, and, as I have already stated before, it's a fact that there is as much meaningful genetic variability within any given race as there is between races. That is to say that the variability of a given subset of humans is dependant upon one factor (that of the sample size), not of two (sample size and race).

As a result, what you're saying just isn't true. A cosmopolitan society of 10,000,000 people isn't going to be more or less vulnerable to volatility than an equivalent homogenous society.

And of course, "without change, populations would suffer greatly". What I'm saying is that a pool of 1 billion Chinese people interbreeding in China provides more than enough genetic variability to be resilient (the same going for every other "race").

And lastly, we are left with the conclusion that race evolved, thus race was advantageous. Homogenous societies simply outcompeted cosmopolitan societies (and all of history reifies this observation), and therefore we can conclude that homogenous societies are more advantageous than cosmopolitan societies (that is a citizen body which participates in the state, it is still possible to make use of these connections through temporary workers, such as Saudi Arabia or Dubai).

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 9 2014, 11:16 PM)
2) Your talking past tense. I'm talking about the present. If you're going to reference a study, I'd appreciate you sourcing it. Thusly: according to a report by http://www.cedec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Canada-Bilingualism-and-Trade_English.pdf, proficiency in French is the sole reason for bilingual Canada having much better trade volumes with countries that have French as an official language.
*



I will forgive you for your naiveté regarding English-French relations in Canada, because you are a foreigner. First, that is a piece of government propaganda which cherry-picks one of the only benefits of Quebec, while ignoring the mammoth negatives. Second, Canada is not cosmopolitan, there is English-Canada and French-Canada (Quebec), they are entirely separate and exist as two separate nations within a federation.

The language/cultural divide has threatened to rip our country into pieces multiple times, it has threatened civil war, and it has severely damaged our economy. In fact, the GDP of Quebec is 20% subsidies from English Canada etc. It's a complete basket-case, there's no way around it.

Canada is case-in-point of a failure of the cosmopolitanism dream.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 9 2014, 11:16 PM)
3) I didn't realize that I had to engage in an argument against "immigrants are stealing our jobs", but fine. If an immigrant gets a job that a native doesn't, it is because the immigrant was better qualified for it or offers some other advantage to the employer that the native can not. Thus, the employer benefits and the society benefits. Why else would companies employ immigrants if not for some gain?
*



People employ immigrants for an individual short-term gain. I admitted this occurred (to deny this would be a falsehood). However, my argument is that there is a collective long-term retardation of development that occurs when immigration isn't done right.

Also, I would like to point out that my argument is about the unbridled and largely unrestricted immigration we're seeing in the West currently, I clearly articulated that I am in favour immigration, but only of the proper sort. You are straw-manning my argument, furthermore you are missing its nuance (which I will soon re-encapsulate for you).

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 9 2014, 11:16 PM)
"Citizens lack these labour opportunities, and the opportunity to acquire relevant training." Sooo... a country needs immigrants because citizens lack education and immigrants are just superior? Ok, so everyone should totally employ immigrants but not allow them to become citizens because that would be bad for the society because... why exactly? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you get the expertise that immigrants can provide and allow them the chance to become citizens or you lose the expertise.
*



Immigration of skill is a Band-Aid solution: you admit yourself that immigration often fills education gaps. Thus the problem is with domestic education, and the optimal long-term solution is to fix the education system, not to import skills ad infinitum. This is because you then create 1) a chronic retrenchment of domestic disparity and 2) you import an elite skilled-labour class, which doesn't serve the interests of the domestic population (in whose interests the government ought to serve).

I have stated that the optimal sort of immigration is that of mid-19th C. Germany, where British specialists immigrated and established domestic industries run by Germans. Thus, Germany received all of the benefits of immigration, with none of the problems. However, it's easy to think of modern examples such as Brazil, which, throughout history, consumed a great deal of talent, but never fostered domestic talent, and has thus been dependant on Europe or America for all of its history (the same is true of all of Latin America, Argentina to a lesser extent).

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 9 2014, 11:16 PM)
In general, I think you're trying too hard to concoct an overwhelming argument against immigration. You lump everything you can think of into one big ball and expect it to counter immigration in its entirety. While enforcing limitations on and reviewing immigration policies might or might not be a good idea, you're trying to argue that the entire notion of immigration and mixed societies is flawed. Heck, you only need to look at your superior Southern neighbour for an example of a successful mixed society. I honestly think your argument would fare better if you limited its scope.
*



You have a serious reading comprehension problem which has caused you to straw-man my argument. I am not against immigration, I am simply advocating for what is the optimal sort of immigration. That is:

Immigration (that is the granting of citizenship) should be minimal. Immigration should target exceptional or absolutely necessary individuals who can significantly increase domestic knowledge, productivity etc. Immigration should not allow for extended family reunification. Immigration should favour homogeneity.

The majority of current immigrants should be accepted as temporary workers. They provide almost ALL of the economic benefits that immigrants do, but incur almost NONE of the costs associated with citizenship.

No where in your "critique" do you address my actual argument or conclusion. Frankly, I think you didn't read my conclusion, which is just as well, because my conclusion isn't up for debate, it is the optimal solution.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 12 2014, 10:55 PM

Your solution is human resources colonialism.

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 12 2014, 11:30 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 12 2014, 09:55 PM)
Your solution is human resources colonialism.
*



A tacit admission of intellectual defeat in the form of a sound bite.

I win.

Posted by: DoD_J4Jc3 Aug 13 2014, 09:33 AM

Discussion is only possible if you make 2-3 paragraphs posts which are easy to read. No one can spend hours reading 10 pages posts.

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 13 2014, 02:49 PM

QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Aug 13 2014, 08:33 AM)
Discussion is only possible if you make 2-3 paragraphs posts which are easy to read. No one can spend hours reading 10 pages posts.
*



That's pretty sad.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 13 2014, 03:24 PM

QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 13 2014, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 12 2014, 09:55 PM)
Your solution is human resources colonialism.
*



A tacit admission of intellectual defeat in the form of a sound bite.

I win.
*


I'm right though. Instead of draining a country of its natural resources, you'd be draining a country of its talented workers. Your solution reeks of a master race ideology where the superior homogeneous society should be free to get the best from others while carefully controlling who gets to be a part of that society. It's like some good old boys' club on a societal scale.

"Oh you're exceptional? Then sure we'll have you and deem you worthy of being one of Us! Good thing you're not one of those filthy normals though 'cause we don't like those guys. We need them to do the stuff we don't want to do so we keep them around as long as they are able to work for us but then we toss them back to where they came from."

