Very Disturbing

[KIBU]

[quote=CA renter] The second culture/group might instead value free time, and not care at all about how their homes/neighborhoods look, nor care as much about crime because they feel that their freedoms might be curtailed if they focus too much on keeping crime rates down. They would probably NOT be willing to spend more money or work harder toward the same goals as those in the first group.[/quote]

Does this “second culture” description reminds you of something? It reminds me of the gun culture of America.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=KIBU][quote=CA renter] The second culture/group might instead value free time, and not care at all about how their homes/neighborhoods look, nor care as much about crime because they feel that their freedoms might be curtailed if they focus too much on keeping crime rates down. They would probably NOT be willing to spend more money or work harder toward the same goals as those in the first group.[/quote]

Does this “second culture” description reminds you of something? It reminds me of the gun culture of America.[/quote]

KIBU: Now, for fun, let’s replace the word “gun” in “gun culture”, with “black” or “Hispanic”. How’s that sound?

Yeah, thought so. Nice to know that this sort of appalling ignorance is alive and well. You should really educate yourself before making such completely nonsensical comments.

Or not. Based on your earlier, and equally vapid, comments on guns, it appears you suffer from an unhealthy obsession with guns and their owners.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Ca renter, the data doesnt square with your point of view.

Since the dawn of civilization, mutil cultural societies where there is a free flow of commerce, people and ideas always had higher growth and higher wealth.

The problems are apartheid-like or segregational systems where there are different classes of citizens (de jure or de facto). By citizens I mean everyone who lives in a community.

That’s why we need to address structural problems where certain groups have outsize power over other communities.

And freedom means that your neighbor has the rIght to jack up his truck on cinder blocks if he so feels like. For those who don’t like that there are HOAs.[/quote]

There is a difference between “growth and wealth” (which can be found in places with institutional apartheid, BTW) vs. having a cohesive society without civil strife. I agree with you that apartheid-like, tyrannical socio-political systems cause tremendous problems. Apartheid tends to come about when “foreigners” take over the resources of a native population, and they use race/ethnicity/religion as a way to discriminate against the indigenous people or long-time native residents.

One could argue that “foreigners” coming into Sweden, The Netherlands, France, the U.S., etc. are demanding resources from those who’ve set up a system that works very well *if* everyone works together toward the same goals. What if these “foreigners” not only refuse to work together to make these systems work, but they actually begin to dismantle and/or overburden the very systems that made these places such good places to live in the first place? Do you think they should be allowed to do that? Do you think that the protestations of those who’ve worked for generations toward these beneficial social/political/economic systems are “wrong” or “racist” because they want to defend their them?

[FlyerInHi]

Ca renter., actually without growth, wealth diminishes.

You have to llook at the big picture. You may buy a house and save money and that is your wealth. But unless there is vibrant trade and growth in the economy your wealth slowly shrinks.

Immigrants are essentially invited into developed countries to work and strengthen those economies.

Your POV is xenophobic and reflect what’s happened in Europe. The homogeneous populations have resisted integration of the immigrants. Their politicians talked intergration, but pushed immigrants to the public projects in the suburbs.

Thankfully, economists and academics know what works. And that’s why Germany has reformed and is welcoming new immigrants, mostly from other parts of Europe. Germany still needs to reform citizenship laws for non-EU immigrants.

Thankfully, in America, our policies are more objective and data oriented, more influenced by academics who rely on empirical studies.

You have to ask yourself why immigration works better in America than in Europe. Why is our growth rate higher? Why is it that immigrants thrive in NY, LA, and SF but immigrants London and Paris feel marginalized.

NY is the most diverse city on the planet with 1/2 the population born outside the country. Yeah it’s dominated by the financial establishment. But there is tremendous wealth in small businesses and real estate. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well.

3% annual growth results in a doubling of the economy in about 1/4 century.
Europe better get with the program or they will face impoverishment as their populations age.

[desmond]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=KIBU][quote=CA renter] The second culture/group might instead value free time, and not care at all about how their homes/neighborhoods look, nor care as much about crime because they feel that their freedoms might be curtailed if they focus too much on keeping crime rates down. They would probably NOT be willing to spend more money or work harder toward the same goals as those in the first group.[/quote]

Does this “second culture” description reminds you of something? It reminds me of the gun culture of America.[/quote]

KIBU: Now, for fun, let’s replace the word “gun” in “gun culture”, with “black” or “Hispanic”. How’s that sound?

Yeah, thought so. Nice to know that this sort of appalling ignorance is alive and well. You should really educate yourself before making such completely nonsensical comments.

Or not. Based on your earlier, and equally vapid, comments on guns, it appears you suffer from an unhealthy obsession with guns and their owners.[/quote]

Thanks Allan, good reply.

