Saturday, February 6, 2010

On Racism and Immigration

Not exactly an easy topic, right? Well, let's get started.

The European Union (most of it) has adopted an immigration policy which, from my point of view, lets practically anybody enter and stay in European countries. I think this policy is flawed, given that we expect Europe to keep not only the "way of life", but also the development status it currently enjoys. My stance would probably be regarded as racist or at least nationalist by the politicians (and the masses), but I want people to think again about their own stances, and, if possible, find mistakes in my argumentation or perhaps plainly disagree, but with reason - let's really think this through.

The essential point of my argumentation is the following: I do believe that only people who do not wish to destroy a country's typical way of life should live in that country. It would be ideal if all of them would support and adopt it, but those who do not are sometimes a very inspirational source of criticism and provide momentum needed for change and development. But I think there needs to be a line between (constructive) criticism and destructive movements.

I have no problems with people of any descent, as long as they don't force me to change my lifestyle. On the other hand, I do enter conflicts with people who force me to unwillingly modify it, but that is a problem independent of race. Unfortunately, but also naturally, the concentration of such people is higher among immigrants. They bring their own lifestyle with them, which can't be criticized - but the question is, why do they come? Do they want to be economically better off? Well, then they should start assimilating as soon as possible, because it's what we know and do and they don't that makes the difference that drove them here. Are they politically pursued and are seeking asylum? Very well, I don't see a problem with that - but again, why would they want to keep their old ways, which not only may have somehow, indirectly, led to their persecution, but also (apparently) isolate them in the new society and this time make them not politically pursued, but frowned upon by the general public. This could be changed - the general public needn't frown upon foreigners, and the immigrants sure could stick with what they did up to know - as long as they do not force anybody else to change their lifestyle, as was mentioned before. And, behold, those are people we should definitely pay more attention to, because they are a source of inspiration for us. Every nation is in danger of not having the distance from our own actions, which is necessary to evaluate them, as opposed to foreigners. Foreigners are not "bad", only people who live in a country and wish to destroy it's principles (or act as if they do) are "bad" - as I said, unfortunately, most of these people are immigrants.

Two things are still left to mention. One - how do we define our "way of life"? Part of the answer is not all that hard to find: European society has been formed by it's climate. Nowadays metaphorically, we need to grow and protect crops in the summer in order to survive the winter. We are "planners", we learn from our history and carefully create elaborate plans for our future, taking into account everything we can think of that might happen, however improbable it may be. That's why we are so keen on education - to guarantee a better future. That's why we have all sorts of insurance - to secure the worst case. That's why we gather, (usually) take pretty good care of and keep our belongings for quite a long time - we might need them in the future. That's why we set an alarm clock and go to work every weekday, even though our bank account currently holds enough money to feed us and the whole family for more than a year (Okay, we might not have that much money, or we actually go to work because we enjoy it, but you know what I'm saying).
The rest of the answer is a bit more complicated. In Europe, we are not used to minarets. In Europe, we do not have cows in the streets - we eat them. In Europe, women usually don't wear burqas. On a non religious note, we seldom haggle in shops. We are not used to cooking on an open fire. And so on - things that are probably noticeable, but in most cases don't directly limit our own life. Despite this, they can be a source of heated political discussions and public demonstrations. I say, let's just apply common sense - when someone finds a place where he can make a fire without destroying someone else's lawn, or feels that a burqa is the appropriate thing, then why not - but again, only until it doesn't get in the way of the typical lifestyle of the country.

And the other thing, perhaps the more important one - as you might have noticed, this kind of approach does, in a way, lead to preservation of our current society and it's lifestyle. And as we have learned from history, for an at least partial survival of a culture, sacrifices were often necessary. But I'm willing to risk it - I dare say European (and North American) society is the most developed in the world, and if we manage to elude the fate of the Roman Empire, which was destroyed by a less developed culture (but Rome was already at its decline at that time), I think we stand a pretty fair chance of surviving.

