Multiculturalism is an enriching experience!

[Zep]

I can't help but feel Arcade22 is just yanking the crank.

http://media.musictoday.com/store/bands/93/product_medium/MUDD1502.JPG

Hotlink removed, breach of Rule 5.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[paximperium]

So what your saying is that there is no Jewish people with a Jewish culture? There is no Japanese people with a Japanese culture? There is no Swedish people with a Swedish culture?

But since you've steadfastly refused to define "people", no there are no "Jewish" people or "Japanese" people or "Swedish" people per say. There are those general cultures but even "Japanese" culture isn't homogeneous much less "Jewish" culture. Ask the European white Jews...or the Russian Jews...or the American white Jews...or the brown Jews...or the black Jews.

Why?

 

[TraneWreck]

Okay, show me some math. You're making some number based claims here.

Claim: The size of the US economy during 19th century immigration in comparison to the influx of immigration was greater than the same ratio for scandinavian immigration today. Back it up with real numbers and sources.

Fair enough.

I'm assuming these wiki numbers are good. I don't really want to put in enough work to validate those.

"Current immigration rates are moderate, even though America admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000 (between 10-11 million) than in any previous decade. In the most recent decade, the 10 million legal immigrants that settled in the U.S. represent an annual growth of only about one-third of 1% (as the U.S. population grew from 249 million to 281 million). By comparison, the highest previous decade was 1901-1910 when 8.8 million people arrived increasing the total U.S. population by 1 percent per year..."

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

As for Sweden: http://www.thelocal.se/15772/20081118/

This article said 78,000 immigrants moved to Sweden between January and September of '08. Sweden's population is 9,220,986. So if we consider a full year, it's probably about 1% of the population.

Norway had a slightly higher rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration

So in terms of pure numbers, the recent Swedish immigration is about the same or slightly smaller than the highest rate in US history.

But, of course, the pre-New Deal United States did not expend money on social services so the incoming groups weren't absorbing the tax dollars of other citizens. America of 1900 had massive amounts of land to expand to and was in the midst of building a huge industrial base. It's incredibly difficult to compare modern Sweden to early 20th century US.

The question is whether Sweden and Norway can maintain their social system under the weight of historically massive immigration.

 

[Cavemonster]

Fair enough.
But, of course, the pre-New Deal United States did not expend money on social services so the incoming groups weren't absorbing the tax dollars of other citizens. America of 1900 had massive amounts of land to expand to and was in the midst of building a huge industrial base. It's incredibly difficult to compare modern Sweden to early 20th century US.

The question is whether Sweden and Norway can maintain their social system under the weight of historically massive immigration.

I understand that concern, but again, I'd need some numbers to be convinced of how pressing it is.

High immigration into a welfare system doesn't itself overtax that system. It depends on the rate at which the new residents use those resources and the rate at which they become employed and start paying more into the system then they are taking out. It depends on the rate at which they are starting new businesses and growing the economy.

A large and continuing influx of immigrants who take full advantage of a welfare system and don't seem to be actively progressing toward contributing to the system may indeed be a problem.

But poverty rates in immigrant communities by themselves don't show that.
How does the employment rate among these immigrants look when compared to years spent in the country? What is the rate of new businesses started within this immigrant community?

Talking about land area, the US is still about 50% more densely packed than Sweden, even though we're 22 times as large. Sweden ranks in the lower third worldwide for both birth rate and population density, even if there were a steady 1% immigration rate per year, if sweden were in danger of overpopulation/overdensity, then 2/3 of the world would be in greater danger first.

 

[TraneWreck]

I understand that concern, but again, I'd need some numbers to be convinced of how pressing it is.

[...]

Talking about land area, the US is still about 50% more densely packed than Sweden, even though we're 22 times as large. Sweden ranks in the lower third worldwide for both birth rate and population density, even if there were a steady 1% immigration rate per year, if sweden were in danger of overpopulation/overdensity, then 2/3 of the world would be in greater danger first.

Well, just because Sweden has open space, that doesn't mean you can really do anything with it. The arctic circle runs through Northern Sweden, and a lot of that empty space isn't very useful for development.

Global Warming might change that.

As for your point about measuring the impact, I think you're right about that. I was trying to figure out how to quantify that while I was looking at population and economic stats, but that's beyond me--at least given the amount of work I'd be willing to put into the forum.

In a purely non-scientific manner I'm basing a lot of my opinion on what people told me about their social system when I was in Scandinavia. Obviously if someone can show me some information that proves the waves of immigration aren't deadly to their social system, then I'll abandon my stance (interestingly, in one article I read the immigration population from Iraq was increasing rapidly--that could end or rapidly increase given what happens there over the next few years).

 

[HansMustermann]

I could however point out at how Western Germany absorbed the whole population of Eastern Germany in one fell swoop, and we aren't quite bankrupt yet because of that. Sure, they brought their "space" with them, but not much more, as basically the whole industry there was thoroughly obsolete, infrastructure was obsolete, etc. In effect that "space" just cost more money to upgrade its phone lines and roads and whatnot.

In layman's terms, the difference between 1 Mark (western) and 1 Mark der DDR was 1 Mark. And that tells you all you need to know about their economic power at the time

We're talking about absorbing a population of 19 million people, by a population of 63 million. That's about 30% population increase in one year. It's more than the USA or Sweden got in any _decade_ or, for that matter, quarter of a century.

I'm not going to say it was easy, nor that it didn't drop the GDP per capita quite a bit. But we're not quite bankrupt yet by a large margin, you know?

And that's on top of having the largest immigrant population in western or central Europe. Germany has slightly over 10 million immigrants, or 12.3% of the population. Sweden is around 12% too. But Switzerland has almost as much as both combined, at 23% and it seems to manage.

