3 ms·

If society can't keep up with immigration and changing demographics you're bound to have problems. In France, people with French last names on their CVs are mor

If society can't keep up with immigration and changing demographics you're bound to have problems. In France, people with French last names on their CVs are more likely to get called in for job interviews. Similarly in the US Nationalism has reared its head because society has intrinsic speed limits on liberal progressiveness. To what degree do we need to factor that into our trade and immigration policies if progressive policies move so fast that they start to tear apart society? (Open question -- not an opinion)

anigbrowl 10y ago
You assert the existence of intrinsic sped limits with no evidence, as if immigration were a) an independent factor to be turned up and down at will without any need to review other aspects of social policy and b) as if France had negotiated the terms of its colonial role with the countries it saw fit to colonize. To put it bluntly, a country doesn't get to colonize other other countries and then complain if people from those countries take the claims of civilizational superiority at face value and come to experience it for themselves. Colonization drastically and permanently altered the destiny of those countries, and unwillingness to accommodate people from those places displays a lack of responsibility.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  Morality doesn't matter when the whims of the populace ultimately get to drive policy. The fact is, integrating immigrants IS an economic issue, there IS a limit, and if we fail, there WILL be backlash.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    That was why I made a pragmatic argument, which you ignored, as well as a moral one. You have not offered any evidence for your claim about limits and so my participation in this discussion is at an end, because I refuse to waste time arguing with people whose idea of debate is to simply repeat their premises.
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      What pragmatic argument? You just asked for evidence there's a limit. Anyhow, there's a plethora of studies that have been done on the economic impacts of migration, expected outcomes to immigrants measuring different factors (wages, employment, and subjective measures of assimilation), and so on. It's basically an entire field in itself. What is the real 'limit'? The answer is when the negative societal effects become greater than the positive ones, and the host population decides to limit immigration. The rest of your post was a moral argument, which again, doesn't matter when the population has decided they're at the 'limit'.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        a)
scarface74 10y ago
"In France, people with French last names on their CVs are more likely to get called in for job interviews. " It's the same in the U.S. if you have a "Black" sounding name, you are less likely to be called in for an interview. I never understood why Black parents would give their children "ethnic" names knowing that it makes it harder in society. Even if their were only a 10% difference, why handicap your children? And yes I'm Black.
mnm1 10y ago
It sure would have helped if the US hadn't caused the refugee crisis in the first place with our unjust and unjustified wars. We knew even in 2003 that going into Iraq would create a power vacuum that would unleash Muslim radicals. We knew that before going in, still went in, and now have the audacity to refuse the refugees that we created. The Iraq war was not a progressive policy; it was not a sane policy. Claiming that progressive policies led to this situation is delusional.

anigbrowl 10y ago

You assert the existence of intrinsic sped limits with no evidence, as if immigration were a) an independent factor to be turned up and down at will without any need to review other aspects of social policy and b) as if France had negotiated the terms of its colonial role with the countries it saw fit to colonize. To put it bluntly, a country doesn't get to colonize other other countries and then complain if people from those countries take the claims of civilizational superiority at face value and come to experience it for themselves. Colonization drastically and permanently altered the destiny of those countries, and unwillingness to accommodate people from those places displays a lack of responsibility.

Mikeb85 10y ago
Morality doesn't matter when the whims of the populace ultimately get to drive policy. The fact is, integrating immigrants IS an economic issue, there IS a limit, and if we fail, there WILL be backlash.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  That was why I made a pragmatic argument, which you ignored, as well as a moral one. You have not offered any evidence for your claim about limits and so my participation in this discussion is at an end, because I refuse to waste time arguing with people whose idea of debate is to simply repeat their premises.
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    What pragmatic argument? You just asked for evidence there's a limit. Anyhow, there's a plethora of studies that have been done on the economic impacts of migration, expected outcomes to immigrants measuring different factors (wages, employment, and subjective measures of assimilation), and so on. It's basically an entire field in itself. What is the real 'limit'? The answer is when the negative societal effects become greater than the positive ones, and the host population decides to limit immigration. The rest of your post was a moral argument, which again, doesn't matter when the population has decided they're at the 'limit'.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      a)

scarface74 10y ago

"In France, people with French last names on their CVs are more likely to get called in for job interviews. " It's the same in the U.S. if you have a "Black" sounding name, you are less likely to be called in for an interview. I never understood why Black parents would give their children "ethnic" names knowing that it makes it harder in society. Even if their were only a 10% difference, why handicap your children? And yes I'm Black.

mnm1 10y ago

It sure would have helped if the US hadn't caused the refugee crisis in the first place with our unjust and unjustified wars. We knew even in 2003 that going into Iraq would create a power vacuum that would unleash Muslim radicals. We knew that before going in, still went in, and now have the audacity to refuse the refugees that we created. The Iraq war was not a progressive policy; it was not a sane policy. Claiming that progressive policies led to this situation is delusional.