[dumbrenter]

Note: this post has nothing to do with the murder in london.

You guys are seeing this all wrong.
It is not the state policy (welfare or not) or multiculturalism.
It is simply about how people are taught values and how they perceive the world.

An average American is a friendly, outgoing fellow who will do business with you if there is good business to be done with you. your national origin means nothing here. The fact that you dress differently or have a thick accent is not really a bar once it comes to doing business. Folks open up about politics in person only when they feel comfortable with you. There is no expectation to integrate and conform. You have the option of being economically productive (and rich) while not needing to conform.

An average european or australian or japanese is very tribal. He wants to classify you and fit you into his preconceived notions. While his state may be immigration friendly, he definitely is not. His view of the world is pretty racist (as in race based), he is taught to conform from his childhood and he expects the same later. He will be dying to know your national origin and background much more than wanting to do business with you. More than business value, how you look & act is more important though it hurts his own interests. His society has gone thru a lot of churn to make sure there is homogeneity in his lands, so he is simply not setup to accept you in his society. Get to know him, make him comfortable, and out come the racist views on some other ethnicity.

My point is: while european states look very immigration friendly, the european people are simply not willing to accept immigrants. The same does not hold in the United States. And this is a key difference.

My source: personal experience as somebody who does not look either european or american. Obviously highly subjective, but more accurate than what you hear the talking heads on tv or the politicians say.

[KIBU]

This is interesting from a study done by researchers at Harvard medical school:

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130529/LIFESTYLES03/305290035/Study-Immigrants-provide-115B-subsidy-Medicare

Study: Immigrants provide $115B subsidy to Medicare
They use fewer services than Americans do

WASHINGTON — Immigrants contributed about $115 billion more from their paychecks to the Medicare Trust Fund than they took out over a seven-year period in the past decade, according to researchers at Harvard Medical School.

As the Senate debates a new immigration bill and House Republicans work toward a bill that restricts access to government services for unauthorized immigrants who become legal citizens, the researchers concluded in a study released Wednesday that restricting immigration could deplete the fund.

Researchers looked at data from 2002 to 2009.

“The assumption that immigrants are just a drain has been a part of the argument that people should be denied services,” said Leah Zallman, lead researcher and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. “Immigration policy has been closely linked to Medicare’s finances.”

Immigrant subsidy
Studies had shown that immigrants use less health care than U.S.-born people, including in government programs, but no one had looked at their contributions to those programs.

In 2009, the researchers found, immigrants contributed $13.9 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they used, while U.S.-born people spent $31 billion more than they contributed. Immigrants, Zallman said, essentially subsidize U.S. health care.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SDR: Both assailants were native-born Brits. Her Majesty’s Government now advises that British soldiers not wear their uniforms in public.

Fuck that. Issue sidearms and let the games begin.[/quote]
Hehe!

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Ca renter., actually without growth, wealth diminishes.

You have to llook at the big picture. You may buy a house and save money and that is your wealth. But unless there is vibrant trade and growth in the economy your wealth slowly shrinks.

Immigrants are essentially invited into developed countries to work and strengthen those economies.

Your POV is xenophobic and reflect what’s happened in Europe. The homogeneous populations have resisted integration of the immigrants. Their politicians talked intergration, but pushed immigrants to the public projects in the suburbs.

Thankfully, economists and academics know what works. And that’s why Germany has reformed and is welcoming new immigrants, mostly from other parts of Europe. Germany still needs to reform citizenship laws for non-EU immigrants.

Thankfully, in America, our policies are more objective and data oriented, more influenced by academics who rely on empirical studies.

You have to ask yourself why immigration works better in America than in Europe. Why is our growth rate higher? Why is it that immigrants thrive in NY, LA, and SF but immigrants London and Paris feel marginalized.

NY is the most diverse city on the planet with 1/2 the population born outside the country. Yeah it’s dominated by the financial establishment. But there is tremendous wealth in small businesses and real estate. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well.

3% annual growth results in a doubling of the economy in about 1/4 century.
Europe better get with the program or they will face impoverishment as their populations age.[/quote]

Flyer,

FWIW, you can have growth without increasing the population.

I’m not at all against immigration — my mother was an immigrant. What I’m against is unchecked immigration from countries/cultures that have attitudes and beliefs that run counter to what we are trying to work toward as a society: a better standard of living for our citizens; cleaner, safer communities; steady or improving education and healthcare for our citizens, etc. You cannot tell me that all immigration is the same, or that all immigrants (or even native citizens…but we’re stuck with those) contribute equally. They do not.

Steady, sustainable growth is good; unchecked population growth without commensurate economic growth is not.