Posted by: DoD_J4Jc3 Aug 13 2014, 03:33 PM

QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 13 2014, 08:49 PM)
QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Aug 13 2014, 08:33 AM)
Discussion is only possible if you make 2-3 paragraphs posts which are easy to read. No one can spend hours reading 10 pages posts.
*



That's pretty sad.
*



Yes and realistic. As you see, only one person is discussing. Shorten your posts.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 13 2014, 04:02 PM

It's just his style of argumentation. He tries to out-type people and if anyone gets tired of responding to his text-walls he proclaims himself the winner of the argument. He always does this.

Posted by: DoD_J4Jc3 Aug 13 2014, 04:22 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 10:02 PM)
It's just his style of argumentation. He tries to out-type people and if anyone gets tired of responding to his text-walls he proclaims himself the winner of the argument. He always does this.
*



Exactly, or uses words which I have to look up and will obviously not do.

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 13 2014, 09:28 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 13 2014, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 12 2014, 09:55 PM)
Your solution is human resources colonialism.
*



A tacit admission of intellectual defeat in the form of a sound bite.

I win.
*


I'm right though. Instead of draining a country of its natural resources, you'd be draining a country of its talented workers. Your solution reeks of a master race ideology where the superior homogeneous society should be free to get the best from others while carefully controlling who gets to be a part of that society. It's like some good old boys' club on a societal scale.

"Oh you're exceptional? Then sure we'll have you and deem you worthy of being one of Us! Good thing you're not one of those filthy normals though 'cause we don't like those guys. We need them to do the stuff we don't want to do so we keep them around as long as they are able to work for us but then we toss them back to where they came from."
*



Yes precisely, you understand correctly. This is immigration in its optimal form. Immigration should be to the sole and maximum benefit to the host country.

Why else would would/should a country accept immigrants? Immigration in its current form is deleterious to our way of life and our economies. My question is this: why do you favour destroying our society and our economy with rampant immigration, when it is clearly sub-optimal?

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 13 2014, 09:34 PM

QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Aug 13 2014, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 10:02 PM)
It's just his style of argumentation. He tries to out-type people and if anyone gets tired of responding to his text-walls he proclaims himself the winner of the argument. He always does this.
*



Exactly, or uses words which I have to look up and will obviously not do.
*



Brevity isn't a substitution for deep analysis.

J4, if you're too stupid to understand how I express my argument, you're inevitably too stupid to defeat my argument.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 14 2014, 01:31 AM

QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 14 2014, 05:28 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 13 2014, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 12 2014, 09:55 PM)
Your solution is human resources colonialism.
*



A tacit admission of intellectual defeat in the form of a sound bite.

I win.
*


I'm right though. Instead of draining a country of its natural resources, you'd be draining a country of its talented workers. Your solution reeks of a master race ideology where the superior homogeneous society should be free to get the best from others while carefully controlling who gets to be a part of that society. It's like some good old boys' club on a societal scale.

"Oh you're exceptional? Then sure we'll have you and deem you worthy of being one of Us! Good thing you're not one of those filthy normals though 'cause we don't like those guys. We need them to do the stuff we don't want to do so we keep them around as long as they are able to work for us but then we toss them back to where they came from."
*



Yes precisely, you understand correctly. This is immigration in its optimal form. Immigration should be to the sole and maximum benefit to the host country.

Why else would would/should a country accept immigrants? Immigration in its current form is deleterious to our way of life and our economies. My question is this: why do you favour destroying our society and our economy with rampant immigration, when it is clearly sub-optimal?
*


And your solution is sub-optimal for the immigrant's country of origin and the temporary workers.

Hell, people are sub-optimal. People aren't given citizenship oh a whim even now. Immigration is controlled. There are green card systems and working visas in place. Reasons for immigration vary from asylum seekers to romantic and employment motivations. Asylum refugees are taken because it's considered the humane thing to do. People move to another country because their spouse is from there. You posit as fact that a homogeneous society is superior to a heterogeneous one when it's completely up for debate. You operate under the assumption that immigrants are, by default, inferior and have to prove that they are somehow worthy of being Canadian, Finnish or Ethiopian.

At no point have I been in favour of rampant immigration or the destruction of society or economy. I've stated my objection to exploiting countries and people by your temporary worker status idea and to the notion that homogeneous societies are automatically superior to heterogeneous ones.

Posted by: [DoD]SpOefT Aug 14 2014, 04:57 AM

QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 14 2014, 02:34 AM)
QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Aug 13 2014, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 10:02 PM)
It's just his style of argumentation. He tries to out-type people and if anyone gets tired of responding to his text-walls he proclaims himself the winner of the argument. He always does this.
*



Exactly, or uses words which I have to look up and will obviously not do.
*



Brevity isn't a substitution for deep analysis.

J4, if you're too stupid to understand how I express my argument, you're inevitably too stupid to defeat my argument.
*


Not everyone has English as their mother tongue.. If I would write out a 10 page text in Dutch with tons of hard words in it, would iy make you stupid for not understanding everything? tongue.gif

Posted by: [DoD]Hellsravage Aug 14 2014, 09:16 AM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 14 2014, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 14 2014, 05:28 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 13 2014, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 12 2014, 09:55 PM)
Your solution is human resources colonialism.
*



A tacit admission of intellectual defeat in the form of a sound bite.

I win.
*


I'm right though. Instead of draining a country of its natural resources, you'd be draining a country of its talented workers. Your solution reeks of a master race ideology where the superior homogeneous society should be free to get the best from others while carefully controlling who gets to be a part of that society. It's like some good old boys' club on a societal scale.

"Oh you're exceptional? Then sure we'll have you and deem you worthy of being one of Us! Good thing you're not one of those filthy normals though 'cause we don't like those guys. We need them to do the stuff we don't want to do so we keep them around as long as they are able to work for us but then we toss them back to where they came from."
*



Yes precisely, you understand correctly. This is immigration in its optimal form. Immigration should be to the sole and maximum benefit to the host country.

Why else would would/should a country accept immigrants? Immigration in its current form is deleterious to our way of life and our economies. My question is this: why do you favour destroying our society and our economy with rampant immigration, when it is clearly sub-optimal?
*


And your solution is sub-optimal for the immigrant's country of origin and the temporary workers.

