Multiculturalsim

[Eric Mc]

Boydie88 said:

Eric Mc said:

The opposite of "multi culture" is "mono culture". If the OP is in favour of a mono culture, does he have a specific mono culture in mind?

If everything is multi cultural, you'll end up with no culture at all. Some cultures are better than others.

Which culture do you think is the best one?

Do you, by any chance, consider yourself to be part of this "better" culture?

[PWeston]

Roofless Toothless said:

I am not sure what you mean by there being strong moral grounds against your view that immigration should be selective. I am hoping that it runs along the lines I have just described.

Strip-mining developing countries of their most intelligent and qualified citizens simply perpetuates the problems these countries already face. Unless you think the solution is for the entire world to move to the West?

Regarding your grandfather - there was no welfare state in 1906 - he didn't have a choice in the matter of being "willing" to work or not. In fact, you have characterised perfectly what I meant in my initial post: in order to sustain a functioning, prosperous, liberal democracy one must choose between open borders or a welfare state.

It is mathematically unsustainable to allow mass immigration when you have the honey-pot of free money waiting as a reward. If this incentive isn't there, you can be far surer about the integrity of incomers and that they are drawn to your country for freedom, economic opportunity and/or the culture...and not handouts.

[Boydie88]

Eric Mc said:

Boydie88 said:

Eric Mc said:

The opposite of "multi culture" is "mono culture". If the OP is in favour of a mono culture, does he have a specific mono culture in mind?

If everything is multi cultural, you'll end up with no culture at all. Some cultures are better than others.

Which culture do you think is the best one?

Do you, by any chance, consider yourself to be part of this "better" culture?

I don't think there's a best or worst, every one will have it's own positives and negatives. Some are better suited to liberalism than others.

[voyds9]

PWeston said:

Strip-mining developing countries of their most intelligent and qualified citizens simply perpetuates the problems these countries already face. Unless you think the solution is for the entire world to move to the West?

Regarding your grandfather - there was no welfare state in 1906 - he didn't have a choice in the matter of being "willing" to work or not. In fact, you have characterised perfectly what I meant in my initial post: in order to sustain a functioning, prosperous, liberal democracy one must choose between open borders or a welfare state.

It is mathematically unsustainable to allow mass immigration when you have the honey-pot of free money waiting as a reward. If this incentive isn't there, you can be far surer about the integrity of incomers and that they are drawn to your country for freedom, economic opportunity and/or the culture...and not handouts.

So when an African immigrants/economic migrant comes to the EU they should be welcomed with open arms because they are coming for a better life.
But when an African nurse comes legally/invited we are strip mining their resources.

[PWeston]

captain_cynic said:

PWeston said:

The goal of multiculturalism is essentially fewer white people.

If that were true, its definately failed. The UK is 87% white after literally centuries of introducing new cultures.

But fortunately you're wrong. Multiculturalism is about improving culture by permitting different ideas and different practices. Its an opposition to a monoculture and not divided on racial lines. The UK has never been a monoculture because it's comprised of vastly different cultures, first you have Scots, Welsh, Irish and English, then you have subdivisions between Northern and Southern English, Then you have even more subdivision between Yorkshire and Geordie cultures... despite all of these people being majority white.

Unfortunately there are some people who hate change and cant accept anyone different to themselves. People like the EDL, Britain First and other groups who want to turn it into a racial conflict. Does anyone honestly think if they got rid of all the blacks and asians they wont start on the foreign white cultures they don't like, then the local white cultures they don't like?

Multiculturalism hasn't failed... On the contrary its been a massive success in the west given we have such diverse groups and no racial, ethnic or religious conflicts but that's the problem some people have with it.

You'll find that the majority of that change has come in very recent decades. It has not been a slow reduction from c.98-99% over centuries.

Why can you not see the difference between gradual osmosis of different cultures/races over centuries and then mass government-sponsored immigration? The two are very different.

[esxste]

PWeston said:

Strip-mining developing countries of their most intelligent and qualified citizens simply perpetuates the problems these countries already face. Unless you think the solution is for the entire world to move to the West?

Regarding your grandfather - there was no welfare state in 1906 - he didn't have a choice in the matter of being "willing" to work or not. In fact, you have characterised perfectly what I meant in my initial post: in order to sustain a functioning, prosperous, liberal democracy one must choose between open borders or a welfare state.

It is mathematically unsustainable to allow mass immigration when you have the honey-pot of free money waiting as a reward. If this incentive isn't there, you can be far surer about the integrity of incomers and that they are drawn to your country for freedom, economic opportunity and/or the culture...and not handouts.

Is the subject of this debate multiculturalism or immigration?

While one can have many non-racist reasons to oppose immigration; it seems to me that only facists can be opposed to multiculturalism; because they believe their culture is the only one worth anything.

[PWeston]

voyds9 said:

PWeston said:

Strip-mining developing countries of their most intelligent and qualified citizens simply perpetuates the problems these countries already face. Unless you think the solution is for the entire world to move to the West?

Regarding your grandfather - there was no welfare state in 1906 - he didn't have a choice in the matter of being "willing" to work or not. In fact, you have characterised perfectly what I meant in my initial post: in order to sustain a functioning, prosperous, liberal democracy one must choose between open borders or a welfare state.

It is mathematically unsustainable to allow mass immigration when you have the honey-pot of free money waiting as a reward. If this incentive isn't there, you can be far surer about the integrity of incomers and that they are drawn to your country for freedom, economic opportunity and/or the culture...and not handouts.

