diversity is NOT a good thing

[Anders Hoveland]

Mass immigration has been the undoing of leftwing political parties across Europe since it erodes the shared values that are an essential prerequisite of a well-funded welfare state. Why should indigenous, working populations support the high levels of taxation necessary to sustain generous welfare payments if the beneficiaries are people unlike themselves? If they can't look at a benefit recipient and think, "There, but for the grace of God, go I", why should they continue to pay such high taxes? This problem was spelt out by David Willetts a few years ago:

The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.

 

When it comes to differences between countries, social cohesion plays a major role. Broadly speaking, countries that are more ethnically or racially homogenous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality by transfering some of the resources fr9om the richer to poorer people frough the fiscal system. This may explain why Swedes complain less about high taxes than the inhabitants of a country of immigrants such as America. But it also suggests that even in societies with a tradition of high taxes (such as those in Scandinavia) might find that their citizens would become less willing to finance generous welfare programs were immigrants to make up a greater share of their populations.Robert Putnam studied the downsides of diversity, and found that people in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."

 

From a study involving detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam (famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement) has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

 

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

 

Diversity and Social Trust Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how diversity affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," writes Putnam. Sailer, Steve, "Fragmented Future," American Conservative, Jan. 15, 2007. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam wrote that,

"We hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us."

 

Michael Jonas wrote about ethnic diversity, "Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they are also less likely to look out for one another."

Edited December 1, 2011 by Anders Hoveland

[mooeypoo]

I'm... lost.

 

Diversity exists whether we like it or not. People are different, cultures are different, different skin colors exist, different eye colors, different hair, different religions. We might consider those "bad" but.. they exist.

 

This is a fact of reality. The idea of diversity in political terms is to recognize that "difference" does not mean difference in WORTH. Equality of rights for everyone regardless of diversity. Sharing of cultures *because* of diversity. Learning tolerance despite of diversity.

 

I don't quite understand what your practical point is. Diversity is bad? Grouping together is bad? Are you advocating segregation? do explain.

[kitkat]

Sad but true! Your comment about birds though reminded me of what I saw at our local park just the other day - There were lots and lots of birds and what I noticed about them was the larger birds all were gathered in one area while the smaller birds gathered together in another area, then there some other species of birds that also gathered with their own members. All of them were grazing on seeds but they reminded me that their behavior was not any different from ours in social settings.

[John Cuthber]

I read as far as "Mass immigration has been the undoing of leftwing political parties across Europe since it erodes the shared values that are an essential prerequisite of a well-funded welfare state."

Then I realised that I live in a country (in Europe) where Left wing political parties are practically dead, but where there has been no mass immigration.*

So I stopped bothering to read.

Is the rest of it equally unsupported by reality?

 

*There has, of course, been immigration into the UK. But without it our population would have fallen. Just think for a minute about how a falling population affects a left wing community.

[Anders Hoveland]

Governments need to be more careful before they let in more immigrants, especially from certain countries where the people are likely to comitt crime at higher rates (Pakistan, North Africa, Mexico). And they should stop trying to push ethnic diversity in the schools. Different ethnicities generally prefer to live apart.

 

There has, of course, been immigration into the UK. But without it our population would have fallen. Just think for a minute about how a falling population affects a left wing community.

 

Why have people not been having enough children? Perhaps because they do not feel they can afford them?

The cost of housing is just ridiculous. Many young families must delay having children if they want to give their children a decent life out of poverty. Simply bringing in more immigrants, who are willing to have many children while living in relative poverty, is just going to make the underlying problem worse. Britain is overcrowded, there is a shortage of affordable housing. More immigrants will just mean even fewer births of native of Britains. Increased population, especially desperate immigrants, will just drive down wages. Britain would be much better off with a "shortage" of workers than it would be with too many. Indeed, Britain does have too many. There is no shortage of workers. If there was, wages would be increasing and the young adults would be able to afford to live on their own!

Edited December 1, 2011 by Anders Hoveland

[John Cuthber]

Is there a way to look at this "Governments need to be more careful before they let in more immigrants, especially from certain countries where the people are likely to comitt crime at higher rates (Pakistan, North Africa, Mexico)" so it doesn't look like blatant racism?

 

"Why have people not been having enough children? Perhaps because they do not feel they can afford them? "

Possibly, but if that were the case then poorer people would have fewer children and I don't see any evidence of that- rather the reverse if anything as far as I can see.

 

"Simply bringing in more immigrants, who are willing to have many children while living in relative poverty,"

Again, is there any evidence of that?

 

" More immigrants will just mean even fewer births of native of Britains. "

Or the other way round.

 

"There is no shortage of workers. If there was, wages would be increasing ..."

Until the point where the factory owners realised it was better to move the jobs somewhere cheaper.