Hell, people are sub-optimal. People aren't given citizenship oh a whim even now. Immigration is controlled. There are green card systems and working visas in place. Reasons for immigration vary from asylum seekers to romantic and employment motivations. Asylum refugees are taken because it's considered the humane thing to do. People move to another country because their spouse is from there. You posit as fact that a homogeneous society is superior to a heterogeneous one when it's completely up for debate. You operate under the assumption that immigrants are, by default, inferior and have to prove that they are somehow worthy of being Canadian, Finnish or Ethiopian.

At no point have I been in favour of rampant immigration or the destruction of society or economy. I've stated my objection to exploiting countries and people by your temporary worker status idea and to the notion that homogeneous societies are automatically superior to heterogeneous ones.
*




1 - People haven't been granted citizenship on a whim since it became possible to actually monitor, categorize, and restrict immigration. At least here in the US I'm talking roughly the 1840's through 1870's.

2- States act in their own self-interest. If a state wishes to allow temporary workers to live and work there for a short amount of time, there is no harm being done, as long as the country extends basic liberties to those workers (see: Qatar.) Most workers choose to do this willingly to make short term gains. Rather than wishing to relocate their entire families, they often come in search of short term work with better wages that they either save up with or send to their families.

Temporary worker programs =/= exploitation of peoples

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 14 2014, 10:28 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 14 2014, 12:31 AM)
And your solution is sub-optimal for the immigrant's country of origin and the temporary workers.
*



Immigration to the host country should be completely in the interests of the host country. There are no other factors to be considered.

If country X attracts skilled labour from country Y, it is in country X's interests to do so, country Y doesn't feature in the equation. If this were the case, you could say that any immigration is always to one country's disadvantage, and thus is "sub-optimal" from someone's perspective. Furthermore, temporary workers will only come if it is to their benefit, and while it may be sub-optimal from their perspective, it is closer to optimal than residing in their home-countries.

The only perspective which need be considered is that of the host country's. A state must function in the self-interest of its people, and its people alone, otherwise the purpose of the state is compromised, as it exists for the sole benefit of its people.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 14 2014, 12:31 AM)
Hell, people are sub-optimal. People aren't given citizenship oh a whim even now. Immigration is controlled. There are green card systems and working visas in place. Reasons for immigration vary from asylum seekers to romantic and employment motivations. Asylum refugees are taken because it's considered the humane thing to do. People move to another country because their spouse is from there. You posit as fact that a homogeneous society is superior to a heterogeneous one when it's completely up for debate. You operate under the assumption that immigrants are, by default, inferior and have to prove that they are somehow worthy of being Canadian, Finnish or Ethiopian.

At no point have I been in favour of rampant immigration or the destruction of society or economy. I've stated my objection to exploiting countries and people by your temporary worker status idea and to the notion that homogeneous societies are automatically superior to heterogeneous ones.
*



It is a fact that homogeneous societies are superior to heterogeneous societies. It is not up for debate.

Temporary workers are not necessarily exploited (Western workers in Saudi Arabia are very well paid, for example). They will come only if it is to their advantage to do so, and they should be allowed to come only if it is in the advantage of the host nation. However, simply because they work there isn't a reason to allow them to become citizens, and partake in all of the rights and privileges which are granted to full citizens.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 14 2014, 11:55 PM

The main exploitation is that of the immigrants' home country. Employing the masses and allowing immigration of only the top is a big brain-drain, especially when the home country has to educate them and care for them at old age, only to have them work abroad, spending most of their money abroad boosting another country's economy.

Pure employment is not a reason for citizenship. Long stay in the country (typically under employment) is. You need a minimum of 5 years of stay barring any other factors in the US for example.

QUOTE
It is a fact that homogeneous societies are superior to heterogeneous societies. It is not up for debate.
Keep telling yourself that.

Hells, did you not read what I wrote? I already mentioned green cards and working visas. I'm not saying countries can't allow for short term employment in their country or that they should automatically handout citizenship status at customs. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't have to be exceptional to become a citizen. If a plumber stays in a country long enough, learns the language, adapts to the culture and maybe even gets a family there, should she still be denied citizenship forever simply because she's not a rocket scientist? AC wants to cultivate his precious homogeneous society by keeping people out so as to not taint it with people from other cultures, a view which probably stems from his perceived negative effects of immigration policies in his own country (and, I'm guessing, a confusion between 'permanent resident' and 'citizen').

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 15 2014, 06:49 PM

[quote=Slow_Runner,Aug 14 2014, 10:55 PM]
The main exploitation is that of the immigrants' home country. Employing the masses and allowing immigration of only the top is a big brain-drain, especially when the home country has to educate them and care for them at old age, only to have them work abroad, spending most of their money abroad boosting another country's economy.

Pure employment is not a reason for citizenship. Long stay in the country (typically under employment) is. You need a minimum of 5 years of stay barring any other factors in the US for example.

*

[/quote]

1) Brain drain exists, it already happens. The elite from foreign countries already has free reign to immigrate to the West, meaning that my system would change nothing which isn't already happening with respect to brain drain.

2) The state must serve the interests of its own people, not the interests of other states' people. "Exploitation" of another states' citizens (who willingly emigrate) is not my concern, nor should it ever be the concern of a host nation.

3) A long stay in the country is not a valid reason for citizenship. Simply because some shmuck lives among us doesn't mean that he deserves the rights and privileges associated with being a citizen (that is control of the government, social services etc.).

If someone can bring nothing to a society but a warm body, why should we let him become one of us? You wouldn't allow useless people to join your family, your work, your group of friends, why your nation?

[quote]It is a fact that homogeneous societies are superior to heterogeneous societies. It is not up for debate.[/quote]Keep telling yourself that.

Hells, did you not read what I wrote? I already mentioned green cards and working visas. I'm not saying countries can't allow for short term employment in their country or that they should automatically handout citizenship status at customs. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't have to be exceptional to become a citizen. If a plumber stays in a country long enough, learns the language, adapts to the culture and maybe even gets a family there, should she still be denied citizenship forever simply because she's not a rocket scientist? AC wants to cultivate his precious homogeneous society by keeping people out so as to not taint it with people from other cultures, a view which probably stems from his perceived negative effects of immigration policies in his own country (and, I'm guessing, a confusion between 'permanent resident' and 'citizen').
*

[/quote]

It's axiomatic that they are superior. This observation is born out by both history and science, to deny this is to be absolutely blinded by the own deranged ideology with which you were indoctrinated (as is every good European child).

