Drowning in immigrants? Or forging a nation of steel?

So I came across this video and found it rather interesting. Before anyone flips out at the title and think it's Trumpist alarmist propaganda, it's actually pretty rational analysis of the immigration issue facing a European country.

Now before I start getting called an anti-immigration redneck, lets get something out of the way first. My parents came to the United States in the '70s. They came here, they integrated into and contribute to American society. I was born here and raised as an Asian-American. Immigration can be great for a country. Thanks to all the immigrants that have come here, I can to some degree experience different cultures from different parts of the world. Generally I do this though food, living in a metropolitan area, I've had the opportunity to eat Iranian, Afghani, Pakistani, Indian, Russian, German, English, etc. I can get bbq baby back ribs one day, and get halal chicken the next. I can get Bangers and Mash with a hard cider one night, and a large bowl of mabo ramen the next.

People that come into the US with the goal of living that "American Dream", I by and large have no problem with. While I do not support illegal immigration, I can understand some of the sentiment behind why they come here. The ones that do come here illegally, but have spent their whole time getting an education, contributing to society, rather than just being a criminal leech, I fully support providing a path to a green card for those people. Now where I do have an issue with, are the ones that come into a country, with no intent of integrating in with the resident population, but rather insist that we adopt their customs and culture.

But before we go further let's define culture first.

- the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
- a particular society that has it's own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.
- a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization

Basically, the character of a particular population. In otherwords, it's the thing that makes a particular set of people, that particular set of people. This can be a collection of positive or negative characteristics. And there are positive and negative characteristics, I'll get into that later.

This sentiment goes triple for those who come from a heritage that is radically different from the Western civilization heritage. You don't go to a foreign country and insist that they be like you. To put it bluntly, given the current world situation (I'm not picking on Muslims, just using Middle Eastern immigrants as the example since they are the focus of attention, in a different time period it would be a different group of people), and the constitution that I live in, you can adhere to Sharia as devoutly as you want. But I'll be damned if I drop my own values as a born and raised American in order to soothe your sensibilities. Sames goes if you try to impose those foreign (yes foreign, the heritage of the United States is western European, not Middle Eastern) values on other Americans around you. Don't ever let me catch you pulling the same crap as radicals in Britain that like to carry out "Sharia patrols" and harassing random people, who while are breaking no British laws or ordinances, are not carrying themselves in accordance to Sharia.Now if you want to preach about your religion and spread your particular message of salvation to anyone who'll listen, you certainly have that right.

Now there's a BIG difference between coming to another country and bringing you cultural heritage with you. It's another when you come to another country and expect people to follow your cultural heritage. There's a big difference between coming to another country and opening an ethic restaurant (on that note, Afghani and Pakistani food is really good, especially if you like a lot of spices in your food), preparing dishes in accordance to your cultural customs. But it's another thing to go and harass people over the fact they eat things that are forbidden in your native culture. Same goes for harassing people that don't dress in accordance to their cultural norms. If we can break bread without you having to impose your customs on me, beyond your house rules within your dwelling, then we have no issue. On the same token if you come in and bring your culture and values to add to, as opposed to dominate, the resident culture, there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

By contrast, there are those who simply come in to take advantage of the State programs and opportunities with no intent of integrating into the larger resident culture. These are economic migrants and they are very different from the actual refugees from the fighting in Syria. These people have no intent of integrating and being part of the resident culture, as such, nothing is owed to them. As such, if you come into my country, with no intention of being a part of my country, and only want to supplement it with yours, don't expect me to be sympathetic to you, and don't expect me to just go along with it. In contrast if you come to my country, fleeing death, and you accept the culture and realities of this country, and accept it as your new home, then fine, great, welcome aboard.

Here's the other thing, I can't speak for other countries, but the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, forbids the establishment of religion. That also means that the government can't adopt religiously based laws. That's goes for everyone, be it Christianity, Islam, etc. So you coming in here and imposing your medieval religious beliefs as law, yeah that shit don't fly here in the US. Personally, I don't like anyone telling me how to live, that's one reason I love this country, a founding principal is that people can live their lives as they see fit, and unique to the United States, is also the founding principal is a reaffirmation that I, as a US citizen, have the right to the tools needed to ensure that I can live my live at my discretion. You want to impose your values onto my personal life... we're going to have problems. You want to share your values in the thought that I might want to integrate them into my personal life, then we can sit and talk over a drink. I'll give you the opportunity to make your case to me, be you a Scientologist, a Jehovah's Witness, or a Muslim.

The other point made by the video, that is a very valid is that immigration should be limited as not to overwhelm the resident culture's ability to absorb and integrate them into the larger society. Multiculturalism is as much a dead end as Voodoo Economics is. European multiculturalism stands in stark contrast with the American melting pot. Where as multiculturalism is more of a compartmentalization of different communities, the US is more like a metallic alloy with different cultures as different metals mixing with the others. But when you put too much one one kind of metal into the alloy, then the balance is thrown off. Too much iron and the steel is no longer steel.

