130

Aside from racism. I mean economically/socially, what issues does too much immigration cause?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 26 points 1 month ago

How quickly your culture can absorb new people. If you've got a hundred people who are in culture a, and you integrate 100 people from culture b. Now culture a is 50/50. And it's hard for culture a to maintain its traditional positioning.

If you want to maintain a culture, a people, a language, you need to gate how many people enter the population at any time. So that it can be absorbed.

You similar problems with militaries, how quickly they can ramp up new recruits will still maintaining their previous cadre culture.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

America is a nation of immigrants so I don't really understand this argument. Cultures don't really integrate that way, plus assimilation is a generational thing.

A 2018 study in the American Sociological Review found that within racial groups, most immigrants to the United States had fully assimilated within a span of 20 years. Immigrants arriving in the United States after 1994 assimilate more rapidly than immigrants who arrived in previous periods.

Measuring assimilation can be difficult due to "ethnic attrition", which refers to when descendants of migrants cease to self-identify with the nationality or ethnicity of their ancestors. This means that successful cases of assimilation will be underestimated. Research shows that ethnic attrition is sizable in Hispanic and Asian immigrant groups in the United States.

By taking ethnic attrition into account, the assimilation rate of Hispanics in the United States improves significantly. A 2016 paper challenges the view that cultural differences are necessarily an obstacle to long-run economic performance of migrants. It finds that "first generation migrants seem to be less likely to success the more culturally distant they are, but this effect vanishes as time spent in the US increases". A 2020 study found that recent immigrants to the United States assimilated at a similar pace as historical immigrants.

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

The US really is a special case even within just America and really cannot be compared to today's refugee hotspots like Europe at all. For starters, US culture is very young and mostly made up of invaders and migrants. There is very little native culture still there as it has been assimilated for hundreds of years, mostly by Europeans. On top of that, there have been heavy crackdowns on migrant cultures as well, making it anything but the organically grown culture it often claims to be. And as such I think it is a bad example of how unchecked mass migration can work because it didn't work for the natives and it didn't happen for the modern US. It does show that strong migration can lead to great success, though it's still far less densely populated than Europe even now so a direct comparison is still difficult.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The economic benefits of immigration also applies to European countries, despite the racist sentiments many Europeans have towards immigrants. Additionally, the West's destabilization of the Global South, from war and climate change, has caused the increase in people seeking asylum and immigration.

The crackdowns on migrants and the deliberate two-tier immigration system is certainly a problem, and is deliberate in order to coerce illegal immigrants into very low paying jobs with no workers rights under the threat of deportation.

Immigration was not the cause of the genocide of the Native Americans, that was due to Settler Colonialism and Dehumanization. That is not like today. Immigrants are not settler colonialist like the early Americans. Additionally, it is the US citizens who are dehumanizing Immigrants, not the other way around. Immigrants are a positive, the only negative is the reactionary violence by racist far-right domestic terrorists.

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You gloss over the part where even with the best intentions imaginable European immigration would have killed 90 % of American Natives with their new pathogens. No matter which way you slice it that is a scenario where European culture becomes the dominant culture, though it would certainly be nice not to have overt genocide and oppression sprinkled on top.

(Of course that's not the case right now and the great replacement theory is a fascist invention, if that needs saying)

Also be careful not to infantilise immigrants. There is a marginal but highly visible issue happening for example where Saudi Arabia is funding Wahhabit (i.e. highly orthodox) mosques and imams in Europe that when combined with depressed socioeconomic opportunities fuels religious antagonism/radicalism particularly amongst particularly vulnerable teenage second generation immigrants. Is it an existential threat to European hegemony or something Europe is incapable of absorbing? Certainly not. Doesn't mean it's an issue we have to refuse to acknowledge in the name of our own leftist orthodoxy.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The pathogens created by hundreds of years of isolation between the new and old world, due to the disproportionate access to animal husbandry, is both completely unrelated to modern immigration, and does not at all change the fact that Dehumanization and Settler Colonialism nearly eradicated native American people and erased their culture. So why bring it up? How can you consider genocide and settler Colonialism a 'sprinkle'

What part of treating everyone as equals, including people immigrating, is 'infantilizing' to you? Immigrants, across the board, are responsible for less crime per capita. That is a fact.