Citizenship should be something which is jealously guarded, and all citizens should work together for their collective benefit. Temporary workers and resident non-citizens enrich the citizenry of the state, without drawing down the resources of the state (social programs etc.) or watering down the value of citizenship and its associated rights and privileges, the political power of the citizens, or their culture etc.

My solution essentially gains all of the positives of immigration, without any of the associated negatives. It is optimal.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 16 2014, 12:51 AM

From a societal point of view, it would also be optimal to kill all disabled people at birth, old people once they can no longer work and people with injuries that make them incapable of contributing anything to the society. Should we do that too because it's optimal?

In the same vein, we should offer the benefits of the society to all living in it, be they temporary workers or citizens, and allow people who have worked for the welfare of the society to become full members of it. Even if it's sub-optimal in the short term.

What exactly is the value of citizenship and the associated rights and privileges that you're so scared of getting watered down?

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 16 2014, 01:06 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 15 2014, 11:51 PM)
From a societal point of view, it would also be optimal to kill all disabled people at birth, old people once they can no longer work and people with injuries that make them incapable of contributing anything to the society. Should we do that too because it's optimal?
*



Anyone with a severe mental disability should be aborted, although people with physical but not mental disabilities are not really limited in what they can do, given that key professions are chiefly intellectual (eg. Stephen Hawking is valuable despite his physical disability).

Old people are citizens, and under ideal conditions have earned their keep. Given that I have stated the only objective of the state is to care for its citizens in the best possible way, killing old people is clearly wrong in every way.

Disobeying the purpose of the state is not optimal, fulfilling it is.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 15 2014, 11:51 PM)
In the same vein, we should offer the benefits of the society to all living in it, be they temporary workers or citizens, and allow people who have worked for the welfare of the society to become full members of it. Even if it's sub-optimal in the short term.
*



Massive immigration is damaging in the long-term, not the short term, you have it backwards. A temporary worker (who has a work visa for 6 months) should not be given all the benefits of citizenship, and I hope you're joking. Why should the Mexican who works 4 months a year in Nova Scotia picking berries be given universal medical coverage, welfare payments, subsidized housing, free school for his 10 children etc.? Clearly even you would disagree with your own logical extension.

Now assuming that you mean people who have worked, say, even 10 years in the country, why do they not deserve to become citizens? Those who are useful should, however, the 100,000 Philpinos who have worked in Canada for the last 20 years at McDonalds have no business becoming Canadian citizens, determining our government policies etc. They will never, ever recouperate the costs associated with their citizenship, they will drain our state coffers and reduce my quality of life.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 15 2014, 11:51 PM)
What exactly is the value of citizenship and the associated rights and privileges that you're so scared of getting watered down?
*



They were all stated in my original post, I will reencapsulate some of the key points:

QUOTE
-The point here is that massive immigration to acquire skilled labour is a short-term solution, in order to really address the systemic labour problems (not enough X), the system itself must be changed (train X).  Immigration retards the development of domestic training programmes and the cultivation of domestic experts.

-An artificially expanding citizenry (through immigration, as opposed to natural growth) causes pernicious microeconomic effects on the pre-extant citizenry, principally a  diminishment of purchasing power and a lack of labour opportunities and domestic oppression.

- Average purchasing power in the destination state is diminished because the average immigrant adds less to economic growth than they add to the population.

-The economic feasibility of the welfare state is jeopardized by significant immigration.

-Homogeneity bonds people, this creates a strong society.

-Immigration damages social structures, immigration of physically distinguished groups greatly magnifies this problem.

-Mass immigration can create large ex-pat groups which can negatively impact the political landscape of the destination nation.  That is, the ability of the host state to determine policies in its own best interests is retarded (eg. Jewish or Cuban impact of US foreign policy, Taiwanese and Ukrainian impact on Canadian foreign policy).

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 17 2014, 02:18 PM

QUOTE
Those who are useful should, however, the 100,000 Philpinos who have worked in Canada for the last 20 years at McDonalds have no business becoming Canadian citizens, determining our government policies etc. They will never, ever recouperate the costs associated with their citizenship, they will drain our state coffers and reduce my quality of life.

And how do high school drop-out Canadians working at McDonald's for 20 years recuperate the costs associated with their citizenship? Or alcoholics who live on wellfare for 50 years, contributing nothing to the society. Why are they more entitled to determine your government policies? Because they were born into your precious Canada? Is that why they get a free pass to drain your state coffers and reduce your quality of life? What makes them better citizens than immigrant plumbers or maids?

What exactly would you suggest as the cut-off point where one is deserving of citizenship? 5 years as a surgeon? 10 years as a teacher? 15 as a carpenter? 30 as a cashier?

Temporary workers are presumably working so which welfare payments would they even be eligible for? I'm not entirely sure what "universal medical coverage" means over there, because over here we have pretty much free health care so I see little reason to turn people away from hospitals, be they immigrant or citizen. They should be paid enough to afford to pay rent so they shouldn't need subsidized housing either, and I doubt that they'd bring their 10 children along for 4 months to pick berries. The idea that someone would just move to another country on a working visa with 10 children in tow is absurd.

- Immigration does not retard domestic training programs or the cultivation of domestic experts, are you nuts? Do you think any sane nation would try to fix a long term shortage of, for example, medical experts, by simply importing masses of foreign experts without trying to train new ones domestically?
- Artificially expanding citizenry is better for the state than a diminishing citizenry. An influx of people does not diminish purchasing power, on the contrary it increases it. More people buy more stuff. Domestic oppression I'm just going to laugh off and immigration does not reduce the number of labour opportunities. Immigrants are never favoured over domestic applicants unless there is some misguided policy in effect and if there is, it should be that policy that you should be arguing against, not immigration.
- Who cares about average purchasing power? Any money immigrants earn and spend in the destination state adds to the state's economy. Would MacDonald's become more profitable if everyone who purchased mostly cheeseburgers simply stopped going to MacDonald's altogether, even though the average purchasing power of their customer base went up as a result?
- Economic feasibility of the welfare state is not jeopardized by significant immigration.
- USA is a heterogeneous society and arguably the most successful society in the world. United Kingdom is also a heterogeneous society and at its peak, pretty much ruled the world.
- If immigration damages social structures, it is only in the short term. Physically distinguished groups only magnify the problem in the short term. Civilized people get over distinguishing features pretty quickly, given the chance.
- How have the Jewish or Cuban ex-pat groups negatively impacted US foreign policy in ways that are harmful to US interests? Or the Taiwanese and Ukrainian groups Canadian policy?