 

It's not clear to me that Britain has too many workers.

As I see it, we have too few jobs.

 

(and the current government's decision to axe 700,000 jobs is- shall we say- difficult to understand.)

[Anders Hoveland]

"There is no shortage of workers. If there was, wages would be increasing ..."

Until the point where the factory owners realised it was better to move the jobs somewhere cheaper.

 

It's not clear to me that Britain has too many workers.

As I see it, we have too few jobs.

 

This is exactly why I do not believe in free trade. Or at least not with other countries that have much lower living standards and wages. It becomes difficult to ensure good wages here when the jobs can be so easily outsourced to some third world country.

 

If Britain does not have enough good jobs, perhaps it is not a good time to be bringing in more workers.

[John Cuthber]

"If Britain does not have enough good jobs, perhaps it is not a good time to be bringing in more workers consumers. "

[mooeypoo]

Governments need to be more careful before they let in more immigrants, especially from certain countries where the people are likely to comitt crime at higher rates (Pakistan, North Africa, Mexico).

 

Do you have statistics that show immigrants from these specific countries are more likely to commit crime?

How 'bout immigrants from other countries? Does it even have to do with the country of origin, or maybe with initial socioeconomic class in general (immigrant or citizen) ?

 

You make quite bombastic claims, you really should support them with evidence.

 

~mooey

[Anders Hoveland]

"If Britain does not have enough good jobs, perhaps it is not a good time to be bringing in more workers consumers. "

 

But poor immigrants do not have any money!!!

 

They will recieve more wages than they have money to spend. Indeed, a large portion of the money will be sent abroad to their families.

 

Immigrants take up scarce housing.

 

 

Do you have statistics that show immigrants from these specific countries are more likely to commit crime?

 

It should be obvious. But just in case it is not...

 

Forty percent of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands between the ages of 12 and 24 have been arrested, fined, charged or otherwise accused of committing a crime during the past five years, according to a new report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Interior.In Dutch neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Moroccan immigrants, the youth crime rate reaches 50%. Moreover, juvenile delinquency among Moroccans is not limited to males; girls and young women are increasingly involved in criminal activities.

 

The "Dutch-Moroccan Monitor 2011" also reveals that most of the Moroccan youth involved in criminal activities were born in Holland. This implies that the children of Moroccan immigrants are not integrating into Dutch society, and confirms that the Netherlands is paying dearly for its failed multicultural approach to immigration.

 

The report, which was produced by the Rotterdam Institute for Social Policy Research (Risbo) at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, examines the extent and nature of crime among the Dutch-Moroccan population in 22 municipalities in the Netherlands. The data were taken from the Herkenningsdienstsysteem (HKS), a nationwide database where the Dutch police register criminal suspects.

 

If you can face the unabashed truth without being offended, you might also see:

http://www.newnation.co/forums/showthread.php?t=233182

http://www.newnation.co/forums/showthread.php?t=233702

 

 

Edited December 2, 2011 by Anders Hoveland

[mooeypoo]

But poor immigrants do not have any money!!!

Neither do poor citizens...

 

They will recieve more wages than they have money to spend. Indeed, a large portion of the money will be sent abroad to their families.

What? Wait... uh.. again, evidence of this? that majority of immigrants get the money OUT of the country? The fact it sounds logical to YOU doesn't mean this is the way things happen.

 

Case in point, me. I'm an immigrant. My parents bring money *to* me and I spend a lot of time and effort in investing on things in this country (because I live here, and, quite honestly, I'm paying double the taxes of a citizen).

 

I bring money into the state, not take it out. So do 90% of my immigrant student friends, and when we're done with our student studies, 60% of us stick around to find a job that pays enough so we can invest in things inside the country and pay taxes.

 

The world isn't black and white as you make it seem, Anders.

 

Immigrants take up scarce housing.

... evidence, please.

 

 

[Anders Hoveland]

I was not aware you were an immigrant.

 

1 out of 4 people in the UK live in poverty, while almost 1 out of 3 children live in poverty:

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/mediatheek_en/1.1166243

 

Obviously people cannot find enough decent paying jobs. How will more people help?

[jeskill]

I googled the article linked to in the OP, and it seems the OP didn't read the whole second half.

 

Another quote from said article:

The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

 

According to Scott Page, "immigrants" drive productivity and innovation. That would seem to be a benefit to the economy and society, would it not?

Edited December 2, 2011 by jeskill

[mooeypoo]

I was not aware you were an immigrant.

 

1 out of 4 people in the UK live in poverty, while almost 1 out of 3 children live in poverty:

http://www.deredacti...ek_en/1.1166243

 

Obviously people cannot find enough decent paying jobs. How will more people help?

