5 ms·
Ugh. The author displays an autistic focus on economic benefits, which I believe is more or less besides the point. Standards of living in the developed world
by iSnow 14y ago
Ugh.
The author displays an autistic focus on economic benefits, which I believe is more or less besides the point. Standards of living in the developed world are very high already, vague promises of '“job upgrades” responsible for a 0.6% increase in native wages' and 'Some newcomers contribute more in tax than they receive in services' are not going to reassure those with a lower education and precarious jobs.
Mass immigration is a cultural and human-rights issue. Disallowing migration from poorer countries into the first world is pretty harsh on those who really strife for better education and living conditions. On the other hand, human societies have cultural traditions and a lowest common denominator on morals, work ethics, tolerance and democratic thinking.
Mass immigrations threatens both the cultural traditions and the common ground and therefore absolutely need to be considered.
- KaoruAoiShiho 14y ago> Mass immigrations threatens both the cultural traditions and the common ground Citation needed.
- LaGrange 14y agoI would say Switzerland, and the cultural and economical benefit they received from the mass influx of immigrants into a fairly small country during WWII. Oh wait... though, unsurprisingly, a lot of locals were less than amused. Though I know that they are less than amused in many other countries as well, even when the country is pretty large and immigration is minimal.
- subsystem 14y agoI suspect that their level of amusement has more to do with themselves than the immigrants.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- crusso 14y agoHow is mass immigration's tendency to dramatically change the existing culture not axiomatic? It's like I said, "Please dont' pour that quart of water into my soup, it will ruin the taste." ... and you asked for a citation.
- KaoruAoiShiho 14y agoBecause people, unlike water, can assimilate. On large scales, this is more common than threatening cultural change.
- geebee 14y agoInteresting observation, but do you see the irony in your claim considering that you wrote "citation needed" earlier? I actually don't think a "citation" is what is needed in either case, though it would probably be a good idea to provide a little more discussion of a potentially controversial statement.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoQuite the opposite way around. Immigrants who form a small minority in their destination society assimilate within one generation, or even one decade if they're lucky. Immigrants who arrive in or into massive waves or blocs tend to form semi-self-sufficient sub-societies within the destination country. These sub-societies have a disturbingly common tendency to become political fifth-columnists in the second generation, when a whole cohort of children grow up hearing idiotically romanticized stories about The Old Country and decide to impose its better, folksier ways on the new country by political activism.