If you're worried about jihadist terrorism in Europe, you should look at the EUs findings. The cause is from online radicalization, not immigration.

Quote

Most of the terrorist attacks in Europe were perpetrated by home-grown terrorists, European citizens born in the EU who radicalised without even leaving Europe. Parliament proposed measures to fight radicalisation and extremism in prisons, online and through education and social inclusion already in 2015.

In December 2020, Parliament endorsed the EU Security Union strategy 2020-2025 and the new Counter-Terrorism Agenda, which aims to prevent radicalisation by providing, for example, opportunities for young people at risk and supporting the rehabilitation of radicalised prisoners.

The causes and prevention of radicalization is important to consider, such as material conditions and marginalization. But attributing the actions of those individuals who do jihadist terrorism to all Muslims or Immigrants or their culture makes no sense. They are the vast minority and in no way represent Muslims or Immigrants as a whole. Limiting or restricting immigration would not prevent that kind of radicalization. Education, preventing marginalization, and promoting awareness are the ways to address that root cause of radicalization.

Quote

However, radicalisation is rarely fuelled by ideology or religion alone. It often starts with individuals who are frustrated with their lives, society or the domestic and foreign policies of their governments. There is no single profile of someone who is likely to become involved in extremism, but people from marginalised communities and experiencing discrimination or loss of identity provide fertile ground for recruitment.

Western Europe’s involvement in conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Syria is also considered to have a radicalising effect, especially on migrant communities.

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah as I expected you're projecting right wing talking points on what I said and answering those instead of anything I -at the very least- meant.

I just do not think that, in a frictionless vacuum, one can completely dismiss the idea that there can be some, however microscopic and inconsequential downsides to immigration (through no individual fault in the vast majority of the population).

Do consider that at the very least if Europe hypothetically did away with border checks entirely and strived for massive immigration, the ensuing brain drain would wreak havoc on the Global South (even worse than right now, kinda like happened within the EU with the former eastern block). Regardless of the exact mechanism, mass migration has long-lasting sociocultural impacts and to say these are only positive is pure globalist ideology.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

If you have data that shows negative effects of immigration I will genuinely look into it. But yeah, I find it important to debunk right wing talking points of immigration, they are based on hysteria not fact. I don't know what exactly you're talking about when you say mass migration. I'm advocating to completely legalize migration and give everyone an avenue for citizenship.

Globalist? Ok, that's some conspiracy theory nonsense.

Do you mean internationalism? Because that's completely different

Supporters of internationalism are known as internationalists and generally believe that humans should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests, or that governments should cooperate because their mutual long-term interests are of greater importance than their short-term disputes.

[-] fraksken@infosec.pub 15 points 1 month ago

There's something to be said for culture and tradition, which have been for a long time the cornerstones of our civilization.

Everybody has their own opinion on this of course. For me, I feel that culture and tradition are in the way of progress. At some point our current traditions, cultures and values will change, they will evolve. I'm all in for a true multicultural society if there is a clear segregation between state and religion.

[-] illi@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Local culture always changes in time. Take Europe, it's culture steeped and deeply influenced by Christianity in many countries. And yet Christianity is a religion with Middle East origins. People just don't look at the bigger picture - or don't want to. The change in the past was not happening to them, but it is now and that's what matters.

[-] ECB@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago

The issue is though that "segregation between state and religion" is a cultural trait. It's not something that every culture values, nor is it something that inevitably happens.

In fact, it's almost certainly a minority opinion on a global level. Particularly in (although not exclusive to) poorer non-western countries which tend to be much more conservative and religious.

A small number of conservative immigrants won't hugely impact views in the host country, but a sizable number (particularly if they are concentrated in certain areas) absolutely can.

In some ways perhaps culture and tradition do stand in the way of progress, but it's not that clear cut.

In Australia the majority of migrants are from South East Asia, which are much more conservative politically than Australia.

For example, more migration is not going to further transgender rights.

I have a feeling that this might be true of a lot of places, just because of the nature of migration.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Poorer places tend to be more conservative, and immigrants tend to leave poorer places to go to richer places.

That was my implication, yes. Well done.

[-] sir_pronoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Problems start when the people coming in don't share those sentiments and instead want their authoritarian culture to replace and dominate.

