BREAKING NEWS: The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism!

[RaleighRally]

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2219/nether...lticulturalism

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.
A new integration bill (covering letter and 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: "The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. "

Of the four most progressive countries in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) TWO have now officially abandoned "American" multiculturalism. Are you surprised that the Dutch and Danes are no longer in favor of the dream society of American liberals? No more affirmative actions for colored people. No more special subsidies for Muslim immigrants. Everybody will have the same rights and obligations. Doesn't it sound a bit fascist? Can we allow the majority to determine the direction of our societies? Isn't that just pure populism?

But polls show that a majority of Dutch voters support the government's skepticism about multiculturalism. According to a Maurice de Hond poll published by the center-right newspaper Trouw on June 19, 74 percent of Dutch voters say immigrants should conform to Dutch values. Moreover, 83 percent of those polled support a ban on burqas in public spaces.

This news is not available in the Swedish media. Wonder why...

[Sitnam]

Who said immigrants shouldn't conform to the values of their host nation?

This strawman is giving the one at Burning Man a run for it's money.

[Grey]

American multiculturalism??

[Jonathan Chance]

I must have missed a memo somewhere along the way. How is 'multiculturalism' a product of American liberals? And how is multiculturalism a means of having 'two separate cultures' instead of one culture that respects all within a larger framework.

Hell, we tried that 'separate' thing here in the US in the south a while back. It didn't hold up to prevailing constitutional beliefs and was struck down.

In short, your argument, sir or madam, is a farce.

[Sam Stone]

Multiculturalism very much encourages separation of cultures within a host country. As a Canadian, I grew up having it beaten into my head that Canada was a 'cultural mosaic', where immigrants were encouraged to maintain their own cultures and values, whereas the inferior Americans were a 'melting pot' where people who immigrated were expected to put American values and cultural norms ahead of those of their old country.

Thus in Canada you can be charged with a 'hate crime' for criticizing another culture, and there is a movement to allow parallel sharia law courts, and RCMP officers from the Sikh community can wear turbans instead of traditional RCMP headgear. In school here, great emphasis is placed on 'diversity' and on respecting other cultures equally and tolerating the existence of those cultures within the country.

This works okay in Canada, because Canada is geographically isolated from most countries immigrants come from, and most immigrants here have a certain amount of education and the wherewithal to get here in the first place. We tend to get the best people from other countries.

It isn't working so well in Europe, where many of those countries are picking up the unemployed and uneducated people from other countries, then allowing them to exist within their borders as cultural outsiders so they remain unemployable and where they then become militant and demand that their own cultural norms be accommodated, even if they conflict with the cultural norms of the host country. This is creating a lot of tension - especially in the Netherlands where their 'live and let live' attitude has resulted in a large population of immigrants who are quite intolerant and opposed to the very values that allowed them to emigrate there in the first place.

I always thought multiculturalism was nuts when carried out to the extreme of setting up exemptions to a country's laws or tolerating cultural expression that conflicts with the norms of the country. If my country values the rights of women, then I don't give a damn if some immigrants believe women should be subjugated. If you come to my country, you accept my rules. If you don't like it, go home. I have no problem with you maintaining your own culture so long as it doesn't conflict with the values of my country, but I expect you to be a Canadian first and respect Canadian law and Canadian cultural institutions.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The Institute states that in the Qur'an, the Islamic prophet Muhammad "curses the Jews and turns them into pigs and monkeys." It also accuses the Qur'an of teaching Muslims to not befriend Jews or Christians.[7]

It was described by US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as “closely associated with neoconservatives”.[8] The Hudson Institute has in turn published articles critical of Mearsheimer[9] and Walt.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_...licy_positions

Got any other cites?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Grey

American multiculturalism??

The OP thinks that American liberals somehow forced "cultural Marxism" on Sweden.

[hansel]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

there is a movement to allow parallel sharia law courts,

Cite?

[Sam Stone]

Sharia Law in Canada, Almost

BBC: Will Sharia Come to Canada?

[Grey]

Seriously, Sam, the RCMP/Sikh issue? Really? That's one of your big "Fuck you Canadian Traditions!!"? What did you do when the OPP switched to stetsons?

I think the OP would be better served if he called what has happened in some European countries what it really is - ghettoization.

The Sharia issue popped up a few years back in Ontario when faith based arbitration was introduced. Ontario Attorney General

Nothing in Ontario law prevents people from turning to a religious official or someone knowledgeable in the principles of their religion to help them resolve their family dispute.

