It's the culture
I have on several occasions noted that the really important thing about mass immigration is not whatever economic impact it might have, but its cultural impact. No culture can survive long periods of mass immigration: ask the North American Indians, or the Maori, or the Romans circa 300 AD.
In any case, The American Conservative has an excellent piece up on how mass immigration is affecting England. An excerpt:
"The keys, then, to England’s successful, if very limited, history of immigration were the small scale and gradual pace of entry; a confident, well-defined, and long-established national culture; and the ability and willingness of the newcomers to integrate fully into that culture."
And even multiculturalists admit what I am saying: 'British multiculturalist Bikhu Parekh concludes quite reasonably, given that mass immigration of itself destroys cultural consensus, "it is not clear what immigrants are to be assimilated into."'
In any case, The American Conservative has an excellent piece up on how mass immigration is affecting England. An excerpt:
"The keys, then, to England’s successful, if very limited, history of immigration were the small scale and gradual pace of entry; a confident, well-defined, and long-established national culture; and the ability and willingness of the newcomers to integrate fully into that culture."
And even multiculturalists admit what I am saying: 'British multiculturalist Bikhu Parekh concludes quite reasonably, given that mass immigration of itself destroys cultural consensus, "it is not clear what immigrants are to be assimilated into."'
Also relevant that all the multicultural empires were authoritarian empires. The Mongol Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ummayad Caliphate, and so on.
ReplyDeleteSomehow, when we see successful liberal democracies, they were all tiny homogeneous countries when they became liberal democracies - Japan, Netherlands, Austria, Scandinavia,.etc.
I have a friend who considers himself a "moderate" conservative but who insists on mass unrestricted open immigration. The one thing that is not is moderate.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to agree. However, the United States does seem to be a fairly large counter-example.
ReplyDeleteBecause our culture is holding together so well in the Trump era?!
DeleteAside from Gene's comment, you miss "when they became"? The country was much more homogeneous in its ruling class and amongst those with a say. Not quite so large a counter example as you might think.
DeleteAmerica had lots of immigration throughout the 19th century, and yet the culture remained distinctively American.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think the New Deal would have passed if all those statist Irish and Italians hadn't arrived?
DeleteI'm not sure. Was American culture destroyed by the New Deal?
DeleteOne aspect of it was!
DeleteRome had lots of immigration over 5 or 6 centuries before the destruction was far along. These things don't happen in a year!
If it takes 600 years for A to cause B I have to wonder if A was really the cause.
DeleteI would note that other countries that didn't have lots of immigration in the 19th century also developed welfare states. Arguably America's ethnic diversity impeded the growth of the welfare state here on net.