3 ms·

> Mass immigrations threatens both the cultural traditions and the common ground Citation needed.

LaGrange 14y ago
I 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 ago
  I suspect that their level of amusement has more to do with themselves than the immigrants.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
crusso 14y ago
How 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 ago
  Because people, unlike water, can assimilate. On large scales, this is more common than threatening cultural change.
  - geebee 14y ago
    Interesting 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 ago
    Quite 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.

I 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 ago
I suspect that their level of amusement has more to do with themselves than the immigrants.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

crusso 14y ago

How 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 ago
Because people, unlike water, can assimilate. On large scales, this is more common than threatening cultural change.
- geebee 14y ago
  Interesting 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 ago
  Quite 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.