GIANT NOTE at the end: all ciritcism is accepted. Please feel free to disagree and to contact me. This is my current "state of mind", I'm still working on it - are you working on yours?

P. S.: ✈☝

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ok, I am replying as I feel it is my duty to point out at least the key weaknesses in your post:

1) do you really think that our way of living is the main thing responsible for our today's prosperity? Seriously? (how about 70 years of relative peace, 250 years of continuous industrial revolution, etc. ?

2) assuming you are correct and the European and Northern American (although from my point of view they are *vastly* different themselves) are the most advanced societies - this does not mean that they are optimal and they should be preserved in the state they are now. I honestly believe that this is quite arrogant and unsound statement (to put it mildly)

3) As for the Roman Empire - another opinion is that they were destroyed predominantly by the very same reasons for which you are arguing nowadays - a highly evolved society unable to coexist and incorporate other cultures (for instance Christianity), essentially loosing touch with the world outside.

I guess that's it (at least for the first round;-D

Jakub Hajič said...

Dear Anonymous,
first of all, thanks for the reply.

1) Yes, I do think that planning ahead is the main reason for our "prosperity" - I use quotes because prosperity is nowadays usually associated with money. For my stance on wealth, see my older post "On Wealth and How We View It". Without planning ahead, we would not be able to acquire so much wealth. On the other hand, you are quite correct that other factors also strongly contribute to it. But don't forget that the industrial revolution is once again driven by our desire to make things easier, that is cheaper and that means more money (in case something goes wrong *in the future*). And peace is among other reasons a result of leaders who are (to some extent) rational enough to know that wars are no good *for the future*.

2)Of course it is arrogant. I do not know if our society is optimal, on the contrary, I am convinced we still have a long way to go (and always will). I do not wish to preserve it in the way it is now, but I think that by accepting tons of uninterested foreigners who only want to milk the social security system, we will never be improved. I do mention in the post that our society should learn form others, but not those wish or act as if they wish to fight against the system. And I truly am willing to risk the downfall of our society by conservation, because I believe that without a certain (and perhaps, fairly large) amount of conservation, we might be overwhelmed by societies which might be more successful in different parts of the world, but look like a really bad idea here (Metaphorically: If the "Persians" have three harvests a year, and we only one, then we just have to plan and preserve our resources). So rather than a huge step back caused by other societies, I prefer a downfall of our own - of course hoping that no downfall will come if we keep thinking about our future and accept constructive criticism from others.

3)Part of the answer is in 2). Further: Yes, we can't be sure whether the Roman Empire was destroyed more by it's own wrong decisions or the outside invaders. And I have nothing against coexisting with other cultures, as long as it doesn't prove troublesome to my own culture ("culture" meaning something close to lifestyle here - for example, I am not willing to pay more on social security if it's all eaten up by lazy people, including, but not limited to, people who come from abroad to, as has been mentioned, milk the social system.)

Thanks for the discussion, and if you wish you may contact me directly at pesapes@gmail.com. And I would be pleased to know how on earth did you come across this post at all :-)

--Wosel

Anonymous said...

1) Maybe they are coming to our countries because they are planning as well - planning better future & education & etc for their kids?

It is easy to postulate that industrial revolution and our seemingly peaceful way of living is due to our keen nature and reasonably clever leaders from today's perspective. Would our society have the same traits if we were fighting for food every single day?

2+3) It was always my belief that one of the most important aspects of truly evolved society was the solidarity with less fortunate systems and individuals. I personally do not mind paying taxes with the belief that despite inherent inefficiencies in the redistribution system) at least a portion of them would reach those who really need it.

For the same reason I would always advise strongly against anti-immigration views in the same way I am strongly against the death penalty.

While I agree that without capital punishment many offenders return to the system to commit their crimes again, I simply believe the prevention of such is not worth a single misjudged capital punishment case.

And I do understand that relaxed immigration laws and openness to other cultures does indeed increase the number of people and organizations parasitic on the system. But again, preventing the "milking of our society" as you call it is not worth a single good immigrant who is denied access to our country because of our strict policies.