 

[332nd]

No such area exists in Sweden.

So the only areas with low crime are areas that are mostly "real Swedes"?

1) America is different, we're a nation of immigrants with a massive economy. Immigration does not affect us the same way it does small Scandinavian countries.

How does it effect them?

2) Absolutely we should stop them from attaining their goals.

Yes, but should we ban them?

No, they're literally causing the generous Scandinavian social structure to collapse. There are huge numbers of people, relative to the size of the nation, availing themselves of services without contributing to the system.

How so?

How would you recommend Sweden deal with this problem while maintaining what is among the best social systems in the world?

Find some kind of compromise. What would you recommend?

Again, the Swedes and the Danes took in massive numbers of refugees from the Balkans, for example. They spent enormous sums of money relative to their economy to give those refugees better lives, and ultimately incorporated them into their systems through employment. Now they and their families are contributing--good investment.

Ok.

But they can only do that for a certain number of people. What do we say to those who flood into nations with generous social structures and don't contribute (mostly because unlike America, those economies cannot provide much opportunity for "unskilled" labor)?

Why can they do that for only a certain number of people?

Which is, actually, quote contrary to the philosophy of multiculturalism. As is often promoted, multiculturalism is more about 'preserving cultural identities' and opposing 'assimilation' rather than let nature take its course, both genetically and culturally.

Only if you insist on getting rid of ALL differences in culture. Look at Competition BBQ. Purist who use their regional style, but refuse to adapt won't "Wrap", "Inject", or "Crutch", and they all tend to lose. Those who "Wrap", "Inject", Or "Crutch" tend to loose. Those who use their regional styles but adopt what works for other regions AND "Wrap", "Inject", and Crutch" tend to win.

Bottom line is, "We didn't do that we I was a kid" is immaterial now. Tkae what works from "that group" and use it.

 

[Einzig]

But why escape from your broken, shi--y nation only to set up the exact same social structure in the new one?

Because the army of the USA attacked them and the government is corrupt.
Would you admit that these are pretty good reasons to leave? And though you judge them for fleeing further than the neighboring countries, say they should not leave their countries to do the same kind of thing in their guest country(Sweden), you seem a lot less judgmental about Australia and the USA being dominated for centuries by other than the indigenous people. The Europeans were not under attack and fleeing there, but just took over. Even though I do not sympathize with Muslim domination, any more than any other religion, the indigenous people of America and Australia were also not happy with Christian domination.
Do you support giving these continents back to the indigenous, now that things "went to hell"? You just seem to selectively blame Swedish immigrants for bringing their culture, just because you do not agree with it's form. Everyone brings their culture initially and they flee because they want to live in peace like any other human being. You say you are anti-immigration, but the immigrants of Sweden are not only asylum seekers, but also other Nordic people and Europeans, yet you do not seem to worry about Spanish influences. That is still immigration from people of other cultures.

So is the solution really that they should move to the USA, since they can handle more refugees there and were eager to start the war in the first place? I think that would be reasonable.

 

[Einzig]

No, I'm bothered that they cant speak SWEDISH in SWEDEN. If i were to move to China i would speak Chinese not Swedish. Why can't they show the same respect?

If the asylum seekers were no longer admitted, the Finnish would be the largest group of immigrants. Is it because you speak Finnish that you don't complain about this?

Arcade, if what you really mean is that you only dislike Muslims moving in, why not say so?
It is politically incorrect to admit, but so are other things you said.

 

[TraneWreck]

...
So is the solution really that they should move to the USA, since they can handle more refugees there and were eager to start the war in the first place? I think that would be reasonable.

More than reasonable, I think a strong argument could be made that it's our duty. The population of Iraq is about 24 million. This conflict has generated roughly 4 million refugees. That means our intervention in that nation has caused a sixth of the country to lose their homes. We spend our time arguing about the Lancet study and 100,000 deaths directly from violence, but that only describes a fraction of the disaster we've wrought.

So I agree with you on that last part.

But world-wide immigration is not restricted to nations we've attacked.

 

[Arcade22]

What we are saying is that Genetics have nothing to do with it. Thus a Westerner who is brought up as a Japanese and is accepted as such in Japan would be Japanese.

No. If i were born i Japan and been thought Japanese, i would still be a Swede no matter what.

 

[Arcade22]

I can't help but feel Arcade22 is just yanking the crank.

http://media.musictoday.com/store/bands/93/product_medium/MUDD1502.JPG

Hotlink removed, breach of Rule 5.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Arcade22]

But since you've steadfastly refused to define "people", no there are no "Jewish" people or "Japanese" people or "Swedish" people per say.

Of course there are ethnic groups. Most people recognize that people can be organized into groups by their common heritage and cultural upbringing.

Are you seriously saying that you don't believe that ethnic groups exist?

There are those general cultures but even "Japanese" culture isn't homogeneous much less "Jewish" culture.

And? Therefore there is no thing as Japanese culture?

Why?

Why what?

 

[Arcade22]

So the only areas with low crime are areas that are mostly "real Swedes"?

Yes, there is AFAIK no area that has a very above average amount of immigrants and is low on crime.

 

[Arcade22]

If the asylum seekers were no longer admitted, the Finnish would be the largest group of immigrants. Is it because you speak Finnish that you don't complain about this?

No, i have had no problem with Finns.

Arcade, if what you really mean is that you only dislike Muslims moving in, why not say so?
It is politically incorrect to admit, but so are other things you said.

Sure i dislike Muslims, Arabs, Africans and etc. And i want to drastically reduce the impact they have on Swedish society and the Swedish people.