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 17 2014, 07:03 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE
Those who are useful should, however, the 100,000 Philpinos who have worked in Canada for the last 20 years at McDonalds have no business becoming Canadian citizens, determining our government policies etc. They will never, ever recouperate the costs associated with their citizenship, they will drain our state coffers and reduce my quality of life.

And how do high school drop-out Canadians working at McDonald's for 20 years recuperate the costs associated with their citizenship? Or alcoholics who live on wellfare for 50 years, contributing nothing to the society. Why are they more entitled to determine your government policies? Because they were born into your precious Canada? Is that why they get a free pass to drain your state coffers and reduce your quality of life? What makes them better citizens than immigrant plumbers or maids?

What exactly would you suggest as the cut-off point where one is deserving of citizenship? 5 years as a surgeon? 10 years as a teacher? 15 as a carpenter? 30 as a cashier?
*



There is a difference between natural mediocrity and artificial mediocrity. That is, that some citizens will fail is unavoidable (half of everyone has below average intelligence), however, that's no an excuse for the state to artificially increase the number of losers by allow them to immigrate en masse to the state.

The state should clearly be attempting to increase the quality of the citizenry by allowing only the best foreigners to immigrate. The opposite is currently true, where Western governments allow enormous quantities of uneducated, unqualified people to immigrate.

Just because someone vandalized a building doesn't mean you should also vandalize. If we already breed our own failures, why should we encourage more to immigrate?

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
Temporary workers are presumably working so which welfare payments would they even be eligible for? I'm not entirely sure what "universal medical coverage" means over there, because over here we have pretty much free health care so I see little reason to turn people away from hospitals, be they immigrant or citizen. They should be paid enough to afford to pay rent so they shouldn't need subsidized housing either, and I doubt that they'd bring their 10 children along for 4 months to pick berries. The idea that someone would just move to another country on a working visa with 10 children in tow is absurd.
*



Yes, temporary workers would not be eligible for welfare payments, but if they were to become citizens, they would. This is why they must remain temporary workers, and not become citizens. Furthermore, because the immigrants I wish to disallow would be working at low-end jobs, they would receive government welfare because they would fall into low income brackets. No, they will not bring 10 children when they're just picking berries for 4 months, that's the whole idea (if we allow him to immigrate, he lives here year-round, brings his children, and is an unnecessary drain on society).

Universal health care is what we call our system, which is similar to the NHS or other European "free healthcare" models. But of course, it is anything but free: public healthcare spending is the largest part of the government's budget, and is eating away increasingly large shares of GDP. The fact is that the economic situation is dire, and the system is made unsustainable due to unnecessary immigration. When you have 100,000's of new people every year using expensive health-care systems into which they have never paid or contributed, this increases the burden on native citizens, and wrecks the entire system. The fact is that the western welfare state was contrived within a context without massive immigration, and is predicated upon intense social cohesion, both fundamental principles are being eroded by the sort of immigration we see today (that is vast numbers of poor, ethnic, uneducated immigrants from diverse places).

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
- Immigration does not happy guy domestic training programs or the cultivation of domestic experts, are you nuts? Do you think any sane nation would try to fix a long term shortage of, for example, medical experts, by simply importing masses of foreign experts without trying to train new ones domestically?
*



I am in favour of the sort of immigration wherein foreign experts arrive and train domestic assets, where the point is to foster domestic development, and immigration is a simple necessity of this process. For example Japan and Germany in the late 1800s, they modernized through the use of foreign experts training domestic workers, without suffering an immigration crisis (much like modern China).

But that this occurs is very obvious, for example the USA and Canada and trades education. Almost all new trades workers are foreigners and there is no attempt to increase the training of domestic tradesmen. The same goes for professionals throughout Latin America, which for the bulk of modern history has suffered from this very problem (the only state which attempted to change course was Argentina, and consequently it has followed a different path than places like Columbia). Just look at the composition of student populations at universities, foreigners are eating up a great deal of positions which could go to training domestic students etc.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
- Artificially expanding citizenry is better for the state than a diminishing citizenry. An influx of people does not diminish purchasing power, on the contrary it increases it. More people buy more stuff. Domestic oppression I'm just going to laugh off and immigration does not reduce the number of labour opportunities. Immigrants are never favoured over domestic applicants unless there is some misguided policy in effect and if there is, it should be that policy that you should be arguing against, not immigration.
- Who cares about average purchasing power? Any money immigrants earn and spend in the destination state adds to the state's economy. Would MacDonald's become more profitable if everyone who purchased mostly cheeseburgers simply stopped going to MacDonald's altogether, even though the average purchasing power of their customer base went up as a result?
- Economic feasibility of the welfare state is not jeopardized by significant immigration.
*



"Most people buy more stuff": this is such a simplistic understanding of how economics works it blows my mind. First, my system does not call for a diminishment of consumers (temporary workers and citizens are both consumers), so this point is irrelevant. Second, this argument only works under the assumption that there are no negative economic consequences for an additional consumer (which there are, and they come at the price of government spending).

Domestic citizens are passed over for training in favour of foreigners who already have the relevant training: it's a shortcut with negative long-term consequences (it's cheaper to import someone with training than to train someone, but the investment in training facilities would be worth it in the long run, it is due to our immediate political climate that short-term thinking prevails).

Average purchasing power is what matters for quality of life, not gross purchasing power. Which citizenry is better off?

1) Canada:
GDP PPP 1.8 trillion
GDP PPP/capita 53,000

2) China:
GDP PPP 16 trillion
GDP PPP/capita 9,800

Purchasing power per capita is what matters, not the overall size of the economy.


QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
- USA is a heterogeneous society and arguably the most successful society in the world. United Kingdom is also a heterogeneous society and at its peak, pretty much ruled the world.
- If immigration damages social structures, it is only in the short term. Physically distinguished groups only magnify the problem in the short term. Civilized people get over distinguishing features pretty quickly, given the chance.
- How have the Jewish or Cuban ex-pat groups negatively impacted US foreign policy in ways that are harmful to US interests? Or the Taiwanese and Ukrainian groups Canadian policy?
*



When the UK ruled the world, it was one of the most homogenous countries in Europe (and still is). In fact, there was 0 immigration of the sort I'm talking about until roughly the 1950s (in Europe). The USA operated as a homogenous society, by excluding any element which didn't assimilate, and marginalizing those of different cultures, religions, and races. The diverse elements of America have played almost no positive role in its history, and have been the cause of immense suffering and weakness (eg. the US civil war).