I would also readily add that the subsidies for immigrants are actually subsidies for their employers, since those who employ low-wage, unskilled (usually “undocumented”) immigrants are not paying the full costs for their employees and their resident dependents. That definitely needs to change. I’m all for charging employers for the costs of their employees. There is no reason to expect taxpayers to subsidize their profits.

Be careful about using labels like “racist” and “xenophopic,” because you are diluting the meaning of these terms while trying to assert the “righteousness” of your opinions over others without any basis for your assertions.

[Jazzman]

[quote=dumbrenter]Note: this post has nothing to do with the murder in london.

You guys are seeing this all wrong.
It is not the state policy (welfare or not) or multiculturalism.
It is simply about how people are taught values and how they perceive the world.

An average American is a friendly, outgoing fellow who will do business with you if there is good business to be done with you. your national origin means nothing here. The fact that you dress differently or have a thick accent is not really a bar once it comes to doing business. Folks open up about politics in person only when they feel comfortable with you. There is no expectation to integrate and conform. You have the option of being economically productive (and rich) while not needing to conform.

An average european or australian or japanese is very tribal. He wants to classify you and fit you into his preconceived notions. While his state may be immigration friendly, he definitely is not. His view of the world is pretty racist (as in race based), he is taught to conform from his childhood and he expects the same later. He will be dying to know your national origin and background much more than wanting to do business with you. More than business value, how you look & act is more important though it hurts his own interests. His society has gone thru a lot of churn to make sure there is homogeneity in his lands, so he is simply not setup to accept you in his society. Get to know him, make him comfortable, and out come the racist views on some other ethnicity.

My point is: while european states look very immigration friendly, the european people are simply not willing to accept immigrants. The same does not hold in the United States. And this is a key difference.

My source: personal experience as somebody who does not look either european or american. Obviously highly subjective, but more accurate than what you hear the talking heads on tv or the politicians say.[/quote]
I agree with you up to a point, but it’s not quite so black and white if you’ll excuse the term. I’d first like to start by pointing out that Europe is not a country, but a geographical term. The countries within it have different immigration experiences. The US actively encourages immigration and is known as a country of immigrants. Geography plays it’s part. Population density in say the UK is about eight times higher than the US. Immigration to some European countries was traditionally drawn from post colonial periods, now from Eastern Europe. Tolerance for different cultures is about the same as the US. The differences are in urban segregation. US cities are more divided into socio economic, and socio cultural lines, whereas in some EU countries, it’s more socio economic. Is there racism in countries is the EU? Sure. Lets not forget ethnic cleansing. But I don’t believe there was the degree of segregation as in the US. Is assimilation public policy? Yes, but with varying degrees of success and failure. One major difference is that people in the US tend to be more open, which gives the impression of a greater degree of tolerance. But individual prejudices are pretty universal and their causes range from the superficial to the more complex socio economic. It’s a very big, complex subject making comparisons difficult.

[CA renter]

[quote=KIBU]This is interesting from a study done by researchers at Harvard medical school:

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130529/LIFESTYLES03/305290035/Study-Immigrants-provide-115B-subsidy-Medicare

Study: Immigrants provide $115B subsidy to Medicare
They use fewer services than Americans do

WASHINGTON — Immigrants contributed about $115 billion more from their paychecks to the Medicare Trust Fund than they took out over a seven-year period in the past decade, according to researchers at Harvard Medical School.

As the Senate debates a new immigration bill and House Republicans work toward a bill that restricts access to government services for unauthorized immigrants who become legal citizens, the researchers concluded in a study released Wednesday that restricting immigration could deplete the fund.

Researchers looked at data from 2002 to 2009.

“The assumption that immigrants are just a drain has been a part of the argument that people should be denied services,” said Leah Zallman, lead researcher and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. “Immigration policy has been closely linked to Medicare’s finances.”

Immigrant subsidy
Studies had shown that immigrants use less health care than U.S.-born people, including in government programs, but no one had looked at their contributions to those programs.

In 2009, the researchers found, immigrants contributed $13.9 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they used, while U.S.-born people spent $31 billion more than they contributed. Immigrants, Zallman said, essentially subsidize U.S. health care.[/quote]

The immigrants who pay into Medicare would likely be the legal ones who tend to be more highly-skilled (they admitted in the paper that they couldn’t track Medicare contributions by illegal immigrants who use fake SSNs). They are also often here on work visas of some sort, so would be less likely to use Medicare benefits, naturally.

This study doesn’t show the total public costs vs. benefits of **illegal** immigration, or legal immigration of low-skilled workers. Of course, it would be difficult to quantify since the PTB have made it difficult to document the costs of illegal immigration (you’re not allowed to ask about resident status, for instance, when enrolling students for school, etc.).

