[Godstud]

Spamming the very rare exceptions is just dishonest, and you know it Donald. The reality is just something you don't like. I bid you good night.

[Donna]

Spamming the very rare exceptions is just dishonest, and you know it Donald. The reality is just something you don't like. I bid you good night.

The reality is that not all immigrants are the same. Some of them honestly do look down on Canada and Canadian culture and others are actively subverting the country politically and economically. Just calling it like I see it, G-dawg.

[Godstud]

No, not all immigrants are the same, but the majority that come to Canada, are.

[Donna]

No, not all immigrants are the same, but the majority that come to Canada, are.

There is no way you can possibly know that.

[Godstud]

Yes, and provided evidence of that. You merely pointed out that there are exceptions to every rule. I acknowledge that, but it's not the rule. Your wishes of divisiveness are just wishful thinking on your part.

I know you're against immigrants. You're a Trump fan, so of course you're against people from other countries making a fresh start in your country. I don't care. Multiculturalism, just like single payer healthcare, works in Canada.

[Donna]

Yes, and provided evidence of that.

You did no such thing.

Multiculturalism, just like single payer healthcare, works in Canada.

Considering what is occurring in Toronto and Vancouver, both demographically and economically, I'd dispute that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Most people who come to this country do not complain. Where is your source for this conclusion?

He is talking about Albert?

[The Sabbaticus]

Immigrants demonstrating their patriotism in the USA. Expect to see this a whole lot more, as the same trend emerged in the eighties in Europe.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, assuming you are only aiming for them to be well disposed to the country (seeing as I don't see a way to force them to intermarry) how would you measure their disposure? What policies would cause it?

If that is the only criteria, then there are only three things you need:

1. Language. Immigrants must speak the local language(s). This allows them to participate in the greater community.
2. They have to follow the laws.
3. They must not be violent.

It is, of course, possible to assimilate people further, and many immigrants choose to do so. Considering the effects of forced assimilation on communities, it may not be wise to do more.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Cultural distance? I'm not sure how you'd go about determining that necessarily. Assuming we are only talking about values (since I personally don't care about dress, food, religion, etc.) What are the key values we are looking at and how do you determine their distance from current values?

Seeing as how american 1950s values are very different than 2000s values It seems perfectly possible to change the values of even very large groups of people to a degree. That change in the US is within many peoples lifetime after all. Even if it was rather rocky for the entire country to undergo that change we are only talking about a small fraction of the population picking up those values which should be rather less extreme to undertake.

How would you determine whether or not a group is assimilating sufficiently to allow continued immigration.

I think the actual determination of assimilation is a very important point, even if it's difficult to answer, since it's essentially the linchpin in deciding that we should not take in refugees/immigrants from the middle east right now.

I agree that it's predominantly about values, and therefore would of course include religion, i.e. how religious people are. So expectations are going to be different in the US and, say, Germany which is much more atheist.

The greater the cultural distance, the longer assimilation will tend to take. I think it would be unrealistic to expect the same rate of assimilation of British and Chinese immigrants here in NZ for instance. The former is usually fully assimilated in the second generation and often indistinguishable even in the first because NZ culture is very similar to British culture. The larger the immigrant group is the more pronounced the difference will tend to be.

As for criteria, you could use surveys - e.g. something similar to the European Values Study - together with social and economic outcomes, rate of intermarriage and segregation. Values and outcomes should converge over time, intermarriage increase and segregation if it exists decrease. In the second or third generation, immigrants should be very similar or equal to the natives.

The second half of the 20th century isn't typical for the rate of change in societies and our expectations shouldn't be based on exceptions.

[Joka]

What's more interesting is freedom of choice in terms of having the option to culturally assimilate but also having the other option of refusal. I don't understand why these conversations don't talk more about freedom, options, and choices.