Jakub Hajič said...

They are coming to our countries mainly because they want to be better off. And yes, because they want a better future for their kids. I do not know where you are from, and therefore do not know what type of immigrants and / or "non-adaptive" people you can meet. But in my country, immigrants would not be the biggest problem - we have two large groups - one would be the Vietnamese, who mostly understand that hard work is what they need to be better off, and the other is Ukrainian or other former USSR countries, who also try to look for work - and usually get it - mostly jobs not requiring much qualification, but there's no problem with that. The problem is, I think, with the Romanies - they used to be nomads, and when one piece of land had nothing more to offer, they simply moved on (until late 20th century). So they are not used to working and making money and saving it and so on - but the social system provides them sometimes enough money to survive without having to do so. And I feel that is wrong, and may eventually destroy our system - not only will we have more and more pensioners "of our own", but our government will also have to support people who could be working but aren't, because the social security money is all they need. That is a highway to a state bankrupt.
In other European countries, people similar to our Romanies are Algerians and other Arabs in France, Turks in Germany, all kinds of nations in Sweden and Great Britain,...Astrid Lindgren added up her taxes when she was old, and found out that she is giving the state more than she actually earns.

*to be continued*

Jakub Hajič said...

*continued*

But the problem is not only economical. Our Romanies are mostly incapable of keeping their houses or whole blocks clean, they are often accused of shoplifting and are quite loud. Sorry, that was a racist sentence. I should say that statistically speaking, among the Romanies are people mostly in the working class, and that many people who live in neighborhoods with a significant population of Romanies may experience a worsened hygienic situation and / or disturbance of their sleep at night. Shoplifting statistics do not exist. My point is, how do we help them not to be like that? I fell that we have to be strict in this manner, for the sake of our own people. All in all, every country has to think about it's own people in the first place. Try to argue with that.

If you wish to sponsor someone who "really needs it", you are free to do so. Sometimes, it's arguable whether he really needs it or he is just lazy, but while that decision is up to you, everything is fine. The moment the state steps in and says: We need to build new houses for the Romanies, the old ones are terrible (not considering who is responsible), let's raise taxes (or social security or whatever), I am strictly against it. If there are people in need, and of course there are, I believe the solution is not to invite them over and give them all they need for a start, and perhaps keep an eye on them if they are doing well, help them time to time and just take care of them. I believe we should help them in their country, so that they do not have to come over at all, so that they can have the country of their own dreams, not having to adapt in any way to our culture. Your point of view seems to me like you think your country is capable of funding every single person who comes, and that there are no problems with immigrant communities and / or ghettos. Unfortunately, this year, our state budget is about 58 billion USD, and the yearly debt will be about 4 - 8 billion USD, depending on how much saving will the Social Democratic Party tolerate. Our overall debt is more than 70 billion USD. Where do we find money to give out to people who do not want to work? We, as a country (and I believe that soon it will be "as the EU"), can't afford to look for "good immigrants" among the tons we let in. If we want to help them, we should try to give them the space and time to help themselves. Give the hungry man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him and his kids forever.

Anonymous said...

"All in all, every country has to think about it's own people in the first place. Try to argue with that."

Are you actually aware of the fact that most Roma are the lawful citizens of your country (Czech Republic if my guess is correct) for generations. Hence when your country thinks about them, it thinks about its own people. I would therefore never argue with that:)

Other than that, it seems to me that you have shifted your opinions quite a lot - you even admit that the immigration is not the main problem, so I do not have much else to add.

Thanks for the discussion though, I do hope it helped you, or any of your readers - to which I should apologize for this spam I guess:-D

Jakub Hajič said...

Wait wait wait. Immigration is not the main problem *now* and *in my country*. But it may son be, and in other countries it's mostly immigrants.

Lawful citizens? Well only because the law still doesn't forbid some of their (in my opinion illegal) actions, or sometimes is not only enforced enough. We are sometimes way too close to "positive discrimination" of minorities, which is completely destructive for the majority.