"Civilized people get over physical features pretty quickly given the chance": this idealistic claim serves no purpose here, other than to identify yourself as a gullible fool. Have fun when your entire continent is occupied by Muslims within the next few dozen years. You'll wish you had fought harder for what was your birthright.

Jewish interests have dominated US foreign policy since WWII, and are the source of most problems in the middle east. They have entirely handicapped the US government from acting in its own interests in the region (by supporting Israel unilaterally, the US has forgone positive relations with the Arab nations with which it trades). The US policy on Cuba was drafted by Cuban ex-pats, and has been a disaster, which is why the US is such a pariah regarding Cuba.

The strong Taiwanese influence in Canada has led the government to forego trading with China, and now we are at a massive disadvantage regarding competitiveness in China, and our governments have been at loggerheads ever since the People's Republic was created. Canada has a massive Ukrainian population, which has caused us to strongly undermine our relationship with Russia (who we trade with, and have common cause with in the High Arctic, in favour of a backwater poopie-hole with which we have 0 economic or political ties).

In either case, neither nation is acting in the interests of its citizens, due to the interference of immigrants.


Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 18 2014, 12:55 AM

Immigrant != loser. I guess you have a problem with asylum seekers and being the misanthrope you are, I can see why.

If we allow immigrants to emigrate and live all year round, they will also work all year round, performing a service that would otherwise be left undone. That they visit a hospital every once in a while will not put that big of a dent in the economy unless there is some inherent flaw in your health care system.

If a country chooses to import all of its expertise without trying to train its own, that's not the fault of immigrants.

Temporary workers save up their money and spend it in their country of origin. Immigrants spend that money in the destination country because they are building their future there.
That China's citizenry is worse off than Canada's is not a result of China's superior economy. By your logic, Monaco is superior to China, but I'd sure like to see them duke it out.

UK consists of: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But I guess that doesn't matter since they're all Caucasian. Throughout its history leading to its greatness, there has been massive immigration to the Isles from vikings to other Hanseatic peoples that greatly influenced their language and increased the British Isles' wealth through trade. UK abolished slavery in 1833 and distinguishing features have not caused upheaval there. The Civil War was not caused by immigration nor the distinguishing features of slaves, just like the WW2 was not caused by Jews. The civil war was caused by slavery. But I suppose you would prefer slavery to still be in effect because it was a massive boon for the US economy and incurred little costs to the citizenry.

Are you saying that the US would be better off if they had allied themselves with the Arabs instead of the Jews? And no matter what influenced them, the decision to create a Jewish state was done by the UN at the time. We're not talking about mind control here.
Cuban relations with the US are bad not because of the US having Cuban immigrants, but because of the cold war and US fears of Communism.
You think that your country is wrong by acting morally in its foreign policy? Do you think your country should continue trading with Russia despite its actions in Ukraine? Do you think countries should forgo showing their disdain of China's various problems in order to promote better trade with it?

Posted by: [DoD]Hellsravage Aug 18 2014, 07:11 AM

Diversity and difference in opinion is what leads to the protection of minority rights and more competition in the marketplace of ideas. Competing interests is the fuel of democracy. Yes, diversity inevitably creates conflict but eventually the seams of society are strong enough to withstand such conflict and the process ultimately creates a more liberal and just society

Posted by: DoD_J4Jc3 Aug 18 2014, 08:22 AM

QUOTE
however, that's no an excuse for the state to artificially increase the number of losers by allow them to immigrate en masse to the state.


oh lawd

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 18 2014, 06:54 PM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 11:55 PM)
Immigrant != loser. I guess you have a problem with asylum seekers and being the misanthrope you are, I can see why.

If we allow immigrants to emigrate and live all year round, they will also work all year round, performing a service that would otherwise be left undone. That they visit a hospital every once in a while will not put that big of a dent in the economy unless there is some inherent flaw in your health care system.
*



I don't think a state should accept asylum seekers as immigrants, although it is our humanitarian duty to care for them as refugees. But that doesn't mean they automatically deserve citizenship because their homeland is fruited up.

There is a serious myth of "jobs being left undone" without immigrants. First, hiring workers on a temporary basis can meet this demand without any of the negative impacts of immigration (so if you're arguing for immigration on economic grounds, it is completely unnecessary). Second, cheap immigrant labour soaks up jobs which could be done by citizens, which causes unnecessary citizen unemployment and artificially keeps wages low, and decreases the motivation to find automation and streamlining (because it's cheaper to hire a bunch of immigrants than to invest in automated systems).

For example, from 2008 to 2013 UK averaged 500,000 immigrants a year, despite a contracting economy and increasing unemployment. This story was repeated throughout the West, and demonstrates an abject failure on the part of policy-makers to account for the needs of the citizenry. Cheap immigrants continued to flood our streets and crowd our hospitals without any economic prospects. They worked for cheap when our own citizens couldn't find work. They plagued our public service and social structures while contributing nothing productive to society.

The fact is that most immigrants are a drain on society.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 11:55 PM)
If a country chooses to import all of its expertise without trying to train its own, that's not the fault of immigrants.

Temporary workers save up their money and spend it in their country of origin. Immigrants spend that money in the destination country because they are building their future there.
That China's citizenry is worse off than Canada's is not a result of China's superior economy. By your logic, Monaco is superior to China, but I'd sure like to see them duke it out.

UK consists of: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But I guess that doesn't matter since they're all Caucasian. Throughout its history leading to its greatness, there has been massive immigration to the Isles from vikings to other Hanseatic peoples that greatly influenced their language and increased the British Isles' wealth through trade. UK abolished slavery in 1833 and distinguishing features have not caused upheaval there. The Civil War was not caused by immigration nor the distinguishing features of slaves, just like the WW2 was not caused by Jews. The civil war was caused by slavery. But I suppose you would prefer slavery to still be in effect because it was a massive boon for the US economy and incurred little costs to the citizenry.

Are you saying that the US would be better off if they had allied themselves with the Arabs instead of the Jews? And no matter what influenced them, the decision to create a Jewish state was done by the UN at the time. We're not talking about mind control here.
Cuban relations with the US are bad not because of the US having Cuban immigrants, but because of the cold war and US fears of Communism.
You think that your country is wrong by acting morally in its foreign policy? Do you think your country should continue trading with Russia despite its actions in Ukraine? Do you think countries should forgo showing their disdain of China's various problems in order to promote better trade with it?
*



Temporary workers, depending upon the duration of their stay, will logically send as much money home as possible in the form of remittances. This will be a minor loss to the economy. However, it is clear that he will generate some economic activity in the form of his labour (the way an immigrant would). However, the loss in remittances will be much less than the loss the state would incur in doling out health care, education etc. should he and his family immigrate to the host state.