Is multiculturalism irrational? Lets shrink it down to a more local level. Lets imagine a city-state, a city-state founded on liberal democratic values. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. the usual things we'll find in the Bill of Rights.

The city-state of Jowston.
(now watch me get smacked by Konami for some copyright related shit...) 

Lets call this city-state "Jowston".

So we have this city-state that's doing well. People have civil liberties and are free to do what they wish, the government ensures the market is free and fair with no monopolies, etc. So life is good, and people want to come in.

In a melting pot, these people come in and want to become a part of the city-state's culture. They want to be part of the Dream. They become a part of the culture and bring with them values that integrate into the native value system the values that are compatible. Jowston's culture becomes richer. There is one inclusive Jowstonian culture that people join. But those that do not become part of the culture are left out in the fringes. Their views being taken as backwards or barbaric, and in some cases, rightfully so. You come here, you change for us, we do not change for you. So then, lets say we have a group of people from a completely alien cultural heritage, a heritage where sexism and theocratic oppression are the norm, lets call them Nagareans. They come in, they learn the language, learn the customs, respect the existing laws and themselves eventually become a part of the city-state. They understand that here in Jowston things are different, women have the same legal rights as men, the church has no legal power role in government and their holy book is not law. Grievances they have against other citizens are taken up in Jowstonian courts and settled according to Jowston civil and criminal laws. They're considered Nagarean-Jowstonians.

 Here, the law is the law, if you break the law you are prosecuted by the state, regardless of what your holy book has to say about it. Conversely if another Jowstonian does something in violation of Nagarean holy text, that is not a violation of Jowstonian law, it's the individual Nagrean's problem. Nagarean cultural hertiage is not on the same standing as Jowston cultural heritage within the Jowston city-state. It is subject to laws that came about though Jowston's native cultural heritage. Say we have another group, lets call then Aronians. Same thing that happens as with the Nagareans, they assimilate and become Jowstonians. The government allows more immigration into Jowston and the city-state and the single Jowston culture grows. Even if the immigrant population of Nagareans and Aronians surpasses the native Jowston population, there is a shared pool of values and there is an idea, maybe vague and amorphous, but an idea of what it is to be Jowstonian. The character, and culture of Jowstonian society will continue on.  

Jowston endures, Jowston prevails!

By contrast in multiculturalism, lets say we have the same situation in Jowston. Life is good, and people want to come in. Again we have the Nagareans, with their alien culture, who wants to come in, as well as the Aronians. Only instead of the Nagareans and the Aronians assimilation into the resident Jowston culture, they exist distinct and separate, side by side with the resident Jowstonians. Instead of becoming Nagarean-Jowstonians, they're instead Nagreans who just happen to live in Jowston. They do not treat women equally, Nagarean women are required to wear special clothing, and are beaten by Nagarean men when they go to vote under Jowston law, because in Nagarea women do not participate in government. Rather than conducting themselves according to the laws of Jowston, they only conduct themselves according to the laws of their holy book, so they commit acts that are crimes under Jowstonian law, but are permissible in their holy book. When acts are committed by Jowstonians that are legal under Jowston law but forbidden by their holy book, they punish the actor, not based on Jowstonian law, but on their holy book. This is tolerated, because Jowston culture is no better than Nagarea's barbaric theocratic culture. That Nagarea's barbarism has every right to exist as much as Jowston's enlightened culture.

Between the Nagreans and the Aronians, as populations flux, and surpass the native Jowstonians, the identity of what it is to be Jowstonian becomes fuzzier and fuzzier, ultimately losing the defining characteristics of it's culture. The government allows more immigration from Nagarea into Jowston, eventually the large influx combined with a higher birth rate compared to the native Jowstons and the Aronians, and though violent cultural intimidation as well as use of Jowston's democratic process, elect Nagreans to office who then pass laws based upon Nagarean cultural traditions, and ultimately by extension laws based upon Nagarean holy text. Eventually the Nagareans in office pass laws requiring women to wear their special clothing, they revoke the rights enjoyed by women, they vote preferential treatment to people who follow the Nagarean religion. Jowston is now another brutal Nagarean theocracy.

The Theocratic State of Jowston

Is multiculturalism irrational? Yes, because it's ultimately an unsustainable cultural system. Fact of the matter is, not all cultures are equal. Some are truly backwards and barbaric. A culture where "honor killings" are accepted is barbaric. A culture where female genital mutilation is permissive is barbaric. A culture where children are married off, is backwards. A culture where men and women do not enjoy the same rights under the law is backwards. Backwards and barbaric cultures do not stand equal with a developed culture, to think that is is, is highly naive if not out right stupid. Right and wrong do exist. Harming another person not in an act of defense, is wrong, regardless of what your holy books says.