However, if that person made a decision based on religious principles, the decision would not be a valid family arbitration award under the law. Both spouses could comply with the decision voluntarily, but the decision would not be enforceable if one of the people involved took it to court. The court may only enforce awards made in arbitration conducted exclusively under Canadian law.

A religious official can conduct a family arbitration under Ontario law if that person is properly qualified to do so. To be qualified one has to have completed the required training and otherwise conduct the arbitration under the statutes and regulations. An award from such an arbitration would then be enforceable like any other arbitration.

Currently this means I'm being force to pilgrimage to Mecca this weekend so I may not be able to post later.

[Sam Stone]

All I did was point out the turban issue as one way in which we have created a 'cultural mosaic' instead of a melting pot. I didn't editorialize about it at all.

And I said that there was a movement to bring Sharia Law to Canada, and there was.

[Aqua regis]

Off topic perhaps, but as a reader of Trouw, I feel obliged to point out it isn't really center-right.

[RaleighRally]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Got any other cites?

Yup, it will be hard for you to discredit these:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...t_go_donne.php

Dutch society and its values must take precedence and integration policy should go, home affairs minister Piet Hein Donner told parliament on Thursday evening during the presentation of his integration bill.

Donner spoke of a 'change of direction' in which the government 'will distance itself from the relativism contained in the model of a multicultural society'. Society changes, he said, but must not be 'interchangeable with any other form of society', according to press reports.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/mi...end-themselves

Minister Donner wants to put an end to policies for target groups. No more special treatment for Antilleans, Turks, Moroccans and other minorities. This cabinet thinks it’s up to migrants themselves to become useful members of society.
**snip**
The government no longer believes it’s its duty to help migrants to integrate into society. As a result, the cabinet is distancing itself from the multicultural society as we know it.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Sharia Law in Canada, Almost

BBC: Will Sharia Come to Canada?

From your link:

Family faith-based tribunals had been set up by Catholic and Jewish communities following the passing of the province's Arbitration Act in 1991.

The act was an attempt to deal with a backlog of court cases. It enabled groups to use the guiding principles of their faith to help settle disputes over divorce, inheritance and custody.

I'm curious why people felt it was ok for Christians and Jews to settle disputes outside the court system but not Muslims? What on earth might cause them to make that distinction?
From the CBC:

Several groups that appeared before Boyd's process of reviewing the Arbitration Act say it's not Shariah law they want to set up but a Muslim Personal/Family Law process which has its roots in Shariah.

The arbitration process as set out in the Arbitration Act is voluntary. Most of the concerns about the creation of "Shariah" tribunals have focused on the fear that Muslim women may feel they are being forced into taking part in a process of binding arbitration according to Muslim family law instead of resolving their disputes through the court system.

In her report, former Ontario attorney general Marion Boyd stressed that any faith-based system would have to conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(The bolding above is mine.)

So, if I understand correctly, participation in this was voluntary on the part of both parties AND it was fine with everyone as long as Catholics and Jews did it but suddenly it was a problem when Muslims wanted to do the same.

Again, I wonder why that might be? Darned if I have a clue. *scratching head in puzzlement*

[straight man]

Damnit, internet swallowed my post.

There was a reasonable objection to Sharia arbitration, expressed by (among other people) one of my Muslim Canadian friends. It could/should apply to the Jewish arbitration, and conceivably the Catholic arbitration as well. Roughly: if Sharia arbitration is permitted, then there will be massive social pressures on some women to accede to it. Hence, their participation will be non-voluntary, potentially creating a legal avenue for discrimination against women. Hence, it is best to simply not permit Shariah arbitration at all.

Really, accepting immigrants from other cultures is always going to raise some tensions between pluralism and basic rights. Four points, though: 1. This tension exists even without immigrants (for example with the Jehovah's Witnesses or the FLDS in Canada); 2. This tension often reduces itself over subsequent generations (as with many Muslim Canadians); 3. This tension is a perfectly worthwhile cost to pay for getting the best and brightest of other countries as new citizens; and 4. There's a big gap between serious issues of rights (like the Sharia arbitration question) and purely symbolic stuff (like letting Sikh Mounties keep their turbans), although some issues fall in between (like wearing kirpans in schools).

[hansel]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

And I said that there was a movement to bring Sharia Law to Canada, and there was.

No, there wasn't. There was a one-off issue to allow Muslims access to a religious arbitration system that paralleled the Jewish and Catholic systems that already existed, with regard to some matters of civil law. As a result, the Jewish and Catholic systems were eliminated, and the issue hasn't come back. It was not "a movement to bring Sharia law to Canada": Sharia law as a whole was not proposed, and it was in Ontario, not Canada wide, and it effectively eliminated all religious paths. Your presentation is disingenuously general.

[sqweels]

Originally Posted by straight man

Roughly: if Sharia arbitration is permitted, then there will be massive social pressures on some women to accede to it. Hence, their participation will be non-voluntary, potentially creating a legal avenue for discrimination against women.

Whose idea was it that women shouldn't be discriminated against in the first place?

[straight man]

Originally Posted by sqweels

Whose idea was it that women shouldn't be discriminated against in the first place?

I'm not getting your point. Would you please enunciate it more clearly?

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

Yup, it will be hard for you to discredit these:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...t_go_donne.php

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/mi...end-themselves

It will, on the other hand, be fairly easy to discredit you. You said that the Netherlands has abandoned multiculturalism. Yet the articles that you link to only say that one politician has done so and has proposed a law to that effect. That's a lot different from what you're claiming.

In addition, Jonathan Chance asked you in post #4 why you're claiming that this constitutes a rejection of "American multiculturalism" and "the dream of American liberals", when nothing in any of these articles has anything do with the United States are American liberals. I note that you did not answer his question. I'm curious about exactly the same thing and I hope that you'll provide an answer.

[RaleighRally]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

Hell, we tried that 'separate' thing here in the US in the south a while back. It didn't hold up to prevailing constitutional beliefs and was struck down.

I agree with you that "the separate thing" is too much. But the same thing can be said about "Affirmative action" that was part of the multicultural package introduced by American liberals in the 60s. The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States. It first appeared in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961

American liberals also introduced the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which contrasted the Immigration Act of 1924 in one respect: Immigration should be allowed from all over the world in vast numbers and make the US a truly multicultural society(Hooray!). A few years later they lobbied in the UN for a legislative that would be very fateful for Sweden. The hordes of the third world that always have a reason to flee should be granted asylum in Sweden, the world's leading welfare state.

[RaleighRally]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

It will, on the other hand, be fairly easy to discredit you. You said that the Netherlands has abandoned multiculturalism. Yet the articles that you link to only say that one politician has done so and has proposed a law to that effect. That's a lot different from what you're claiming.

He speaks for the entire government. It could not be clearer.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

I agree with you that "the separate thing" is too much. But the same thing can be said about "Affirmative action" that was part of the multicultural package introduced by American liberals in the 60s. The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States. It first appeared in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961

American liberals also introduced the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which contrasted the Immigration Act of 1924 in one respect: Immigration should be allowed from all over the world in vast numbers and make the US a truly multicultural society(Hooray!). A few years later they lobbied in the UN for a legislative that would be very fateful for Sweden. The hordes of the third world that always have a reason to flee should be granted asylum in Sweden, the world's leading welfare state.

And yet, Geert Wilders says that their immigration policy needs to be more like America's. The one after 1965.

[Wakinyan]

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

[url]Of the four most progressive countries in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) TWO have now officially abandoned "American" multiculturalism.

Hi, Swedish guy here. You seem not to understand how the word "multiculturalism" is used in Europe; it is not perceived as an "American" model, but exclusively European.

There's a growing realisation that "multikulti" has not worked out very well in Europe, where immigrants, often refugees without jobs, without knowing the language in the new country, without much prospects, are grouped into certain areas where they are supposed to have their own culture unaltered. This often causes alienation and sociological problems because they never get integrated; you get societies within the society where kids growing up have very little chance and often no will to get a regular job and learn the language, becoming part of the larger society (this is simplified of course). The multikulti model has failed, according to Angela Merkel and others; it simply does not work very well. In Denmark (who's immigration politics I do not agree with) there is even talk about to literally demolish such neighbourhoods supposedly to force integration...!

The "American model" by contrast, is perceived as the successful one -- the "melting pot", where people go to America and become Americans. So if you are of non-American heritage, you soon identify yourself as an American. Not so with multikulti -- you are still [this-or-that] living in, say, Sweden. As time goes by there is no mutual respect or interest, and as everyone can imagine, the society-within-the-society has its own rules which do not necessarily comply with the ethics and even the law of the larger society. This leads to all kind of problems.

So the European countries you are talking about, are not abandoning "American multiculturalism", but "European multiculturalism".

This news is not available in the Swedish media. Wonder why...

Are you implying something by this, and if so, would you like tell us instead of using smilies.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2219/nether...lticulturalism

Of the four most progressive countries in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) TWO have now officially abandoned "American" multiculturalism. Are you surprised that the Dutch and Danes are no longer in favor of the dream society of American liberals? No more affirmative actions for colored people. No more special subsidies for Muslim immigrants. Everybody will have the same rights and obligations. Doesn't it sound a bit fascist? Can we allow the majority to determine the direction of our societies? Isn't that just pure populism?

This news is not available in the Swedish media. Wonder why...

This is not surprising. When you have former EU commissioners suggesting it is no longer safe for Jewish people in Holland something has to change.

"I see no future for recognizable Jews, in particular because of anti-Semitism, specifically in Dutch Moroccans, who continue to grow in number," Bolkestein reportedly said.

The former politician added that the many Arab television channels in the Netherlands contribute to the spread of anti-Semitism. He said he has no confidence in proposed measures to combat anti-Jewish sentiment.

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jew...aspx?id=198382

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

Are you implying something by this, and if so, would you like tell us instead of using smilies.

I think he's implying that the Swedish media are overwhelmingly in favor of promoting multiculturalism & immigration while downplaying or ignoring any downsides.

According to a recent survey 87% of journalists in Swedish television are liberal, leftist or socialist...

This article could not possibly be written in a major Swedish Newspaper in the current intellectual atmosphere. The liberal New York Times is way too honest about the problems caused by non-western immigration to Sweden.

You have to admire America as effectively more democratic than conformist Sweden, where a small group of like minded people decide what facts the public can be trusted to handle.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/20...migration.html

[Wakinyan]

Originally Posted by Chen019

I think he's implying that the Swedish media are overwhelmingly in favor of promoting multiculturalism & immigration while downplaying or ignoring any downsides.

Ok, thanks! -- While Sweden is perhaps the most politically correct nation on earth, there is some truth to this, but the issue as such is discussed in the media; not the least after the Angela Merkel announcement.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

Are you implying something by this, and if so, would you like tell us instead of using smilies.

He thinks the Swedish media is censoring the Truth. From the other thread:

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

Did you know that ALL major newspapers and TV channels in Sweden actively opposed the Sweden Democrats? On election day, both Aftonbladet and Expressen showed a big appeal on their front page urging the Swedes NOT to vote on SD. SD's commercial was not allowed to be shown on TV. Not really a fair and democratic election. By the way, Arnold Antoni is not a member of parliament, but Michael Aastrup Jensen, a member of the Danish Parliament for the Liberal Party, says this:
“None of the established parties and none of the established media in Sweden like to discuss it because they feel like it is not politically correct,” said Jensen. “There is a ‘blanket’ drawn all over the Swedish media. This should be a wake-up call to all the other parties.” http://rt.com/politics/swedish-elect...n-controversy/

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

As a Western Cultural supremacist I rejoice at this news. Our civilization should aim for complete westernization of the world.

[Wakinyan]

Thanks, Der Trihs, I should have figured. The Swedish Democrats is a populistic/nationalistic party with a history of nazi flirtation, though recently they remodeled themself to get some votes.

Below is a link the political commercial the OP is talking about in the quote you provided. The story in the commercial is that Sweden's financial situation is desperate (it is actually rock solid), and yet Sweden is spending all her money on muslim immigrants instead of supporting Swedish seniors, which is obviously nonsense (and the vast majority of immigrants to Sweden are christians, by the way). Even though you don't understand the language, the stupidity is universal: Link.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

Thanks, Der Trihs, I should have figured. The Swedish Democrats is a populistic/nationalistic party with a history of nazi flirtation, though recently they remodeled themself to get some votes.

Below is a link the political commercial the OP is talking about in the quote you provided. The story in the commercial is that Sweden's financial situation is desperate (it is actually rock solid), and yet Sweden is spending all her money on muslim immigrants instead of supporting Swedish seniors, which is obviously nonsense (and the vast majority of immigrants to Sweden are christians, by the way). Even though you don't understand the language, the stupidity is universal: Link.

Despite its past (by that logic we must condemn the Democrats for their Dixiecrat past) the Swedish Democrat's included many immigrants (including Chaldean Christains) in its ranks.

[Wakinyan]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Despite its past (by that logic we must condemn the Democrats for their Dixiecrat past) the Swedish Democrat's included many immigrants (including Chaldean Christains) in its ranks.

So...?

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

Thanks, Der Trihs, I should have figured. The Swedish Democrats is a populistic/nationalistic party with a history of nazi flirtation, though recently they remodeled themself to get some votes.

Below is a link the political commercial the OP is talking about in the quote you provided. The story in the commercial is that Sweden's financial situation is desperate (it is actually rock solid), and yet Sweden is spending all her money on muslim immigrants instead of supporting Swedish seniors, which is obviously nonsense (and the vast majority of immigrants to Sweden are christians, by the way). Even though you don't understand the language, the stupidity is universal: Link.

The basic point is a valid one. Places like Sweden have strong welfare systems. If you change the balance of dependents/tax payers too much by changing the demographics it may upset the system.

Many non-western immigrants take full advantage of all the generous benefits, and some cheat if they can. This behavior has forced the Scandinavians to make social insurance payments less generous for everybody, and to introduce harsher controls. The unintended consequence is that a 55 year old Swedish working class women with health problems cannot get early retirement as easily as she could in 1985, because the system has become less trusting to everyone due to abuse.

[Wakinyan]

Originally Posted by Chen019

The basic point is a valid one.

The "basic point" -- what "basic point"?

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

The "basic point" -- what "basic point"?

That the Swedish social welfare model (any social welfare model) is not going to be sustainable with large scale low skill immigration. Even less so if the groups are not culturally compatible. Milton Friedman pointed this out about 20 years ago.

[Wakinyan]

But then how come Sweden has pretty much the best financial situation in Europe right now? -- And the blog you quoted, that's just somebody talking out of his hat. The immigration in Sweden is not without problems, certainly, but don't give me this tired old crap.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

But then how come Sweden has pretty much the best financial situation in Europe right now? -- And the blog you quoted, that's just somebody talking out of his hat. The immigration in Sweden is not without problems, certainly, but don't give me this tired old crap.

He's referring to the impacts in the longer run if the demographics change so you increase the proportion of non-working adults. What are the mathematical effects of continually adding to the denominator while keeping the numerator constant or growing at a far smaller rate than the denominator?

What are the effects of adding net tax recipients to a system where the net tax contributors grow at a slower rate?

What happens to income inequality when the floor keeps getting lowered by the importation of poverty? The usual response is to call for more confiscation from those in the higher income quintiles. As the numerator holds constant and the denominator continues to grow over the years, with the added people who comprise the denominator disproportionately filling out the lowest income quintiles, the redistribution effect gets diluted and the calls for even more expansive redistribution grow stronger. The effect is akin to a rowboat with a hole in it needing to be bailed while on a journey across the lake as the occupants of the row boat purposely make the hole larger and larger, thus necessitating ever more vigorous bailing.

Importation of poverty is not a rational policy choice.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

So...?

I was correcting the implied statement that the Swedish Democrats consist of lunatic neo-Nazis and those of that ilk.

[Wakinyan]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I was correcting the implied statement that the Swedish Democrats consist of lunatic neo-Nazis and those of that ilk.

I made no "implied statement" of the kind. If there were any factual errors in my post, please point them out.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

Of the four most progressive countries in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) TWO have now officially abandoned "American" multiculturalism.

Wait, when did any country in Europe ever adopt "American" multiculturalism? When did they ever look to American models for their immigration policy or whatever?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

I made no "implied statement" of the kind. If there were any factual errors in my post, please point them out.

Okay, sorry.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I'm a little curious as why the OP, who IIRC is Swedish and lives in that country, is citing a right wing American think tank. According to the Wikipedia article, on a scale of 1 to 8 ranging from left to right respectively, the Hudson Institute ranks 7. I'm trying to look at the Dutch government's "covering letter", as the Hudson writer puts it, but for some reason Starbucks' wi-fi isn't allowing me to pull up any of the links in the article.

I thought it's been several years since The Netherlands set forth a policy of encouraging immigrants to integrate into the prevailing Dutch culture, among other things requiring newcomers to learn Dutch, and advising them to stay away if they could not reconcile themselves to the free-ranging cultural environment of the country. Today's statement seems to be little more than a reconfirming of that statement.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

I must have missed a memo somewhere along the way. How is 'multiculturalism' a product of American liberals? And how is multiculturalism a means of having 'two separate cultures' instead of one culture that respects all within a larger framework.

Hell, we tried that 'separate' thing here in the US in the south a while back. It didn't hold up to prevailing constitutional beliefs and was struck down.

In short, your argument, sir or madam, is a farce.

Canada has "two separate cultures" . . . permanently . . . and despite the occasional Gallic fussing, it works amazingly, at least seen from down here; against all odds, there does seem to be a Canadian national identity that transcends the divide. Not saying that's a model for all to copy, only that anyone who tries to scare us with the prospect should bear in mind that that is the shape of the boogeyman.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Wait, when did any country in Europe ever adopt "American" multiculturalism? When did they ever look to American models for their immigration policy or whatever?

It was forced on them by us evil American Marxists:

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

Political correctness was not invented in Sweden. It was indirectly imposed on Sweden and all other countries of the western world by their almighty leader, USA. Political correctness is a very clever construct. If you oppose it, you will be stigmatized in the classic Marxist way, well known to political dissidents of former Soviet Union.

[Wakinyan]

Originally Posted by Chen019

He's referring to the impacts in the longer run if the demographics change so you increase the proportion of non-working adults. What are the mathematical effects of continually adding to the denominator while keeping the numerator constant or growing at a far smaller rate than the denominator?

What are the effects of adding net tax recipients to a system where the net tax contributors grow at a slower rate?

What happens to income inequality when the floor keeps getting lowered by the importation of poverty? The usual response is to call for more confiscation from those in the higher income quintiles. As the numerator holds constant and the denominator continues to grow over the years, with the added people who comprise the denominator disproportionately filling out the lowest income quintiles, the redistribution effect gets diluted and the calls for even more expansive redistribution grow stronger. The effect is akin to a rowboat with a hole in it needing to be bailed while on a journey across the lake as the occupants of the row boat purposely make the hole larger and larger, thus necessitating ever more vigorous bailing.

Importation of poverty is not a rational policy choice.

If this was true, and if it was as simple, Sweden would have gone down the drain a long time ago; for decades Sweden has been extremely generous to immigrants, from the early '70 and still is. But instead, Sweden is going like a freight train. And with a population growing older and older, Sweden will probably thanks to its immigration do much much better than for instance Finland, who has virtually none. But naturally this demands that immigrants get work, and that is the great challange. -- Personally I think that Sweden needs to limit the numbers right now, simply because of the risks you are describing; I recognize the risks. But that is one thing, what the Swedish Democrats or the bloke with the blog quoted to earlier, is fundamentally another.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Wakinyan

The "basic point" -- what "basic point"?

"Brown people are bad"; this is Chen019.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

As a Canadian, I grew up having it beaten into my head that Canada was a 'cultural mosaic', where immigrants were encouraged to maintain their own cultures and values, whereas the inferior Americans were a 'melting pot' where people who immigrated were expected to put American values and cultural norms ahead of those of their old country.

Thus in Canada you can be charged with a 'hate crime' for criticizing another culture, and there is a movement to allow parallel sharia law courts, and RCMP officers from the Sikh community can wear turbans instead of traditional RCMP headgear.
...
I have no problem with you maintaining your own culture so long as it doesn't conflict with the values of my country, but I expect you to be a Canadian first and respect Canadian law and Canadian cultural institutions.

So you may not have intended it Sam but you threw out the RCMP/Sikh issue (resolved 21 years ago) as a failure of multiculturalism.

What is highlights in my opinion is the exact opposite. It's an example of integration and adaptation of traditions into a new things. The RCMP headgear tradition excluded Canadians from serving. The tradition adapted, became more inclusive and we moved on. This strikes me a substantially different from the European experience where it seems to have been built around either segregating groups or excluding them due to tradition and the weight of history.

From a high level you could say America opted for assimilation, Europe for segregation and Canada for adaptation.

And the sharia law issue was hashed out years ago as a simple expansion of faith-based arbitration. The Sharia panic was a post 9/11 over reaction wrapped inside a concern for "subjected women". Instead of wailing over Sharia law creeping into our lives we'd be better off debating the validity of free agents agreeing to arbitration within a religious framework or whether or not the state has any place in that discussion out side the rights all citizens have as Canadians.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

... and there is a movement to allow parallel sharia law courts

Complete nonsense.

In any event "multiculturalism" as practised in Canada is dramatically different from what some European countries have been trying.

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

As a Western Cultural supremacist I rejoice at this news. Our civilization should aim for complete westernization of the world.

Good luck with that lad, the path you want to go down. Hey, aren't you a little bit too much Korean?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

Good luck with that lad, the path you want to go down. Hey, aren't you a little bit too much Korean?

No biology does not matter.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

No biology does not matter.

A viewpoint that conflicts with being a "Western Cultural supremacist". Among other things, that means hating everyone who isn't a white male Christian.