 

Actually, that's not obvious at all. Correlation does not imply causation. The fact you have a lot of poor people does not necessarily mean there are not enough "decent paying jobs". There could be a whole slew of other reasons for it.

 

On top of that, there's no reason for you to claim so rigidly that the reason for these things are immigrants. Not until you actually provide proper proof for it. Are these "1 out of 4 people" immigrants or citizens? Are you sure the cause is the other immigrants? You just claimed in the other post that immigrants are the poor ones (crime, etc) so ... are they stealing the jobs of the citizens? which is it? I'm confused.

 

It might be you're right. IT might be you're not. My point is that if we are to keep discussing, you really do need to stop making definitive unsupported claims and start providing -- and following -- the evidence.

 

Also, you may want to consider that England might not be the same as the rest of the world, and that the situations that lead to poverty or immigration -- or even the type of immigrants or their backgrounds and motivation and treatment that they receive -- is not the same in the world as it is in England.

 

If you are talking about England, stick to England. Don't generalize.

[imatfaal]

If you can face the unabashed truth without being offended, you might also see:

http://www.newnation...ad.php?t=233182

http://www.newnation...ad.php?t=233702

 

From a quick reading of the posts and editorials of this website I believe it propounds ideas of a racist/white-supremacist, fascist, and wholly obnoxious nature.

 

For sciforum readers ready reference the editor/founder openly admits to calling for prosecution and deportation of homosexuals and those who practice miscegenation

 

For the protection of our children - absolutely no tolerance of homosexuality, pedophilia or miscegenation can be permitted.

Violators would be appropriately prosecuted and/or deported.

 

the removal of civil rights and citizenship for those outside the majority (although I don't think he has thought that one through)

After all illegal aliens have been deported, the majority of a state should be able to restrict Citizenship, residence and tourism to those that would be compatible based on race and religion.

 

and espouses views on genetic criminal propensity that are stupefying

Even if blacks and other non-whites were not genetically predisposed to behavior incompatible with Western Civilization - exhibited by documented higher rates of violent crime (rape and murder) - that is beside the point.

 

This is a hateful ideology - and my belief is that the site Newnation._co exists to misinform and lead astray those without the critical faculties to understand the lies it promulgates.

 

 

NB Those three quotes were taken from the first four posts I read (the editorials by the founder/editor in chief) and were not the result of massive trawling to find extraordinary and misrepresentative posts.

Edited December 2, 2011 by imatfaal

[Anders Hoveland]

The fact that I made a few posts in the forum does not necessarily imply that I share the same opinions as other members of that forum.

 

the majority of a state should be able to restrict Citizenship, residence and tourism to those that would be compatible based on race and religion.

 

This is exactly what Israel and Japan do. Even India is known to shoot refugees trying to illegally flee into the country on site. sources and links:

http://www.guardian....-to-kill-policy

 

Even the USA has many times supported what is essentially racial separatism in its foreign policy:

http://www.guardian....ence-us-support

 

Why the double standard? Why is North America and Western Europe made to feel guilty if they do not embrace ethnic diversity, while most of the rest of the world takes it for granted?

Edited December 2, 2011 by Anders Hoveland

[mooeypoo]

The fact that I made a few posts in the forum does not necessarily imply that I share the same opinions as other members of that forum.

Sure. Which is why most of us are answering the actual claims you make in this thread and not the posts made on the other forum. However, your choice of sources shows about your argument. The site isn't just one with 'some' dissenting racist views; it's a site that has extremely racist articles throughout, and seems to have a specific purpose.

 

You should be aware that the sources you link to will be examined, as all resources are. Not to mention the fact that a forum (no matter which) is hardly evidence of anything you're claiming. The articles are opinion-based and are not even near the burden of proof needed to show any and all types of merit to any of your claims.

 

This is exactly what Israel and Japan do. Even India is known to shoot refugees trying to illegally flee into the country on site. sources and links:

Israel is shooting illegal refugees that flee into the country side? Interesting.

 

You speak of double standards, and yet you bring only a one-sided half-researched points from the extreme ends of the spectrum.

 

 

Since 2003, an estimated 27,000 illegal immigrants from various African countries have crossed into Israel.^[74] Some 600 refugees from theDarfur region of Sudan have been granted temporary resident status to be renewed every year, though not official refugee state.^[75] Another 2,000 refugees from the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia have been granted temporary resident status on humanitarian grounds. Israel prefers not to recognize them as refugees so as not to offend Eritrea and Ethiopia, though Sudanese, who are from an enemy state, are also not recognized as refugees. In 2007, Israel deported 48 refugees back to Egypt after they succeeded in crossing the border, of which twenty were deported back to Sudan by Egyptian authorities, according to Amnesty International. In August 2008 the Israel Defense Forces deported at least another 91 African asylum seekers at the border. Throughout this year, Egyptian police have shot dead 20 African asylum seekers attempting to enter Israel.^[76]