[Eamonor]

No culture or nation in the history of mankind has ever maintained a 100% ethnic homogeneity, and it is unrealistic to hope for such a thing. It is natural and good for a different group of people to come to a country and assimilate over time to the host people, while also bringing into the overall culture new ideas and customs. However it should always be the right of the host people to decide who can come and who can not. The melting pot analogy used as an argument for unrelenting waves immigrants into America never made sense to me.
If we are using the melting pot analogy then every race of people in America represents a different ingredient, which when cooked properly together create a delicious meal greater than the sum of its parts. Over the years the taste and texture of the dish have changed subtly, and sometimes the meal tastes horrible (slavery). But overall no meal is healthier for you or tastes better.
Modern politically correct immigration policy says that the meal would be much better if uncooked potatoes were poured continually into the stew until the original flavour of the stew were a distant memory.

[Joka]

People should have a choice to be multicultural or not to be. It shouldn't be forced against them or their wishes otherwise. There's that word choice again and I'll reiterate by mentioning freedom of assembly.

There are two types of multiculturalism, one that happens naturally and mutually between people, and another that is part of fulfilling a social political agenda. Unfortunately in the modern world we're seeing it entirely with the later.

[Political Interest]

What's more interesting is freedom of choice in terms of having the option to culturally assimilate but also having the other option of refusal. I don't understand why these conversations don't talk more about freedom, options, and choices.

It is absolutely a choice.

I think that if the culture is unappealing many non-natives will be reluctant to assimilate, especially if they think their own culture is superior.

If Japan and Korea receive lots of immigration, which the Koreans have now chosen to do, I think they will have a far easier time assimilating these migrant populations. Their cultures inspire reverence among most of the world. Any immigrants that settle in these countries are going to want to be part of these societies.

[QatzelOk]

The reality is that not all immigrants are the same. Some of them honestly do look down on Canada and Canadian culture and others are actively subverting the country politically and economically. Just calling it like I see it, G-dawg.

In Quebec (as opposed to English Canada), integration (assimilation) involves a mastery of the French language, and the inclusion of other groups (including Quebecois) into the network of friends, life-partners, co-workers and neighbors.

In Quebec, there IS a local culture to integrate into. Or to opt out of, if you prefer to live in a mafia-run ghetto.

In English Canada, there is no culture to assimilate to except the generic commercial non-culture of suburban North America. Watch TV and do what it says to do. So as long as immigrants to English-Canada buy a suburban home and a car and a series of other coveted commercial products, they will be accepted as just another cultureless snow-shoveler watching American TV.

Snow-shoveling being so unique to Canada. In Norway, Russia, Michigan etc. they melt all the snow with blow-dryers.

[Godstud]

LIES. All lies and propaganda. Quebec Canada is identical to English Canada, but they speak another language. He's just trying to make it sounds special, when it's not, because he's anti-English.

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Kaiserschmarrn]

People should have a choice to be multicultural or not to be. It shouldn't be forced against them or their wishes otherwise. There's that word choice again and I'll reiterate by mentioning freedom of assembly.

They do have that choice, but they will also have to accept the potentially negative social and economic consequences of such behaviour. And if a country has similar policies to what I've described in my previous posts in this thread, they might not have the right to immigrate at all.

After all, the host population also has a choice with respect to who they wish to allow into their country, whether they wish to accept parallel societies, etc.

[Suntzu]

I like the Swiss system where the local population has final say on granting citizenship.

[Pants-of-dog]

I like the Swiss system where the local population has final say on granting citizenship.

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.

[Joka]

They do have that choice, but they will also have to accept the potentially negative social and economic consequences of such behaviour. And if a country has similar policies to what I've described in my previous posts in this thread, they might not have the right to immigrate at all.

After all, the host population also has a choice with respect to who they wish to allow into their country, whether they wish to accept parallel societies, etc.

There is multiculturalism that happens naturally and mutually concerning cultural assimilation. That particular kind is peaceful and harmonious. Then there is multiculturalism by force that revolves around state intervention. That kind is violent and revolves around coercion. Most of the multiculturalism of the west right now concerns primarily with the later.