Cultural assimilation - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14788048
Donald wrote:
Yes, I would say the meritocratic consensus is under threat today, primarily by interests that want to change the demographic makeup of these countries. It is happening in Canada as well, where the Eastern establishment is increasingly leaning on immigration from Africa to carry itself politically.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that post-war immigration, whether it was based on meritocratic selection or not, was at most either marginally beneficial or neutral to the existing population in countries with high immigration. The last time immigration made a clear positive economic impact was probably during the much-maligned period of colonialism, where Europeans and especially the British were so advanced that they brought with them skills, knowledge and technology that propelled many of the colonised countries to the very top in terms of living standards. No post-war immigration wave, whether it came from Europe or otherwise, comes even close.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14788085
Donald wrote:...the Eastern establishment is increasingly leaning on immigration from Africa to carry itself politically.

The 1% have used immigration throughout Canada's history to ensure that no culture develops that might contest their unmerited rule.

On truth serum, they might say: "Your diversity (labor) is our (management) strength."

And this has always been their only strength. By bringing in immigrants that aren't at all compatible with the local vibe, a certain lack of social cohesion is created. This lack of social cohesion can be exacerbated (if needed) by false-flag terror attacks that spotlight "bad seeds" of either the local ingroup, or the newly arrived.

In a world where Canada, Australia and the USA destroy other countries to strip-mine them of their resources, no immigration policy can be progressive or kind. There's too much cynical quick cash behind it.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14788094
Pants-of-dog wrote:That has nothing to do with cultural assimilation. A person could be entirely assimilated and still not be seen as Swiss because of a vote, which could actually derail the whole assimilation process.

Who better to judge if someone has assimilated into a community than members of that community? It seems more reasonable than asking someone living in a gated community with armed guards to judge.

Image

Kaiser wrote:there actually is no NZ-specific evidence that mass migration has been a benefit for native Kiwis

Maoris?
#14788104
AFAIK wrote:Who better to judge if someone has assimilated into a community than members of that community? It seems more reasonable than asking someone living in a gated community with armed guards to judge.
...


What do you mean when you say that the members of the community are judging to see if someone has assimilated? In my head, I imagine a wise tribunal of community members interviewing some immigrant. But that is not the scenario being described. I am discussing voting.

How does voting work to judge if someone has assimilated? It's not like the entire Swiss country is holding a referendum to discuss if Abdul Hussein is properly assimilated. At best, voting is a way of targeting specific minorities, which means that people from those minorities may be excluded even if they are already assimilated.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14788111
Switzerland is a direct democracy with frequent referenda. In the UK, PC identity politics trumps protecting the public from rapists and female circumcision. Whilst the former may not be ideal it is certainly superior to Labour Councillors (local gov't) putting the party line ahead of the public interest.
User avatar
By Decky
#14788562
I agree that meritocratic selection seems to work better than no selection, so far at least. I can't speak for Canada or Australia, but here in NZ I'm hearing an increasing grumble by the native population about the mass migration programme of the last 25 years, not least because there actually is no NZ-specific evidence that mass migration has been a benefit for native Kiwis.


Aren't the natives a tiny percentage of the population there anyway? :?:
User avatar
By Decky
#14788568
:lol:

Oh right it is the standard problem right wing people seem to have with using words to mean whatever they want them to mean rather than following the actual definition as normal English speakers would understand it.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14788571
I agree that meritocratic selection seems to work better than no selection, so far at least. I can't speak for Canada or Australia, but here in NZ I'm hearing an increasing grumble by the native population about the mass migration programme of the last 25 years, not least because there actually is no NZ-specific evidence that mass migration has been a benefit for native Kiwis.

You mean the Maoris have only just noticed that all these white fuckers have started to settle on their land...? :eh:
#14788683
AFAIK wrote:Switzerland is a direct democracy with frequent referenda. In the UK, PC identity politics trumps protecting the public from rapists and female circumcision. Whilst the former may not be ideal it is certainly superior to Labour Councillors (local gov't) putting the party line ahead of the public interest.


Is this a response to me?
#14788707
Decky wrote:Aren't the natives a tiny percentage of the population there anyway? :?:


They are a relatlively large portion of the population. They constitute fourteen percent of New Zealand. That is not a very large number of people, granted, but it is still much larger than any other indigenous groups in lands where Anglo-Saxons settled.

As far as I am aware they are a fast growing ethnic group. In my opinion this is very positive. I am always in favour of all efforts to restore the position of the Maori people in their native country.

It would not surprise me that they would be skeptical about mass immigration. Afterall, mass settlement from Europe already ruined their demographic position long ago. Why would they want more migration to make them an even smaller portion of the population in their own country? I think Europeans in New Zealand should assimilate and integrate into the local culture which could include learning Maori when the time comes.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14788798
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is this a response to me?

Allow me to expand on my previous post.

Earlier PoD wrote: In my head, I imagine a wise tribunal of community members interviewing some immigrant.