Regarding Monaco: yes, I would rather live in Monaco than China. Comparing the military might of the two countries isn't whatsoever germane to this debate (China has over 1 billion people, Monaco has 30,000).

Regarding Britain. The differences are much more negligible because there is no racial difference between the nations, furthermore, they were all historically Christian etc. Thus, society is still relatively homogenous. I don't see how England's abolition of slavery has anything to do with this debate, as there were no black slaves in the UK anyways, they were only in the Caribbean.

Regarding the USA. I am not nor could ever be in favour of permanent slavery. Stop straw-manning my argument. I'm not against immigration, I'm not in favour of slavery (both are ridiculous): I'm against unnecessary and deleterious immigration. However, citizens in the south were on average 4 times as wealthy as those in the north, and if you substitute slaves for temporary workers, the wellbeing of the citizenry in the South proves my point. If you had to choose where to live (from the perspective of a citizen), you would clearly rather live in the South (assuming there were no moral issues surrounding slavery).

Yes, the USA would have been much better off had it allied to the Arabs. Relations between Cuba and the US deteriorated before the cold war. The fact that a trade embargo continues to exist is largely due to the Cuban-American lobby. Russian-Ukrainian relations have nothing to do with Canadian foreign policy with either country. We should continue to trade with Russia, and logically, we should support Russia (because their economic and political interests are more in line with ours, whereas Ukraine is completely benign regarding Canadian interests). However, Ukrainian Canadians pressure the government to side with Ukraine, despite this being directly opposed to our self-interest.

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 18 2014, 07:16 PM

QUOTE([DoD�)
Hellsravage,Aug 18 2014, 06:11 AM]
Diversity and difference in opinion is what leads to the protection of minority rights and more competition in the marketplace of ideas. Competing interests is the fuel of democracy. Yes, diversity inevitably creates conflict but eventually the seams of society are strong enough to withstand such conflict and the process ultimately creates a more liberal and just society
*



This passage makes me angry. It assumes a teleology in which a liberal society is first, desirable, and second, inevitable.

Diversity, of a certain sort, is clearly a disadvantage, given that all states evolved separately to value homogeneity (that is of race, culture, language, ideas, political ideology, religion etc.). Self-similarity is an organizational principle behind the emergent property that is society. It is how people naturally organize, it is why people, on average, sort themselves into groups of friends which believe the same as them, look like them, think like them etc.

Second, it is anything but inevitable. The fact is that most of the world is rife with conflict caused by diversity, and exceptions are few and far between (and these exceptions have always proven to be temporary). The fact is that no cosmopolitan society has ever withstood the test of time; clearly it lacks the adaptive power of a homogenous society.

As for democracy, that it works best when society is largely without substantial diversity is born out through history. Iceland has been a democracy since 1000 AD, and like it, the best-functioning, and most resilient democracies have had more in common to unite them than to divide them. Highly fractured societies have always turned to authoritarianism in order to withstand the fissures caused by substantial diversity.

Posted by: Slow_Runner Aug 20 2014, 11:37 AM

QUOTE
However, citizens in the south were on average 4 times as wealthy as those in the north, and if you substitute slaves for temporary workers, the wellbeing of the citizenry in the South proves my point. If you had to choose where to live (from the perspective of a citizen), you would clearly rather live in the South (assuming there were no moral issues surrounding slavery).
Oh come on now. If you substituted slaves with temporary workers, the well-being of the citizenry would have dropped dramatically because they would've had to actually pay their workers instead of beating them into submission.

Immigrants often do the work that citizens are unwilling to do. Again, all things being equal, employers will pick a citizen over an immigrant for a job, reasons for this range from things as simple as better language proficiency to as malicious as discrimination and racism. This is also the prime reason for immigrant unemployment. If an immigrant gets the job, it is because they were better suited for it in the eyes of the employer (maybe that's because they are willing to settle for a salary that a citizen would not be, however if you have strong labour unions, you can create an environment where salaries are fairly standardized and companies can't hire immigrants for smaller pay).

The point about China and Monaco is that China has a vastly superior economy, despite having a lower purchasing power per capita. Reading your post again, I notice that you were making the point that citizens in a country with a higher purchasing power per capita are, on average, better off than citizens in a country with a lower ppp capita. This, of course, goes without saying. That does not, however, mean that the citizenry suffers if that figure goes down when that country accepts immigrants who are less wealthy than the average citizen.

QUOTE
Cheap immigrants continued to flood our streets and crowd our hospitals without any economic prospects. They worked for cheap when our own citizens couldn't find work. They plagued our public service and social structures while contributing nothing productive to society.

The fact is that most immigrants are a drain on society.
So working for companies in your country is "contributing nothing productive to our society"? What is, then? And how do immigrants "plague" your social structure?

UK abolishing slavery almost 200 years ago and having people of colour as part of their society yet having not had massive upheavals about parts of its citizenry having strongly distinguishing features is counter to your "fact" that heterogeneity is somehow detrimental to a society.

Israel is the most advanced country in the middle east and its GPD per capita is the highest (aside from Qatar, UAE and Kuwait, which have artificially high GDPs due to their oil reserves, to which USA has access). Israel is by far the best partner USA could hope for in the Middle East in terms of economical gain.
Siding with Poland in 1939 was also against the self-interest of Britain. Just like it is now against the self-interest of the EU, USA and every other nation restrict trade with Russia to do so.

QUOTE
Second, it is anything but inevitable. The fact is that most of the world is rife with conflict caused by diversity, and exceptions are few and far between (and these exceptions have always proven to be temporary). The fact is that no cosmopolitan society has ever withstood the test of time; clearly it lacks the adaptive power of a homogenous society.
Again, the UK is a cosmopolitan society. I think it has stood the test of time just fine.

Why do you think that people can get over some distinguishing features but not others (colour of your hair, height, body build vs. colour of your skin)? Most scientific discoveries were fueled by thinking differently and consequently, proponents of homogeneity have tried to silence them. Thus, it stands to reason that diversity is key to advancement.