So when an African immigrants/economic migrant comes to the EU they should be welcomed with open arms because they are coming for a better life.
But when an African nurse comes legally/invited we are strip mining their resources.

I'm not sure what you are getting at? I was merely elaborating for a previous poster what one moral argument could be against even skilled immigration. It is not necessarily my view. I'm more inclined to favour selective immigration to benefit Britain and let the third world sort its own problems.

[Roofless Toothless]

Yes, I agree there was no welfare state, PWeston, but there weren't open borders either.

https://www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/jewish-im...

My Pop got here a year after this act, tacitly but not explicitly aimed at Jews. How he got in I don't know. He did have a brother already living in the East End and perhaps claimed to be visiting on his way to New York. I don't think he ever legitimised his status in Britain, and during the world wars had to keep a low profile. He was very scared of being sent back to Russia in 1939 when Germany signed a non-aggression pact with them, and he was kept under Police surveillance.

[Mark300zx]

Eric Mc said:

I'd prefer to be a liberal "do -gooder" than a non-liberal "do-badder".

Well that's the problem isn't it, labelling something as good doesn't mean you are doing it

[PWeston]

esxste said:

Is the subject of this debate multiculturalism or immigration?

While one can have many non-racist reasons to oppose immigration; it seems to me that only facists can be opposed to multiculturalism; because they believe their culture is the only one worth anything.

The two are rather inter-linked what with one being the product of the other.

It's fascistic to desire a culturally homogenous society? Really? Do you not acknowledge that there are rather egregious differences between some cultures? Or are you a moral relativist who is fine with polygamy and child marriage (extreme but all too common examples) so long as it's brown people doing it?

The bottom line is that government should not be sponsoring mass migration of any cultures...let alone the ones far less likely to integrate.

[PWeston]

Roofless Toothless said:

Yes, I agree there was no welfare state, PWeston, but there weren't open borders either.

https://www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/jewish-im...

My Pop got here a year after this act, tacitly but not explicitly aimed at Jews. How he got in I don't know. He did have a brother already living in the East End and perhaps claimed to be visiting on his way to New York. I don't think he ever legitimised his status in Britain, and during the world wars had to keep a low profile. He was very scared of being sent back to Russia in 1939 when Germany signed a non-aggression pact with them, and he was kept under Police surveillance.

I'm aware immigration wasn't a free-for-all. The argument still stands re immigration vs the welfare state though. Without welfare available, you can be fairly confident that new arrivals wish to contribute to society and maybe even identify closely with our freedoms, culture and or values. When you pay people to come and live here, you do not have the same assurances.

[llewop]

Mark300zx said:

Well that's the problem isn't it, labelling something as good doesn't mean you are doing it

The problem is more about labelling at all. Then using the labels to divide and judge people.

A meritocracy is where I think we need to aim for; judge people by what they do/don’t do, not how they look, where they come from or what they do/don’t believe in.

We are not there, the optimist in me hopes we are stumbling towards it, but there are many distractions and diversions and unfortunately the mixed blessing of the Information Age makes it easy to distract and divert opinion

[Roofless Toothless]

PWeston said:

Roofless Toothless said:

Yes, I agree there was no welfare state, PWeston, but there weren't open borders either.

https://www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/jewish-im...

My Pop got here a year after this act, tacitly but not explicitly aimed at Jews. How he got in I don't know. He did have a brother already living in the East End and perhaps claimed to be visiting on his way to New York. I don't think he ever legitimised his status in Britain, and during the world wars had to keep a low profile. He was very scared of being sent back to Russia in 1939 when Germany signed a non-aggression pact with them, and he was kept under Police surveillance.

I'm aware immigration wasn't a free-for-all. The argument still stands re immigration vs the welfare state though. Without welfare available, you can be fairly confident that new arrivals wish to contribute to society and maybe even identify closely with our freedoms, culture and or values. When you pay people to come and live here, you do not have the same assurances.

Is this backed up by the figures though? Is there a reliable source to show if immigrants contribute more in taxes than they claim in benefits? I will willingly concede to you if they are a drain on the economy.

[Mark300zx]

llewop said:

The problem is more about labelling at all. Then using the labels to divide and judge people.

Quoting out of context, or is that another label!!!

[captain_cynic]

Mark300zx said:

llewop said:

The problem is more about labelling at all. Then using the labels to divide and judge people.

Quoting out of context, or is that another label!!!

Erm. no it isn't and you weren't quoted out of context.

[Mark300zx]

captain_cynic said:

Erm. no it isn't and you weren't quoted out of context.

Please carry on with your labelling

[captain_cynic]

Mark300zx said:

captain_cynic said:

Erm. no it isn't and you weren't quoted out of context.

Please carry on with your labelling

You need to learn what a label is.

Also need to understand the concept of context. Your arguments are childish and asinine and that's also not a label... You need to research why.

[Mark300zx]

captain_cynic said:

You need to learn what a label is.

Also need to understand the concept of context. Your arguments are childish and asinine and that's also not a label... You need to research why.

Thanks for the judgement, not much do-gooding going on there

[Ratski83]

jjlynn27 said:

LOL @ OP.

Asking the question and linking REBEL Media.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Wednesday 18th April 09:31

The BBC asked the same question and did a phone in poll a few years ago and the results might surprise you..

https://youtu.be/L_oIUHRRCTM

[Bacon Is Proof]

Multiculturalism is an oxymoron.