[all]

[quote=CA renter][quote=KIBU]This is interesting from a study done by researchers at Harvard medical school:

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130529/LIFESTYLES03/305290035/Study-Immigrants-provide-115B-subsidy-Medicare

Study: Immigrants provide $115B subsidy to Medicare
They use fewer services than Americans do

WASHINGTON — Immigrants contributed about $115 billion more from their paychecks to the Medicare Trust Fund than they took out over a seven-year period in the past decade, according to researchers at Harvard Medical School.

As the Senate debates a new immigration bill and House Republicans work toward a bill that restricts access to government services for unauthorized immigrants who become legal citizens, the researchers concluded in a study released Wednesday that restricting immigration could deplete the fund.

Researchers looked at data from 2002 to 2009.

“The assumption that immigrants are just a drain has been a part of the argument that people should be denied services,” said Leah Zallman, lead researcher and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. “Immigration policy has been closely linked to Medicare’s finances.”

Immigrant subsidy
Studies had shown that immigrants use less health care than U.S.-born people, including in government programs, but no one had looked at their contributions to those programs.

In 2009, the researchers found, immigrants contributed $13.9 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they used, while U.S.-born people spent $31 billion more than they contributed. Immigrants, Zallman said, essentially subsidize U.S. health care.[/quote]

The immigrants who pay into Medicare would likely be the legal ones who tend to be more highly-skilled (they admitted in the paper that they couldn’t track Medicare contributions by illegal immigrants who use fake SSNs). They are also often here on work visas of some sort, so would be less likely to use Medicare benefits, naturally.

This study doesn’t show the total public costs vs. benefits of **illegal** immigration, or legal immigration of low-skilled workers. Of course, it would be difficult to quantify since the PTB have made it difficult to document the costs of illegal immigration (you’re not allowed to ask about resident status, for instance, when enrolling students for school, etc.).[/quote]

The authors speculate that illegals are underrepresented in both the census and the medicare data.

I am surprised that something like this study can be published under Harvard’s brand – there is no definition of terms, the data is limited, the discussion and conclusions are emotional, speculative and go well beyond what’s captured in data.

[FlyerInHi]

Closer on topic. I’m just saying there are reasons for immigrant dissatisfaction in Europe.

I believe there are structural reasons and that’s why a comparison to the US is useful. There are more economic opportunities for immigrants in America. Our anti-discrimination legal framework is stronger as is access to remedies in case of discrimination. Americans are mindful not to discriminate (at least blatantly) in terms of age, race, etc… And as dumbrenter said, Americans are less tradition bound and more business oriented. The color of money is green and we are always willing to do business.

The immigrants in Europe are not self-deporting. Want peace? Find some solutions that work. Anger and retributions are not solutions.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Closer on topic. I’m just saying there are reasons for immigrant dissatisfaction in Europe.

I believe there are structural reasons and that’s why a comparison to the US is useful. There are more economic opportunities for immigrants in America. Our anti-discrimination legal framework is stronger as is access to remedies in case of discrimination. Americans are mindful not to discriminate (at least blatantly) in terms of age, race, etc… And as dumbrenter said, Americans are less tradition bound and more business oriented. The color of money is green and we are always willing to do business.

The immigrants in Europe are not self-deporting. Want peace? Find some solutions that work. Anger and retributions are not solutions.[/quote]

Agreed. How about assimilating into the culture that is providing the better way of life? That’s what has made the U.S. more of a success story WRT immigration, IMHO. Immigrants in the past have always made an effort to blend into the culture of their new country. They would take more “American” names and give their children Americanized names, as well. My own family did this, as did my husband’s (though I don’t really think that it’s necessary; just pointing out the lengths to which people would go to make themselves more welcome in their new host country). Earlier immigrants also insisted that their children learn to speak English, and they taught them to be patriotic and proud of their new country. It seemed to work pretty well in the past, so why not go with what has already proven to be the most successful method of blending cultures/immigrants?

[FlyerInHi]

Because the world has changed. Cheap and easy communication and travel allow immigrants to stay in touch with their home countries.

This is a net plus to the host countries and the home countries because immigration spurs trade and investments, travel and tourism.

A big reason for the EU is to allow free movement of rrade and people within the union. It is economically desirable for Bulgarians and Romanians to seek jobs where their skills are in highest demand despite some people on the UK not liking it.

The USA has more multiculturalism than any other country. We also have higher growth and better standards of living than Europeans. Maybe standard of living is debatable but by objective measures we have bigger houses, nicer bigger cars, more goods and services to consume.

[Author]

Posts