I am not blaming the victim, I am just saying that making an entire country multicultural to cater to a minority of people is silly. Obviously laws should be put in place to prevent people from abusing minorities so they're respected as equal citizens, but forcing mass immigration to quell that doesn't make any sense.Originally Posted by Singu
You can't undo thousands of years of humanity living in tribes in decades of forced multiculturalism and diversity.
Fair enough. I think you would find few people that would disagree with you that improving third world nations standard of living should happen. Where they might disagree on is how much they should be helped or the means. Some would argue that they should be helped by themselves, others believe in foreign aid. I would be fine with increasing investment and technology transfers from the first world to the third world, but within reasonable means to not overburden the tax payer of 1st world nations. Anyways, in my own country and other ex-British countries, I am pretty tolerant to outsiders, but I think a line needs to be drawn. A multi-ethnic/mono-cultural 1st world nation in order to exist needs to eventually freeze immigration to basically zero eventually. I'm not saying it has to happen today, but it needs to happen eventually. The main primary fear I have is not a mult-ethnic society, but 1st world nations devolving to 3rd world nations or somewhere in between 1st and 3rd world.
The other secondary fear I have is countries losing their culture and embracing the culture of where they immigrated from instead or developing a new watered down consumer mindless culture. The tertiary and last fear I have is countries losing their ethnicity so contrary to popular belief, ethnicity is not the main driving fear at least in my case. Where do I personally believe the line needs to be drawn in every single 1st world nation no matter what? I would say at around ~50% of the majority population so when the country is on the cusp of becoming a majority minority nation, near zero immigration needs to happen if the country wants to retain its 1st world status and the culture it has had for hundreds to thousands of years. So despite my rhetoric in keeping Europe ethnically pure, I know it's a fruitless endeavor in most European nations because of mass immigration/open borders so far and for that reason I don't expect it to happen.
Several nations are projected to be minority-majority nations at less than 50% within several decades time at roughly the mid point of this century. So that means I think France needs remain at least 50% ethnically French, Germany needs to remain at least 50% ethnically German, US needs to remain at least 50% ethnically European and Canada needs to remain at least 50% ethnically European. I am a lot more lenient with ex-British colonies because trying to keep America and Canada to ~50% ethnically British/German is silly considering they were originally Native American countries. I am also sure that my views are malleable compared to others that are more conservative on immigration. The truth is whether people want to admit it or not, the vast majority of 1st generation immigrants will never fully integrate or assimilate fully into the country they immigrate to. Sure, those who immigrated under 10 years old would likely nearly fully or fully integrate and assimilate into the country and culture, but it's safe to say that someone that immigrated at the age of 20 or older will always be culturally attuned to their first nation and never fully integrate or assimilate.
You can only really expect 2nd generation immigrants to fully integrate and assimilate into the country they have immigrated to. This is why lines must be drawn at some point in time if you want 1st world nations to retain their 1st world nation status, economy, quality of life, culture and values. As a 2nd generation immigrant, I feel much more culturally attuned to the nation I was born in compared to my parents that feel much more culturally attuned to the nation they were born in. This is true regardless of the nation the person immigrated from unless they immigrated from a neighboring nation that is very culturally similar. The main fear for most people ignoring racists in regards to immigration I would say is retaining 1st world status > retaining original culture > retaining ethnicity. Near zero immigration needs to eventually happen sooner or later or what the inevitable result is 1st world nations devolving into 3rd world nations at the worst possible case scenario or 1st world nations losing their original culture for a watered down meaningless empty consumer culture at the best possible case scenario. Majority ethnicities being wiped out completely is absurd of course, but them becoming eventual minorities is very real.
So my question to you is this, where do you draw the line of multiculturalism and mass immigration and instead focus on monoculturalism and near zero immigration? Is it the same as my view when the country is at the cusp of becoming a majority minority nation at around ~50%? Is it more lenient than that so when the majority ethnicity is roughly on par with several minority groups at ~33%? Is it when the majority ethnicity becomes less than at least one other minority group at ~25%? Or is it when the majority ethnicity becomes less than several minority groups at ~10%? Where would that line be drawn for in a nation you have ethnic ancestry ties to like Georgia/Armenia? Would it be the same or different than compared to European nations or the US/Canada? Applying standards by drawing a definitive line with immigration requires no inhumane treatment or mass deportations aside from illegal immigrants. It's simply a matter of enforcing borders to near zero immigration to all 1st world nations once that line is recognized and drawn in order to protect 1st world nation status and retaining the culture of these nations.
Reply With Quote