3 ms·

If you take them at their word, why is it disgusting? What is wrong with cultural compatibility? Why shouldn't a country want people who will help, and not wan

If you take them at their word, why is it disgusting? What is wrong with cultural compatibility? Why shouldn't a country want people who will help, and not want people who won't? Is this not what countries already do by trying to find productive workers instead of future welfare cases? By turning away people who have committed sexual assault or other crimes. By looking for people who say good things about their host country, not who denigrate it.

manuelabeledo 6y ago
Under your assumptions, countries like the US would be entirely white and Protestant, and asylum seekers would never be allowed to enter. Neither would be a great thing.
- HexagonalKitten 6y ago
  Which assumption? Can you quote it? From my reading, you're the one assuming that white protestants are going to do better in these tests and that is racist etc. Also, like most people, I differentiate between immigration and asylum. Asylum is like taking your neighbor in after their house burns down. Immigration is like inviting them to stay as a roommate. There are very few people I wouldn't extend a helping hand to, but not a lot who I'd want to live with.
krapp 6y ago
The assumption that immigrants cannot assimilate into another culture, will not contribute or be productive workers and will likely be welfare cases or criminals is obviously not true in the general case, and is only a thinly veiled and obvious proxy argument against Muslim and Indian immigration into Europe, itself a proxy argument about maintaining white racial and ethnic homogeneity. Unless it can be proven that the majority of immigrants to Korea or other Asian countries are as destructive as described, and demonstrate the same for European immigrants to other European countries, or even for Asians immigrating to Europe or the US, framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious.
- HexagonalKitten 6y ago
  That's not my assumption, but thanks for offering. > framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious. No. It is a general argument because it applies to everyone, everywhere, no matter your skin color or country. If you had two potential immigrants, identical, and from the same country, would you not pick the one with a solid work history? Would you not pick the one saying "I'm looking forward to a great new life in <Your Country>" as opposed to the one bad-mouthing it? Which one would you assume would get the most value out of being there, someone who hated it, or someone who loved it? > a thinly veiled and obvious proxy argument against Muslim and Indian immigration into Europe, itself a proxy argument about maintaining white racial and ethnic homogeneity. No. You obviously just watch the USA news about Europe. For one, the actual racists aren't concerned with Indians. So you're just out of touch. There is racism, but ... it's complex and interwoven and generally more about the countries you traditionally fought against rather than some simplistic color spectrum. The USA is odd in that almost all racial strife comes from the Indian wars and slavery, both populations of which are internal and visible. In Europe you have silliness like Greeks hating Turks and vice versa, but being essentially indistinguishable by others. But there is a huge "invisible" backlash against unrestricted Muslim refugees. Invisible because it's not the far-right narrative you hear. It's progressive people. For gay marriage, racial equity, etc. And they don't want religion bans or anything, but they do want ideology tests. For instance, there's near 100% support for asking "Do you respect women as the full equal of men, and could you follow the orders of a female police officer?" or such. The recent terrorists would have been blocked by such a screening. There is an obligation to take in refugees, but not to do so blindly. If you do take in a known criminal, perhaps jail them while they await the chance to return to their home country... Your attitude is insultingly out of touch to, for instance, the victims and families of the UK child sex scandal. It's not a happy fact, but it is a fact, that 97% of those arrested were Pakistani. If you call that racist you crap on the victims, and you crap on all the non-rapists who should have priority over the criminals. Similarly, to pretend that Europe hates Muslims craps on all Muslims (the vast majority) who don't chop off the heads of people they disagree with.
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    >Your attitude is insultingly out of touch to, for instance, the victims and families of the UK child sex scandal. It's not a happy fact, but it is a fact, that 97% of those arrested were Pakistani. For others' benefit, Britain has three groups from the Indian subcontinent: * Indian Hindus * Indian Sikhs * Indian and Pakistani Muslims Sikhs and Hindus have been very successful; they are more likely than the average to be part of the British middle class (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-focus-slough http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-...). Muslims are, by contrast, worse than average in every single social measure despite being, racially speaking, indistinguishable from the other two groups to any outsider (since none knows, or cares, about the myriad of caste differences), much like your example of Greeks and Turks; they are all "Asians" in Britain.

manuelabeledo 6y ago

Under your assumptions, countries like the US would be entirely white and Protestant, and asylum seekers would never be allowed to enter. Neither would be a great thing.