Your assertion that democracy works is without diversity is completely baseless. The bit about Iceland is, I'd go so far as to say, nonsensical. Iceland, throughout history, has been anything but a thriving society and has been subject to the rule of, in turn, almost every other Scandinavian country through the vast majority of its history. How you got to "the best-functioning, and most resilient democracy" is beyond me.

Posted by: ArmyCore Aug 26 2014, 01:45 AM

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 20 2014, 10:37 AM)
QUOTE
However, citizens in the south were on average 4 times as wealthy as those in the north, and if you substitute slaves for temporary workers, the wellbeing of the citizenry in the South proves my point. If you had to choose where to live (from the perspective of a citizen), you would clearly rather live in the South (assuming there were no moral issues surrounding slavery).
Oh come on now. If you substituted slaves with temporary workers, the well-being of the citizenry would have dropped dramatically because they would've had to actually pay their workers instead of beating them into submission.
*



Accounting for inflation, a slave cost about $40,000-80,000/year in upkeep (of course, slaves were not imported during the Antebellum period, so there were no procurement costs). This is significantly more costly than modern temporary workers.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 20 2014, 10:37 AM)
Immigrants often do the work that citizens are unwilling to do. Again, all things being equal, employers will pick a citizen over an immigrant for a job, reasons for this range from things as simple as better language proficiency to as malicious as discrimination and racism. This is also the prime reason for immigrant unemployment. If an immigrant gets the job, it is because they were better suited for it in the eyes of the employer (maybe that's because they are willing to settle for a salary that a citizen would not be, however if you have strong labour unions, you can create an environment where salaries are fairly standardized and companies can't hire immigrants for smaller pay).
*



Well, this isn't true. Employers love hiring immigrants because they have more coercive power over them, they are willing to work long hours and odd shifts (the types of which are illegal in most western countries), and they tend to work for less.

Unionizing all labour to help cope with the problems caused by immigration is another Band-Aid solution, which doesn't address the real cause of the problems.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 20 2014, 10:37 AM)
The point about China and Monaco is that China has a vastly superior economy, despite having a lower purchasing power per capita. Reading your post again, I notice that you were making the point that citizens in a country with a higher purchasing power per capita are, on average, better off than citizens in a country with a lower ppp capita. This, of course, goes without saying. That does not, however, mean that the citizenry suffers if that figure goes down when that country accepts immigrants who are less wealthy than the average citizen.
*



This is true only if the variables are not interrelated; that is that the citizenry primarily suffers in three ways: first, immigrants need jobs, and now compete with citizens for those same jobs, if they work for less, they will get these jobs, meaning that either some citizens will be unemployed, or some citizens will be underpaid (This is because the labour market has excess labour supply as opposed to labour demand); second, an increase in costs of public spending, viz social programmes, infrastructure costs etc. will be increased, and this burden will fall disproportionally on the citizenry; third is inflation, that this occurs is clearly the case and can be seen in housing prices in every major city in the world, which directly decreases the wellbeing of the citizenry (Not only does the cost of living increase, but there is deflationary pressure on wages, meaning that the purchasing power will decrease, as has been the case in the West since the age of immigration began, but not before).

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 20 2014, 10:37 AM)
UK abolishing slavery almost 200 years ago and having people of colour as part of their society yet having not had massive upheavals about parts of its citizenry having strongly distinguishing features is counter to your "fact" that heterogeneity is somehow detrimental to a society.
*



I'm not sure which fantasy world you're living in, but the UK ending slavery didn't effect Britain, as there were no slaves in Britain, only in the colonies (there were prohibitions on the importation of negroes due to labour concerns). Also, England had plentiful labour. There were no upheavals because there was no mass immigration, no heterogeneity, and no integration.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 20 2014, 10:37 AM)
Israel is the most advanced country in the middle east and its GPD per capita is the highest (aside from Qatar, UAE and Kuwait, which have artificially high GDPs due to their oil reserves, to which USA has access). Israel is by far the best partner USA could hope for in the Middle East in terms of economical gain.
Siding with Poland in 1939 was also against the self-interest of Britain. Just like it is now against the self-interest of the EU, USA and every other nation restrict trade with Russia to do so.
*



Israel is that way because we made it that way, but there's no intrinsic reason why that's the case (Palestine wasn't like that, so it's not geographic). If we pumped money and technology into Jordan for 60 years it would be the same.

Siding with Poland was in Britain's self interest, as the alternative would have been a massively empowered Germany. They should have declared war much earlier before Germany was able to massively re-arm.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 20 2014, 10:37 AM)
QUOTE
Second, it is anything but inevitable. The fact is that most of the world is rife with conflict caused by diversity, and exceptions are few and far between (and these exceptions have always proven to be temporary). The fact is that no cosmopolitan society has ever withstood the test of time; clearly it lacks the adaptive power of a homogenous society.
Again, the UK is a cosmopolitan society. I think it has stood the test of time just fine.

Why do you think that people can get over some distinguishing features but not others (colour of your hair, height, body build vs. colour of your skin)? Most scientific discoveries were fueled by thinking differently and consequently, proponents of homogeneity have tried to silence them. Thus, it stands to reason that diversity is key to advancement.

Your assertion that democracy works is without diversity is completely baseless. The bit about Iceland is, I'd go so far as to say, nonsensical. Iceland, throughout history, has been anything but a thriving society and has been subject to the rule of, in turn, almost every other Scandinavian country through the vast majority of its history. How you got to "the best-functioning, and most resilient democracy" is beyond me.
*



Diversity in thought, yes; diversity in skin-colour, no. A diversity of races has no impact on intellectual discovery (for which we need a diversity of intellects and aptitudes), however it does cause many negative problems for society which could easily and painlessly be avoided.

Iceland is the "best functioning" and "most resilient" democracy because it has functioned without difficulty or crisis for over 1000 years. That democracy works most efficiently on small scales is an axiomatic fact, and so is the fact that it works most efficiently when the society is homogenous, like Iceland.

I think you only have to look at the best places to live in Europe and you will quickly see that those which are the most homogenous are the best places to live eg. Scandinavia and England, whereas countries with significant regional differences eg. Spain, France, Germany, have historically been rife with conflict. (Germany has transitioned from the latter to the former, and due to the recent waves of immigration, to the latter again).

Posted by: LoVe_Soup Mar 14 2024, 04:53 PM

These forums still open?

Posted by: MasterOfFreedom Mar 14 2024, 10:50 PM

Yea, but anyone who trolls or flames gets their permissions removed.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)