6 ms·

The rational argument about halting immigration has nothing to do with genetics, but if it makes the people already living there better off (assuming it is not

The rational argument about halting immigration has nothing to do with genetics, but if it makes the people already living there better off (assuming it is not a literal invasion and they have a choice). If it does help then it is a good idea and if it doesn’t then it is a bad idea.

_delirium 11y ago
A surprising proportion of the European populace really does think something like genetics, or maybe the slightly fuzzier "ethnicity", is at the core of the issue. Many people really think that they belong to a specific ethnicity that has existed in roughly its current form for hundreds or thousands of years, and that this is the glue holding together their nation-state and the reason for its success. That Europe's current ethnicities are the product of melting pots that emerged from waves of migration and intermingling and assimilation, is a common view among academics, but not so much the average person. I've had reasonably educated people specifically tell me that this is the thing Americans don't understand about Europe: that the American identity was created in the last 200 years from people of many backgrounds, while the European ethnic identities are 2000 years old and not the products of melting pots. Which is not really exactly right, but it's what many Europeans think. This is even true in Greece (I'm Greek-American), which is historically maybe one of the world's most "melting-pot" oriented ethnicities, almost evangelical in its desire to Hellenize people of any background.
- Swizec 11y ago
  The countries came into existence in the last 200 years. The ethnicities have been there for a while. For instance, my country only started existing in 1991. But we have written records of people speaking our language and thinking of themselves as us going back to 800 AD. Germany can trace its origins straight back to The Holy Roman Empire, the ruling classes of which spoke German, thought of themselves as Germanic, had the same crest as Germany uses now, and started existing as a state in 962 AD. And so on. It's less about genetics and more about language.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    Sure, the languages and aspects of the cultures do go back quite a ways. I mostly object to portraying it as a stable group of people directly descended with no immigration or adaptation. People changed languages, religions, etc. as borders and rulers changed, as they migrated, and for various other reasons. For example some of today's Greeks are descended from Hellenized Arabs, Persians, Turks, Italians, Romanians, Albanians, etc., while some of today's Italians are descended from Greeks, Visigoths, and others who became Italianized. And these migrations and assimilations also changed the cultures as well as adopting them, especially when they lived side-by-side in multicultural cities. That used to be common in Europe, especially in the big maritime cities and imperial capitals: cities like Vienna, Thessaloniki, Constantinople, Trieste, Rhodes, Gdańsk, Marseilles, and Vilnius were multicultural and multilingual up until they were turned monolingual (often violently) in the 19th and 20th centuries. So I don't really buy the idea that Europe is somehow inherently supposed to be made out of monocultural nation-states, and that a multicultural city like NYC is a uniquely American idea.
CM30 11y ago
Or in other words, it's because of economic migration. Not the often quoted and disproven 'take advantage of welfare and services' stuff that certain papers seem to go on about, but the somewhat accurate concern that some of the people coming are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who pay less than anyone born here would accept (but which is seen as a somewhat 'reasonable' wage in less well off countries). So you get situations where 'low skilled' jobs pay peanuts, but end up being taken by people who send the money back abroad where the amount is more valuable than in the UK. It can sometimes lead to people from poorer backgrounds not getting these basic jobs because the employers know they'll want a wage they can actually live on. That said, that's not really an issue with immigration specifically; anyone who immigrates to the area and knows about the minimum wage and decent working conditions will also find it more difficult to get a job.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I have never understood the rational argument for granting refugee status for political persecution, but not fleeing an economic situation. If you flee a country because you have odious political views you are a refugee and are granted protection, if you flee a country because your children are starving then you are an economic refugee and sent home.

_delirium 11y ago

A surprising proportion of the European populace really does think something like genetics, or maybe the slightly fuzzier "ethnicity", is at the core of the issue. Many people really think that they belong to a specific ethnicity that has existed in roughly its current form for hundreds or thousands of years, and that this is the glue holding together their nation-state and the reason for its success. That Europe's current ethnicities are the product of melting pots that emerged from waves of migration and intermingling and assimilation, is a common view among academics, but not so much the average person. I've had reasonably educated people specifically tell me that this is the thing Americans don't understand about Europe: that the American identity was created in the last 200 years from people of many backgrounds, while the European ethnic identities are 2000 years old and not the products of melting pots. Which is not really exactly right, but it's what many Europeans think. This is even true in Greece (I'm Greek-American), which is historically maybe one of the world's most "melting-pot" oriented ethnicities, almost evangelical in its desire to Hellenize people of any background.

Swizec 11y ago
The countries came into existence in the last 200 years. The ethnicities have been there for a while. For instance, my country only started existing in 1991. But we have written records of people speaking our language and thinking of themselves as us going back to 800 AD. Germany can trace its origins straight back to The Holy Roman Empire, the ruling classes of which spoke German, thought of themselves as Germanic, had the same crest as Germany uses now, and started existing as a state in 962 AD. And so on. It's less about genetics and more about language.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Sure, the languages and aspects of the cultures do go back quite a ways. I mostly object to portraying it as a stable group of people directly descended with no immigration or adaptation. People changed languages, religions, etc. as borders and rulers changed, as they migrated, and for various other reasons. For example some of today's Greeks are descended from Hellenized Arabs, Persians, Turks, Italians, Romanians, Albanians, etc., while some of today's Italians are descended from Greeks, Visigoths, and others who became Italianized. And these migrations and assimilations also changed the cultures as well as adopting them, especially when they lived side-by-side in multicultural cities. That used to be common in Europe, especially in the big maritime cities and imperial capitals: cities like Vienna, Thessaloniki, Constantinople, Trieste, Rhodes, Gdańsk, Marseilles, and Vilnius were multicultural and multilingual up until they were turned monolingual (often violently) in the 19th and 20th centuries. So I don't really buy the idea that Europe is somehow inherently supposed to be made out of monocultural nation-states, and that a multicultural city like NYC is a uniquely American idea.

CM30 11y ago

Or in other words, it's because of economic migration. Not the often quoted and disproven 'take advantage of welfare and services' stuff that certain papers seem to go on about, but the somewhat accurate concern that some of the people coming are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who pay less than anyone born here would accept (but which is seen as a somewhat 'reasonable' wage in less well off countries). So you get situations where 'low skilled' jobs pay peanuts, but end up being taken by people who send the money back abroad where the amount is more valuable than in the UK. It can sometimes lead to people from poorer backgrounds not getting these basic jobs because the employers know they'll want a wage they can actually live on. That said, that's not really an issue with immigration specifically; anyone who immigrates to the area and knows about the minimum wage and decent working conditions will also find it more difficult to get a job.

danieltillett 11y ago
I have never understood the rational argument for granting refugee status for political persecution, but not fleeing an economic situation. If you flee a country because you have odious political views you are a refugee and are granted protection, if you flee a country because your children are starving then you are an economic refugee and sent home.