Great post. To people in favor of open borders, or no cultural restrictions on immigration, I like to propose a thought experiment: imagine we did not have global warming but global cooling. Two million native Britons move from the UK to Saudi Arabia, attracted by more bearable temperatures and abundant jobs. Does Saudi Arabia change as a result of this? And would you expect the native Saudis to be happy about those changes? And if you think the changes to Saudi society would be positive by your system of values - more rights for women - why would you imagine that the movement of two million Saudis (or other Arabs) to the UK would produce equally positive changes in our world?
Yes, this type of thought experiment should make it obvious to everyone. The threat of being labelled a racist however, probably prevents many people from speaking up.
That was based on Huntington's "Emerging Alignments" analysis from over 20 years ago. It was not meant to be taken as a recommendation, simply as an example.
In addition to your Africa vs Orthodox observation, I would personally move Japan higher up.
"Culture matters, and a desire to preserve one’s culture is not only natural, it’s commendable. Even when that culture is Western."
Why is it that the host culture must always take a back seat to everyone else? I think you are trying to see both sides, but the sophist approach is what leads to these conundrums we are in.
If the west were to shut down "immigration" for the next ten years, the west would flourish and begin to crawl out of this diversity hole it's been digging for the past thirty years, and the rest of the world would be no different. That, seems like the best option to this westerner.
I think you misunderstand my last sentence (or I was not clear enough). I, thought, based on what the rest of the article stated, that it would be seen as a somewhat sarcastic critique of how many on the left view culture, specifically that they all matter but the Western ones.
Perhaps in order to not be tarred with the "racist" brush, there should be a "values" component instead of an "origin" component. While often related, they are not always. I don't think anyone would complain about a moderate person possibly escaping their intolerant homeland for the more open West. The radical fundamentalists are the problem, not the countries they hail from. secondary and tertiary screening would help.
Yes but the problem with values testing is that it can be faked. You can’t fake your country of origin. You’re right but might penalize the “good” people in that region but there is no perfect system and I’d rather be safe than sorry.
Great post. To people in favor of open borders, or no cultural restrictions on immigration, I like to propose a thought experiment: imagine we did not have global warming but global cooling. Two million native Britons move from the UK to Saudi Arabia, attracted by more bearable temperatures and abundant jobs. Does Saudi Arabia change as a result of this? And would you expect the native Saudis to be happy about those changes? And if you think the changes to Saudi society would be positive by your system of values - more rights for women - why would you imagine that the movement of two million Saudis (or other Arabs) to the UK would produce equally positive changes in our world?
Yes, this type of thought experiment should make it obvious to everyone. The threat of being labelled a racist however, probably prevents many people from speaking up.
Thanks for reading!
>African is more compatible than Orthodox
What the hell
That was based on Huntington's "Emerging Alignments" analysis from over 20 years ago. It was not meant to be taken as a recommendation, simply as an example.
In addition to your Africa vs Orthodox observation, I would personally move Japan higher up.
"Culture matters, and a desire to preserve one’s culture is not only natural, it’s commendable. Even when that culture is Western."
Why is it that the host culture must always take a back seat to everyone else? I think you are trying to see both sides, but the sophist approach is what leads to these conundrums we are in.
If the west were to shut down "immigration" for the next ten years, the west would flourish and begin to crawl out of this diversity hole it's been digging for the past thirty years, and the rest of the world would be no different. That, seems like the best option to this westerner.
I think you misunderstand my last sentence (or I was not clear enough). I, thought, based on what the rest of the article stated, that it would be seen as a somewhat sarcastic critique of how many on the left view culture, specifically that they all matter but the Western ones.
Sorry if that was unclear.
This is nonsense. The only advantage of diversity people mention is food variety. Big deal.
No one has ever given an example of a new idea etc from immigration.
It is hardly "nonsense" to suggest that a people of different backgrounds might view the world differently and thus have different ideas.
Neither immigration nor diversity should be goals for their own sake but both can be useful if managed correctly.
It's an extreme example, but the Manhattan Project and the American space program had a more than minimal immigrant contribution.
Great piece again
Perhaps in order to not be tarred with the "racist" brush, there should be a "values" component instead of an "origin" component. While often related, they are not always. I don't think anyone would complain about a moderate person possibly escaping their intolerant homeland for the more open West. The radical fundamentalists are the problem, not the countries they hail from. secondary and tertiary screening would help.
Thanks.
Yes but the problem with values testing is that it can be faked. You can’t fake your country of origin. You’re right but might penalize the “good” people in that region but there is no perfect system and I’d rather be safe than sorry.