Edit: also, in the West democracy and equality have become part of our culture and tradition, for the most part, and those values just are not shared by lots of migrants. And you can't tolerate those values being replaced. It's the paradox of tolerance.

[-] Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

People downvoting you don't realize how good we have it compared to majority of the world's population.

[-] illi@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Like Christianity did you mean?

That said, I don't disagree with the sentiment - the respect should come both ways and the imigrants should respect the native culture, but that also doesn't mean they havento give up their own.

[-] sir_pronoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I agree! (Also about Christianity, fuck anyone whose dogmatism causes them to disrespect any marginalized group.)

But I don't think anyone should tolerate intolerance. If it's part of your culture to subjugate women and hate LGBTQ people or other religions, you will have to change that part of your culture or fuck all the way off.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

That's a fair thing to be concerned about, but are we really anywhere near that level of immigration in the US? I can't speak for European countries.

[-] sir_pronoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Both the US and Europe would be much nearer to that level if any migration was allowed unchecked. It is becoming a problem in Europe and it is growing. It's just a sad reality that democracy can't consist of people who don't believe in democracy.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Is culture really that big of a problem? Especially for the US, which prides itself on being a melting pot of different cultures

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Also, you asked the question, I gave response. That’s how public discussion works.

...no shit? Weird passive aggressive comment out of nowhere

Edit: a perfect example of how bad things can be, and why you don’t want large numbers coming in without integration. https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/48b6b106-78ac-4a36-8a42-9fa62afb67f2.jpeg

What country is this?

Plus, frankly, we have enough crackpots and extremists of our own. Just letting everyone in, with no limits, you end up with even more, and that may be more than any culture can take.

Strange you think "newcomers = crackpots". All the immigrants I've met have been normal, sane people. Most crackpots are born citizens. It could be that letting in immigrants will dilute the ratio of crackpots.

Doesn’t matter where they’re from, why they’re extremists, it’s a matter of numbers.

I don't really foresee ISIS allying with the KKK. Obviously it's not ideal to have either, but they're working against each other as much as against society.

How many extra strict adherents can we take on without disrupting the general trend towards a kind of religious neutrality?

That's a good question. I'd be interested in any data. I could see a religious sect taking over a government (democratically) and then using their power to enforce religion. But also, again I don't foresee different religions working together on this, and it may be that the more different religions we throw together the more they cancel themselves out - it's harder to believe your god is the real god when you're surrounded by other people with different gods who also believe THEIR god is the real god.

That's just me spitballing though, like I said I don't really have any information one way or the other.

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Well good thing we're not taking in 330 million immigrants all at once then, so this will never be a problem.

[-] ECB@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago

You know there are other countries tries right?

A lot of european countries are only a few million people...

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

are European countries regularly taking in migrant populations equal to their countries population?

[-] ECB@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

Why does it need to be equal to population?

I'm not saying that all immigration is bad, but rather that above a certain level it gets difficult to integrate people. For european countries this is a much lower number than the US, since populations are much lower. At the same time, there are many more refugees than in the US.

It's a genuine challenge here in Vienna, for instance, at the moment because recent immigrants make up a large percentage of school kids, who often have few language skills, tend to be very religious, and have extremely conservative views on things like feminism and gay rights. Unfortunately, their views tend to self-reinforce rather than become milder over time due to being the majority view among their peers/in their school/community.

You can't really blame the kids, obviously they are just a product of the culture they grew up in, however you also can't just ignore the issue. There isn't any mechanism for preventing immigrants groups from clustering in specific areas (and I don't think most people would be in favor of anything that draconian)

In an ideal world, maybe there is a perfect solution, but the reality is that the current system is facing a huge challenge. Like it or not, this is directly tied to immigration rates.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Why does it need to be equal to population?

Because I was responding to the previous commenter that cited specifically those numbers.

I get what you're saying, that other cultures are not as tolerant, and when said culture pops up in a previously tolerant area, it can cause tensions. To that I'd say that we have a system of government enforcing laws in a uniform manner across a region precisely because not everyone agrees uniformly. You can't strip away the freedom to be wrong, you can only enforce rules that support equity, safety, and inclusion, and do so especially within local populations that seem to eschew it.

But also, not all migrants are intolerant. So assuming that they 1. are, and 2. will stay that way, is a xenophobic dog whistle.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
130 points (88.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35702 readers
2335 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS