Multiculturalism has failed.

[Galactus]

I was on a lecture just now (woman whose parents moved to Sweden from kurdistan in the late 70's) she said that a neat thing about swedish is that while others speak of mother-countries or fatherlands, swedes speak of their foster-land.

[Errant Bard]

Of course it did. Where do you think you got all those revolutions from?

Elites staging a coup and using the momentum of economical unrest for their interest? Next you'll tell me Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre was a poor schmuck from some poor people's subculture. Haha.

[Galactus]

Elites staging a coup and using the momentum of economical unrest for their interest? Next you'll tell me Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre was a poor schmuck from some poor people's subculture. Haha.

I was thinking more of '71 one actually.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nothing in this post makes sense. Hispanic culture is incompatible with American culture, except for hispanic Americans, American culture is better because it's American, so it's better, and hispanic people have a hard time assimilating except for Cubans, who assimilated very well, except for the language issue. But hispanic people generally don't assimilate very well.

You've erected more strawmen in a single paragraph than I previously believed was even possible. Congratulations!

I stated earlier that the rate of immigration is a key factor in assimilation. If too many people from a given culture immigrate too quickly, assimilation will suffer. That concept has nothing to do with the particular race, ethnicity, or national origin of a particular group, and I neither stated nor implied that there was anything unique about hispanics ethnically or racially that would make assimilation more difficult for them. I think the problem with hispanic assimilation in some parts of the country is that immigration is so large, concentrated, and rapid, and so much is illegal, which further distances those folk from assimilation, that assimilation has suffered. As much as you might wish it, I don't think the "little wetbacks" are inherently any more difficult to assimilate as indiduals than other groups.

Like migrant laborers. Who aren't American in their value system because they don't care about saving (and possibly they want to return back to their own country because, you know, they're not looking to become American citizens at all and it actually is their own country...). What on earth are you talking about?

You're just dying to misrepresent what I'm saying, aren't you? I specifically added these qualifiers to that example:

The only concrete example I can give from my own experience, and I can't say how widespread it is....I'm not sure if these people were outliers, or if their attitude is part of a more general national culture among a certain segment of the population. And in a sense, I don't even care. All I know is I greatly prefer the U.S. to Mexico as a place to live.

And forgetting the qualifiers, you still missed the point. Those folks could have stayed and earned more money in the U.S., taken those additional earnings back to their home in Mexico, and possibly improved their station in life in Mexico. Or they could have taken those earnings from the U.S., and then worked in Mexico after their return for additional money. But they overwhelmingly did not. I cross-examined these folk, and the concept of saving money or even improving your station in life just didn't register. Again, that was among the 28 or so in this particular group.

In other words, they worked just enough to maintain the same level of existence, and then would do nothing at all for 5-6 months. I'd submit that is a different work ethic than is common in the U.S.., and presumably a product -- in some sense -- of the culture from whence they came. Opposing counsel from the SPLC remarked to us afterwards that migrant laborers seem to have a very limited perspective in terms of long-term improvement of their lives. But as I said, I don't know how widespread that attitude is, nor do I really think it matters. I'm just talking about the end result of various cultural norms, regardless of what they are. And when looking at the societies those cultures produce, I'd generally prefer U.S. culture to Mexican.

[Errant Bard]

I was thinking more of '71 one actually.

Ah, La Commune, where the whole Paris revolted after being besieged by the Prussians and felt spat upon when the government surrendered. I see your point, and you were right but I feel a bit hesitant to call the worker class a subculture, even if it was galvanized, trained and armed because of the siege, and leaders were exposed to Marxist ideas, and they saw the royalists gain power in the official government. Not in the sense of the subcultures in "multiculturalism", anyway, otherwise we can just say that Merkel is full of baloney and multiculturalism cannot fail as long as our society has classes.

[Galactus]

Ah, La Commune, where the whole Paris revolted after being besieged by the Prussians and felt spat upon when the government surrendered. I see your point, and you were right but I feel a bit hesitant to call the worker class a subculture, even if it was galvanized, trained and armed because of the siege, and leaders were exposed to Marxist ideas, and they saw the royalists gain power in the official government. Not in the sense of the subcultures in "multiculturalism", anyway, otherwise we can just say that Merkel is full of baloney and multiculturalism cannot fail as long as our society has classes.

I'd definitely argue that there are (and certainly were) class-based subcultures, they may differ in speech, manners, holidays, economic situations, what they do for entertainment, what sports they play, etc. etc.

[Errant Bard]

I'd definitely argue that there are (and certainly were) class-based subcultures, they may differ in speech, manners, holidays, economic situations, what they do for entertainment, what sports they play, etc. etc.

Certainly, seen that way, but do they qualify for the "multiculturalism" problems, like the Flamand/Wallon groups do? And if they do, how does that fail?

[Galactus]

Certainly, seen that way, but do they qualify for the "multiculturalism" problems, like the Flamand/Wallon groups do? And if they do, how does that fail?

¨

That depends on the situation, no?

Classes *do* have the "advantage" of being mutually interdependent, and not really being able to create paralell socities the way ethnic and religious minorities do (when they actually do, this is usually a sign that things are going to get very, very bad soon)

Heh, it actually

[karaddin]

I don't have a problem with the folks who take advantage of dual citizenship. There's no downside, so it makes sense to me from an individual perspective. What I don't understand is why it is in the interest of the nation as a whole to permit it.

The country gets people that are living there to contribute to the political process who otherwise may not if they had to choose between their country and birth and their new country. I've just moved to the US from Australia as my Fiancée is American and already has a daughter, if I had to choose between my Australian citizenship (I self identify as Australian and suspect I always will, my family is all Australian) and becoming an American citizen I don't know what I'd choose. Allowing me to have both means I will buy into American life without reservation and contribute what I can to the community without having to give up who I am.

[Guest Raidne]

In other words, they worked just enough to maintain the same level of existence, and then would do nothing at all for 5-6 months. I'd submit that is a different work ethic than is common in the U.S.., and presumably a product -- in some sense -- of the culture from whence they came. Opposing counsel from the SPLC remarked to us afterwards that migrant laborers seem to have a very limited perspective in terms of long-term improvement of their lives. But as I said, I don't know how widespread that attitude is, nor do I really think it matters. I'm just talking about the end result of various cultural norms, regardless of what they are. And when looking at the societies those cultures produce, I'd generally prefer U.S. culture to Mexican.

I suggest you read this paragraph over a few times. And ask yourself why you're talking about migrant laborers. Really. If you don't think they are representative of Mexican culture, or that their perspective matters, why are you talking about them at all? There is no other reason. It is patently obvious. Just read what you wrote. Your protestations to the contrary are hollow sophistry. If not, articulate some other legitimate reason that you brought up migrant laborers and their "culture." I won't hold my breath.

For my part, I think we have such totally differing worldviews on this issue that we might as well be speaking different languages.

I think it's interesting that Europe - a continent comprised of many smaller countries with finely tuned and emphasized cultural differences - would strive to accept multiculturalism at all. France is not apologetic in the slightest about it's drive to maintain the "frenchness" of french culture. So why did this even start? If the European Union were really the controlling governmental entity and each country was more like a regional state, or something I can see it, but cultural distinctions are what mostly make the separate European countries separate countries, no?

But really there is just an inherent conflict between tolerance and striving to maintain the same cultural values, because sometimes the imported values will conflict.

So really, it's imperative that we stop being all wishy-washy like FLOW was when I put this question to him and define what these core parts of the culture are. Otherwise, it's just too easy to point fingers at some group for less savory reasons and chalk it up to a concern for the national character - which we should be too ashamed to do, without a concrete and specific argument instead of this generalized bullshit - but apparently, we aren't.

Say what you will about France's recent ban, and I'm not sure I can agree with their decision, but surely it was done out of a desire to concretely define the national culture, so you can at least chalk that up in their favor.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I suggest you read this paragraph over a few times. And ask yourself why you're talking about migrant laborers. Really.

Because, AS I SAID, it is the only group with which I have any kind of detailed personal experience. I understand the argument that they may not be representative, and as I also said, it really doesn't matter. The proof is in the economies and social structures that result from those cultures.

If you don't think they are representative of Mexican culture, or that their perspective matters, why are you talking about them at all? There is no other reason. It is patently obvious. Just read what you wrote. Your protestations to the contrary are hollow sophistry. If not, articulate some other legitimate reason that you brought up migrant laborers and their "culture." I won't hold my breath.

For the third or fourth time: it is the only group with which I have any kind of detailed personal experience, which came about during a long trial in Texas. I hesitated even to mention it because my position would be the same regardless of what I learned during that trial. At most, take it as a hypothesis of a possible cultural difference that may or may not be true. As I've said repeatedly, what matters to me are the economies and societies that result from that culture.

For my part, I think we have such totally differing worldviews on this issue that we might as well be speaking different languages.

You have me at a disadvantage here because I have no idea what your worldview is at all, so I'll toss your own question back at you. Do you think there are any significant cultural differences between Mexican and U.S. culture?

I think it's interesting that Europe - a continent comprised of many smaller countries with finely tuned and emphasized cultural differences - would strive to accept multiculturalism at all. France is not apologetic in the slightest about it's drive to maintain the "frenchness" of french culture. So why did this even start? If the European Union were really the controlling governmental entity and each country was more like a regional state, or something I can see it, but cultural distinctions are what mostly make the separate European countries separate countries, no?

But really there is just an inherent conflict between tolerance and striving to maintain the same cultural values, because sometimes the imported values will conflict.

So really, it's imperative that we stop being all wishy-washy like FLOW was when I put this question to him and define what these core parts of the culture are.

Oh, bullshit. I'm not being wishy-washy. I'm just not going to be pigeonholed into an overly-specific position that isn't relevant to my position. I don't need to be able to describe each and every sub-flavor I taste in a dish to know I don't like it. What I have stated is that I believe that countries are primarily a product of their culture, that when I look south of the border I see a country that is dysfunctional in many ways compared to the U.S.. The political system, crime, the economy...I much prefer what we have to what they have. Therefore, I do not want the culture that produced that society to gain a significant foothold in this country. Why is there a need to get more specific than that, other than you want to create an argument?

If you want more specifics, there are plenty of articles out there about cultural differences between the U.S. and Mexico, particularly in the business world, written by people from both sides of the border.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

oops, double post.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The country gets people that are living there to contribute to the political process who otherwise may not if they had to choose between their country and birth and their new country. I've just moved to the US from Australia as my Fiancée is American and already has a daughter, if I had to choose between my Australian citizenship (I self identify as Australian and suspect I always will, my family is all Australian) and becoming an American citizen I don't know what I'd choose. Allowing me to have both means I will buy into American life without reservation and contribute what I can to the community without having to give up who I am.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't live here. It's the citizenship that's the issue. And without trying to be snarky, it sounds to me like the only "advantage" the U.S. gets is that it gets to let someone vote on this country's future whose primary loyalty is to a difference country altogether. I don't really think that's much of an advantage. Now practically speaking, the U.S. and Australia are unlikely to have many divergent interests, but that's true of a distinct minority of other nations vis a vis the U.S.. At some point, just about everyone else lines up against us at some point. With whom does a person of dual citizenship side then?

[Insert Edit]

Nobody is saying you shouldn't live here. It's the citizenship that's the issue. And without trying to be snarky, it sounds to me like the only "advantage" the U.S. gets is that it gets to let someone vote on this country's future whose primary loyalty is to a difference country altogether. I don't really think that's much of an advantage. Now practically speaking, the U.S. and Australia are unlikely to have many divergent interests, but that's true of a distinct minority of other nations vis a vis the U.S.. At some point, just about everyone else lines up against us at some point. With whom does a person of dual citizenship side then?

What's the advantage? Keeping high productivity value added citizens?

I was a retroactive dual citizen (thanks Ronnie!) who moved his family to Texas for four years. My wife and daughter weren't even trying to become citizens, merely landed immigrants. The treatment my family received (being married to a US citizen should work in your FAVOR, not make you an object of suspicion.)

So after four years of that nonsense, when I was told that I had to line up OVERNIGHT with the rest of the 'unwashed and skeezy' in order to talk to an actual live person, and start step 2 of three in the LANDED immigrant status, I knew I'd had enough. I took my award winning *ss back to Canada.

The US doesn't have such a standard of living advantage to treat people like this anymore.

[Alexia]

At most, take it as a hypothesis of a possible cultural difference that may or may not be true.

Considering that I know several Mexicans who *gasp* own their own homes and have *gasp* college degrees and *gasp* high-paying jobs, I'd suggest that it is not at all representative of Mexicans or Hispanics in general.

That being said, do I get pick out the poorest subset of Americans (the kind who not only don't save, but also go in for payday loans and rent-to-own) and suggest that this behavior might possibly be representative of Americans in general?

[Spastic Plastic]

And without trying to be snarky, it sounds to me like the only "advantage" the U.S. gets is that it gets to let someone vote on this country's future whose primary loyalty is to a difference country altogether. I don't really think that's much of an advantage. Now practically speaking, the U.S. and Australia are unlikely to have many divergent interests, but that's true of a distinct minority of other nations vis a vis the U.S.. At some point, just about everyone else lines up against us at some point. With whom does a person of dual citizenship side then?

This may be a mind-blowing concept to you, FLOW, but I don't have a "primary loyalty" to any government. You're assuming that all people are nationalists and completely defined by a single country. News flash - they're not. I have a dual citizenship, and I don't feel a burning patriotic fervor towards any of my countries (Greece and U.S.). I've already said this before.

This is like saying "all Iranian-Americans with dual citizenships must be secret supporters of the Iranian government." Even if they're in the U.S. because they escaped that government.

[karaddin]

Nobody is saying you shouldn't live here. It's the citizenship that's the issue. And without trying to be snarky, it sounds to me like the only "advantage" the U.S. gets is that it gets to let someone vote on this country's future whose primary loyalty is to a difference country altogether. I don't really think that's much of an advantage. Now practically speaking, the U.S. and Australia are unlikely to have many divergent interests, but that's true of a distinct minority of other nations vis a vis the U.S.. At some point, just about everyone else lines up against us at some point. With whom does a person of dual citizenship side then?

I would expect that after I have been living here for some time my primary loyalty will have changed somewhat, however my self identification as an Australian won't. If I had to choose between them I would end up conflicted and on the whole less loyal to the US than I suspect I will end up by being able to be both. That's what I was trying to get at.

And Insert Edit is right, with the barriers to legal immigration that the US has it's not surprising that there are so many illegal immigrants. That said I've heard multiple times that Australia is worse, but we have this big natural wall around us called the Ocean that makes it a lot harder to get there illegally.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

I´d hope people would actually think about the issues instead of blindly support their country, but that´s probably still far far away.

[tzanth]

Nobody is saying you shouldn't live here. It's the citizenship that's the issue. And without trying to be snarky, it sounds to me like the only "advantage" the U.S. gets is that it gets to let someone vote on this country's future whose primary loyalty is to a difference country altogether.

Um, how about the fact that us dual citizens pay taxes, contribute to the US economy, do all sorts of research, and act in a generally amiable manner? Seriously, I'm still waiting to find out what exactly the US would gain from revoking my citizenship due to my horrible swedishness.

With whom does a person of dual citizenship side then?

How about the side that they agree with the most? What ever happened to rational decision making?

[Lord of Oop North]

Ok, I give up. FLoW caught me. I'm secretly a member of the fifth column that is fervently working to topple the Prime Minister and his Federal terrorist cabinet and hand Canada over to the Republic as part of the new Ultramar Portugues. Multiculturalism has failed because it has allowed thousands upon thousands of young Portuguese men to infiltrate extremely sensitive positions such as 'douchebag-club-goer' or 'low-paid manual labourer' or 'obnoxious small car driver with loud stereo'! You cannot stop us!!! You fools will have caused your own demise!!!!

I shall forever side with my once-glorious homeland! To arms, to arms!