And yes, there are cultures that ARE barbaric, that ARE backwards. When you look at western cultures and cultures that have been influenced by western cultures, for better or worse, you see some of the similar cultural believes held in places where fundamentalist religions like Whabbi Islam, having been left behind by the West long ago. Slavery, left behind in history, not acceptable in modern western societies. Legislated religious dogma, largely left behind in history, is not generally acceptable in modern western societies. Legislated sexism, left behind in history, not acceptable in modern western societies. Violence perpetuated in the name of scripture, by and large left behind in history, not acceptable in modern western societies. Facts are facts no amount of feel-good politically correct bullshit can change that. We as the west moved on from that kind of archaic thinking, while without the Ottoman Empire, segments of Mid Eastern (not all or as a whole of course) society reverted back to it. That's being backwards. Flogging women for not covering up their hair, that's being barbaric. Fucking acts of terrorism is barbaric. Rationalize it in you regressive leftist, PC head all you want, but that is being backwards and that is being barbaric.

On a side note... when these people do their virtue signaling, it's really out of a genuine but misplaced belief in "can't we all get along?" Or is it just jerking their ego and building their ideological cred...?

So far, America doesn't seem to have much of that issue at the time of writing. Yes there are some enclaves that want nothing to do with with integrating in the larger resident population, but that want to impose their custom on the rest of the nation. That is the point where those who don't want to just throw open the doors of immigration are right. The balance, the correct proportions must be maintained in order for a culture like the US's to maintain straight, to continue to be steel. Though, generally, by and large, the US remains a melting pot, people enter to become Americans, not as just economic migrants. This melting pot is what makes American culture strong, instead of compartmentalization, all the different view points that are brought in are selectively disseminated into the larger whole, with the most desirable ones being adopted by others. Cultural extremists are largely mocked, ridiculed and relegated to the fringe in American culture. Extremist views are by and large not treated as equally important.

There is one aspect though, that is potentially damaging to the melting pot and essentially fatal to multiculturalism. Cultural guilt driven permissiveness, or miss placed cultural pity. A sort of arrogant narcissistic ideal that somehow you have a hand in these people's supposed predicament and that you have the power to save them. This idea manifests itself in tolerance for the worst acts of barbarism that might be brought over by the dregs that accompany the decent people. It also manifest itself in this apologetic, kiss-ass, mentality that leads people to pull down their own national flag out of fear of offending someone and the victims apologizing to the perpetrator of their own sexual assault. Someone who might or might not even give a damn or have any respect for the country and culture they came to. They're not here to become part of the larger resident society, they're not your people, You owe them nothing, if they don't like it, if they get offended, if their feelings are hurt, no one stopping them from going back to where they came from if they don't like it here. If you come into the US without the intention of becoming an American, then I have no sense of camaraderie with you, and I owe you not a damn thing beyond common courtesy. If you come in here as a tourist or for business, then I only owe you the courtesy owed to a house guest. This amounts to nothing more than cultural suicide. In addition, using the example of the contemporary liberalism, it runs counter to the very thing they claim to stand for. They claim to stand for women's rights, while at the same time permitting the copy-pasting of a culture that subjugates women. And even more ironic, this is massive disservice to the immigrants that do enter in order to escape said barbarism and oppression. So what about them, by doing this, you are literally throwing the actual legitimate refugees, people fleeing war, violence, and barbarism, under the bus, all in the name of political correctness and virtue signaling. This only makes you look like either ignorant or like a hypocrite.

This is not how you forge a strong nation. This is not how you forge steel. You cannot forge an alloy by not allowing the individual metals to blend. In the modern world with things like air travel, it's inevitable that different cultures are going to meet at a much higher frequency than ever before. Each of these cultures is like an individual metal or element. You can have them all blend into a strong alloy like steel or titanium alloy, or you can just have a hodgepodge bag of ingredients. Hell even if I use the analogy of a vinigrette where the different ingredients separate and layer, the full strength of the flavor does not come out until the bottle is shaken up and all the component ingredients are blended together. I've heard the description of multiculturalism as a "cultural mosaic". Well that doesn't work. A mosaic is an arrangement, ordered by an individual or group, with a particular goal in mind, the goal in the case of a mosaic being a particular image. But in multiculturalism, who is the "artist"? What is the particular image to be portrayed by the mosaic. There is none. There's no plan, there's no one directing where each individual distinct culture goes, or what their role is? Again, it does, not, work. The phrase "greater than the sum of the parts" comes to mind. Could you imagine if a theater troupe all did their own thing? The production would be a disaster.

For Europe to stay Europe, for European cultures to continue, multiculturalism needs to be dumped. when you let people come into your country, you must insist that they become a part of your people, otherwise, do not enter. Germany, don't be afraid to deport people who come into your country and do not become Germans, they are not your people, they are only renters at best, squatters at worse. As they are not your people, you owe them nothing. If they come into your country with no intention of becoming German, or French, or British, etc. they are outsiders that you owe nothing to.

If you come into my country, the United States of the America, to work hard, and carve out your own piece of the American Dream, to live your live under the values that lead to the Bill of Rights, to become an American yourself, you're certainly more than welcome to come. But if you're just coming in here to bring your BS and impose it on the rest of us and refuse to integrate and become an American? Go the hell back home, you have no place here. You want to come here for business, fine great, just leave any BS you might have at home. Check that shit at the door.