Source: http://en.wikipedia....ugees_in_Israel

 

Police raids. But the Israeli government is not sure what to do. For legal, moral, and historical reasons, it has not deported the refugees to Egypt or their home countries, where they could face punishment from hostile authorities. At the same time, Israel is wary of being too hospitable to the newcomers; there are several million African refugees in Egypt and Sudan, and Israel really doesn't want to encourage them. Last week, a frustrated Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered authorities to "tighten supervision" of the border to bar "infiltrators," and he directed that those already here be "transferred to detention centers" or, if possible, deported. Subsequently, police conducted raids in the bus station area and arrested over 200 African refugees. A local U.N. official put this down to government "panic," predicting a quick return to the accepted policy of toleration.

source: http://www.usnews.co...emma-for-israel

 

Like any country, Israel has a problem with illegal refugees. That doesn't mean they shoot them on sight. I suggest you be very careful with the extremist claims you make. I can do the same for India and Japan. And France. And Spain. And Russia. And large parts of east Europe. And about 90% of countries out there, because countries are not perfect, and they have extremists, and the media seems to show us the extreme more than the norm.

 

Moreover, refugees are beside the point. You are talkinga bout IMMIGRANTS. Immigrants are not the same (by *far*) than refugees.

 

Don't move the goalpost.

 

And lastly, we've made quite a lot of comments and answers to your actual previous claims in this thread. You seem to nitpick and answer only the ones you're comfortable with. That's not how debates work, not in this forum.

 

 

 

Even the USA has many times supported what is essentially racial separatism in its foreign policy:

http://www.guardian....ence-us-support

Countries have problems, countries aren't perfect, countries seem to try and fix their problems (US included). In fact, the USA has a very big movement to get rid of as much racism as possible -- but it's not easy. The fact it's not easy (and not done 'immediately') doesn't mean the country "supports" racism, or its citizens support racism, or that any of it supports what you are claiming in this thread.

 

Why the double standard? Why is North America and Western Europe made to feel guilty if they do not embrace ethnic diversity, while most of the rest of the world takes it for granted?

 

Yes, I ask the same thing a lot of times, especially with regards to some issues involving the middle east vs the US and Europe. That, however, is a completely DIFFERENT topic. It has nothing to do with your claims in this thread.

 

You are claiming something specific, and you don't provide evidence for it. When asked, you put up evidence about races or side arguments ignoring the burden you have to prove your own claims.

 

We're not talking about refugees here, and we're not talking about race. We're not supposed to, are we? Your initial post was about "immigrants" (and you seem to dance around the subject of race, in such a way where it's unclear if you're even talking about immigrants at all and not simply 'minorities'.. you should clarify yourself on this point, sir.)

 

The fact we asked you questions you can't answer doesn't make you right, it makes you seem like you have an agenda.

 

~mooey

[imatfaal]

The fact that I made a few posts in the forum does not necessarily imply that I share the same opinions as other members of that forum.

 

I made no comment about your use of that site - merely explained what I believed the site represented and promulgated.

 

This is exactly what Israel and Japan do. Even India is known to shoot refugees trying to illegal flee into the country on site.

http://www.guardian....-to-kill-policy

And it is not a double standard - I do not approve of the actions of India per your example, it is quite clear that the commenter at the Guardian did not approve, and I would not approve of them here in England where I live. That is not a double standard - in fact it is quite the opposite.

 

 

Even the USA has many times supported what is essentially racial separatism in its foreign policy:

http://www.guardian....ence-us-support

 

Why the double standard? Why is North America and Western Europe made to feel guilty if they do not embrace ethnic diversity, while most of the rest of the world takes it for granted?

 

Allowing groups who feel they will receive better civil representation and a higher standard of living to secede from a larger union (a process that I do not advocate as I believe the future lies in unity and diversity - rather than apartness and uniformity) especially in the context of the end of racially motivated war is not the same as the forcible apartheid of countries that already have huge amounts of racial and cultural diversity. The UK and the USA are incredibly diverse nations and have been for generations - calls for racial purity and an end to diversity, either ignore that fact or must engage with forcible separation.

 

The fact that the USA and UK are often raised as examples of countries that will suffer under immigration seems completely bizarre to me; these two countries are epitomes of culturally and ethnically diverse nations who have been incredibly enriched and successful because of this diversity. The Nobel prize is a strange affair - but perhaps you should have a look through this list and tell me that these countries have suffered through immigration http://en.wikipedia....ates_by_country

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, complaints about "immigration" into the US should not logically take place in English.

Try one of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas

Edited December 3, 2011 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

Race realists......

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWHfrU3PSQ