In the UK we call these wise tribunals of community members county councils. There's one in Rotheram, which was controlled by the Labour gov't. We had multiple threads on it several years ago after we discovered that these wise community members preferred to ignore the plight of prostituted teens and abused children rather than confront the migrants who were raping them.

2 lines later he wrote:How does voting work to judge if someone has assimilated? It's not like the entire Swiss country is holding a referendum to discuss if Abdul Hussein is properly assimilated.

You just told me that an elite group of wise community members would provide diktats on the community's behalf. Now you suggest that everyone in the entire country should have an equal say. Why the strawman?

We know that 2 Muslim girls in Switzerland were denied citizenship because they refused to swim with infidels, claiming that to do so would violate their religion's demands for gender apartheid. Are the wise community members able to discover such realities through their omniscience or did they learn about it from the teachers and students who are incapable of realising that these girls refused to assimilate and thus can't be trusted with a vote?

PoD wrote:At best, voting is a way of targeting specific minorities, which means that people from those minorities may be excluded even if they are already assimilated.

Citation needed, otherwise, "That which is asserted without evidence; shall be dismissed without evidence."
Last edited by AFAIK on 22 Mar 2017 21:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Decky
#14788805
Political Interest wrote:They are a relatlively large portion of the population. They constitute fourteen percent of New Zealand. That is not a very large number of people, granted, but it is still much larger than any other indigenous groups in lands where Anglo-Saxons settled.

As far as I am aware they are a fast growing ethnic group. In my opinion this is very positive. I am always in favour of all efforts to restore the position of the Maori people in their native country.

It would not surprise me that they would be skeptical about mass immigration. Afterall, mass settlement from Europe already ruined their demographic position long ago. Why would they want more migration to make them an even smaller portion of the population in their own country? I think Europeans in New Zealand should assimilate and integrate into the local culture which could include learning Maori when the time comes.


God bless you for having that opinion PI but I think it's a bit late for that. Who knows though, the revival of Welsh is going better than anyone could ever have predicted.
#14788813
Decky wrote:God bless you for having that opinion PI but I think it's a bit late for that. Who knows though, the revival of Welsh is going better than anyone could ever have predicted.


I think that Maoris could one day be the majority in New Zealand again.

Their population is definitely growing. If they are not the majority they will become a much larger minority.
User avatar
By Decky
#14788830
That would be nice to see. Maybe this is the century things start getting better again.
#14788840
AFAIK wrote:Allow me to expand on my previous post.

In the UK we call these wise tribunals of community members county councils. There's one in Rotheram, which was controlled by the Labour gov't. We had multiple threads on it several years ago after we discovered that these wise community members preferred to ignore the plight of prostituted teens and abused children rather than confront the migrants who were raping them.


First of all, county councils​ do not judge levels of assimilation, not set immigration policy.

Secondly​, this has nothing to do with my point about voting.

You just told me that an elite group of wise community members would provide diktats on the community's behalf. Now you suggest that everyone in the entire country should have an equal say. Why the strawman?


I am not arguing either of these things, nor am I saying that anyone else is.

We know that 2 Muslim girls in Switzerland were denied citizenship because they refused to swim with infidels, claiming that to do so would violate their religion's demands for gender apartheid. Are the wise community members able to discover such realities through their omniscience or did they learn about it from the teachers and students who are incapable of realising that these girls refused to assimilate and thus can't be trusted with a vote?


This has nothing to do with my point about voting.

Citation needed, otherwise, "That which is asserted without evidence; shall be dismissed without evidence."


Sure. Now, how would voting work to decide who is assimilated?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14788862
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. Now, how would voting work to decide who is assimilated?

You first. Provide peer reviewed studies that support your claim that voting on immigration cases is racist.

Why did you mention your fantasy about wise tribunals of community members if you're not interested in the British experience of local gov't? Could you tell me about the Canadian immigration system? I have a suspicion your appeal to local gov't is a red herring.
#14789005
AFAIK wrote:You first. Provide peer reviewed studies that support your claim that voting on immigration cases is racist.


Since I never argued that, I fail to see why I should provide such evidence.

My claim was that voting would be an ineffective way to decide if someone was assimilated or not. It could also easily be racist.

Why did you mention your fantasy about wise tribunals of community members if you're not interested in the British experience of local gov't?


Because you started talking about how communities should judge who is assimilated, and I was pointing out that this image of having individuals judging other individuals is fine and dandy but it is not voting.

Could you tell me about the Canadian immigration system? I have a suspicion your appeal to local gov't is a red herring.


I have made no appeal to local government, whatever that means. I am not discussing the Canadian system either, as this thread is about assimilation policy, while Canada has a multiculturalist policy for most ethnicities.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14789078
Can you make your point without leaving yourself space to back away when challenged? I'm not interested in being given the run around. How do you envision wise tribunals of community members operating?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Countries can recover from bankruptcies fast. The[…]

Their sympathy for Muslim Syrian "refugees&qu[…]

There are only two teams and two sides on the play[…]