High immigration and social cohesion

[Greg Boyles]

Once again and for the record, I do not stand against immigration or multiculturalism per se.

 

I merely stand against economic imperatives entirely determining the magnitude of the annual immigration intake with no consideration of ecological sustainability and short term social stability.

 

And the presumption that the populous should and will always accept large influxes of immigrants, that can and do cause short term social instability, that are deemed to be required by economists and the big business community.

 

 

 

http://migrationobse...social-cohesion

Does increased diversity undermine social cohesion? The evidence from the US suggests a negative relationship

Frequently, the focus in social cohesion studies is on trust – generalized (whether most people can be trusted) or neighbourhood trust (most of the neighbours in this community can be trusted). Most of the empirical literature on this subject finds that the relationship between diversity and trust is negative – the more diverse a community is, the less likely individuals in it are to be trusting. The trend seems to hold especially strong for the US. Costa and Khan (2003) established with the General Social Survey that people in more diverse neighbourhoods trust their neighbours less and are less likely to be politically or communally involved. Alesina and La Ferrara (2000, 2005) found that trust in general and more specifically interpersonal trust is lower in more racially heterogeneous communities in the US. Stolle et al. (2008) comparing US and Canada observed a strong negative effect of diversity on trust; however, they also found that contact may neutralize but not make this relationship positive. Most notably, Putnam (2007) argues that diversity seems to alienate people in general and in his words pushes them towards 'hunkering down' i.e. towards segregation and isolation.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[imatfaal]

This is a much more interesting point which deserves debate; whether it can get that debate is another question. I agree that economic factors cannot be used as an excuse for not making a decision on a more morally sound basis - I think my decision would be the opposite of yours, but frankly the need for cheap labour is the least of my concerns when discussing immigration.

 

The major problem is that very little research is done on levels of social cohesion and levels of immigration - the tendency tends to be try and correlate social cohesion and ethnic diversity; the fact that immigration levels and ethnic diversity are treated as a measure of each other is highly dubious. As an anecdotal example - within the group of my five closest neighbours and me there is no shared ethnic root, yet no immigrants either (I think all six families are 2nd/3rd generation - pretty par for the course in London). The difficult in social sciences is controlling for outside variables; as one example of many social cohesion is massively correlated with deprivation and income inequality - to control for that in a real-world survey is very difficult.

[Greg Boyles]

This is a much more interesting point which deserves debate; whether it can get that debate is another question. I agree that economic factors cannot be used as an excuse for not making a decision on a more morally sound basis - I think my decision would be the opposite of yours, but frankly the need for cheap labour is the least of my concerns when discussing immigration.

 

The major problem is that very little research is done on levels of social cohesion and levels of immigration - the tendency tends to be try and correlate social cohesion and ethnic diversity; the fact that immigration levels and ethnic diversity are treated as a measure of each other is highly dubious. As an anecdotal example - within the group of my five closest neighbours and me there is no shared ethnic root, yet no immigrants either (I think all six families are 2nd/3rd generation - pretty par for the course in London). The difficult in social sciences is controlling for outside variables; as one example of many social cohesion is massively correlated with deprivation and income inequality - to control for that in a real-world survey is very difficult.

 

Well that reads rather like what I have been arguing for some time.

 

As long as there is a surplus of of resources and everyone is able to get what they believe they are entitled to, then multiculturalism works well and brings signficant social benefits.

 

But if you push immigration to far to the point where you start to get deprivation and income inequality then multiculuralism becomes the weak point. The society will tend to fracture along ethnic and religious lines.

 

I think my decision would be the opposite of yours

Could you please elaborate on this.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CharonY]

But if you push immigration to far to the point where you start to get deprivation and income inequality then multiculuralism becomes the weak point. The society will tend to fracture along ethnic and religious lines.

 

 

 

Interesting the next paragraph in the link provided in the OP the situation is far more complex

The evidence from Europe and the UK is more mixed: income inequality and deprivation may be more important determinants

 

[...]

 

The studies based on British data such as Laurence and Heath (2008) and Letki (2008) have raised the question whether it is income inequality, in particular deprivation and impoverishment of an area, rather than diversity per se that serves to estrange people, a sentiment echoed in much of the British policy research and reports based on qualitative in-depth interviews (Cantle 2005).

 

It has been cautioned that the studies are overall still limited with regards to the effects of immigration on social cohesion.

Edited August 11, 2011 by CharonY