HexagonalKitten 6y ago
Which assumption? Can you quote it? From my reading, you're the one assuming that white protestants are going to do better in these tests and that is racist etc. Also, like most people, I differentiate between immigration and asylum. Asylum is like taking your neighbor in after their house burns down. Immigration is like inviting them to stay as a roommate. There are very few people I wouldn't extend a helping hand to, but not a lot who I'd want to live with.

krapp 6y ago

The assumption that immigrants cannot assimilate into another culture, will not contribute or be productive workers and will likely be welfare cases or criminals is obviously not true in the general case, and is only a thinly veiled and obvious proxy argument against Muslim and Indian immigration into Europe, itself a proxy argument about maintaining white racial and ethnic homogeneity. Unless it can be proven that the majority of immigrants to Korea or other Asian countries are as destructive as described, and demonstrate the same for European immigrants to other European countries, or even for Asians immigrating to Europe or the US, framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious.

HexagonalKitten 6y ago
That's not my assumption, but thanks for offering. > framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious. No. It is a general argument because it applies to everyone, everywhere, no matter your skin color or country. If you had two potential immigrants, identical, and from the same country, would you not pick the one with a solid work history? Would you not pick the one saying "I'm looking forward to a great new life in <Your Country>" as opposed to the one bad-mouthing it? Which one would you assume would get the most value out of being there, someone who hated it, or someone who loved it? > a thinly veiled and obvious proxy argument against Muslim and Indian immigration into Europe, itself a proxy argument about maintaining white racial and ethnic homogeneity. No. You obviously just watch the USA news about Europe. For one, the actual racists aren't concerned with Indians. So you're just out of touch. There is racism, but ... it's complex and interwoven and generally more about the countries you traditionally fought against rather than some simplistic color spectrum. The USA is odd in that almost all racial strife comes from the Indian wars and slavery, both populations of which are internal and visible. In Europe you have silliness like Greeks hating Turks and vice versa, but being essentially indistinguishable by others. But there is a huge "invisible" backlash against unrestricted Muslim refugees. Invisible because it's not the far-right narrative you hear. It's progressive people. For gay marriage, racial equity, etc. And they don't want religion bans or anything, but they do want ideology tests. For instance, there's near 100% support for asking "Do you respect women as the full equal of men, and could you follow the orders of a female police officer?" or such. The recent terrorists would have been blocked by such a screening. There is an obligation to take in refugees, but not to do so blindly. If you do take in a known criminal, perhaps jail them while they await the chance to return to their home country... Your attitude is insultingly out of touch to, for instance, the victims and families of the UK child sex scandal. It's not a happy fact, but it is a fact, that 97% of those arrested were Pakistani. If you call that racist you crap on the victims, and you crap on all the non-rapists who should have priority over the criminals. Similarly, to pretend that Europe hates Muslims craps on all Muslims (the vast majority) who don't chop off the heads of people they disagree with.
- TMWNN 6y ago
  >Your attitude is insultingly out of touch to, for instance, the victims and families of the UK child sex scandal. It's not a happy fact, but it is a fact, that 97% of those arrested were Pakistani. For others' benefit, Britain has three groups from the Indian subcontinent: * Indian Hindus * Indian Sikhs * Indian and Pakistani Muslims Sikhs and Hindus have been very successful; they are more likely than the average to be part of the British middle class (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-focus-slough http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/dec/14/middle-britain-...). Muslims are, by contrast, worse than average in every single social measure despite being, racially speaking, indistinguishable from the other two groups to any outsider (since none knows, or cares, about the myriad of caste differences), much like your example of Greeks and Turks; they are all "Asians" in Britain.