Immigrant Assimilation

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

Interesting to say the least, although long after the politization process.

The brewing of beer actually seems to be one of the final technological steps before people begin to build monuments. Scientists think that's likely because of the nutritional advantages.

In regard to aboriginals and alcohol....We need to keep in mind that the "whiskey" they were being traded was made up of a lot of things that had nothing to do with whiskey at all. Things like turpentine (and worse) were mixed in. At the same time this systematic poisoning was taking place, oppressive conditions were being created that have led to substance abuse problems throughout history.

The British did indeed have problems with alcoholism, for instance. As more and more people moved into the cities at the beginning of the industrial revolution, the social conditions created led to massive problems. The aristocracy actually outlawed gin because of it for a time. Scotch...the preferred drink of the wealthy...remained legal.

There is also a genetic component to alcoholism and other addictions. It is poorly understood, but from what I've read it is no more prevalent in aboriginal populations than in the rest of the population.

 

[Machjo]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

Sorry, Said. Maybe a misunderstanding between us, and I'm not sure where precicely, so I'll just recap here.

I'd reacted in the last few polls to what I'd read from I can't remember who suggesting that they didn't like 'too much immigration because of the social burden on us, the job market, etc. In response, I'd suggest that if the issue is too the fear that immigrants are somehow 'bumming' off us, or stealing our jobs, or what have you, then let's go back to extreme capitalism initially so as to remove this kind of argument (after all, if there is no government service provide any more, then the anti-'too much immigration' crowd have one less argument there, sinse there would be no services for the immigrants to benefit from anymore. Heck, we could even allow employers to discriminate based on nation of origin if we wanted, just to remove that argument too, that the immigrants are taking our jobs. Besides, what's the difference between the government discriminating based on nation of origin and an individual doing the same thing?

So once we'd have this kind of borderline anarchism, certainly there might be concerns that the rich are getting too rich. At that stage I can understand that some might be concerned for the rich getting richer. If that's teh case, then we could discuss how to solve the problem at that stage, without reverting back to artificial borders again. One option might be for every government to agree to a common tax on the rich, thus not giving them any particular advantage wherever they go. yet seeing that the cost of livin gmight be lower in poorer countires, some might choose to settle there, which would simply help to benefit the economy where it's needed most, and the government which receives their tax money to use that money in their own country. Beyond that, however, everyone would be free to move across borders as they see fit. And if there's too much concersn about us commies, then fine, don't tax the rich! We'd just let it fester until eventually even the right would start to favour taxing the rich, at least a little. So while such a sytem might be socialistic to some degree, you can see that it would be much less so than it is now.

Or of course another option would be to keep things as they are, except to declare universal citizenship. Needless to say that in that scenarion, many would want to come to the wealthier countries, which would naturally cause many of the original inhabitants of the wealthy country to be concerned about the misuse of the social system, which would therefore most likely result in a political shift in favour of scrapping social services anyway. Thus the same initial result as the first scenario, just in a different order. And likewise like the first scenario, after a while there might then be a concern for the rich getting too rich or a lack of services. But this time, social services would most likely be rebuilt around a concept of ensuring thay can be financially sustained even under extreme pressure from a large population desiring to benefit (i.e., lower welfare rates, but perhaps more emphasis on workfare or other practical solutions to get as many people up on their feet as possible.

And if too many people suddenly swarm the wealthier countries, then maybe some would be in favour of transfer payments to the poorer countries so as to 'get those immigrants off our backs'. So in the end, I'm sure this would be a process of breaking down a nationalist system initially, so as to make way for an internationalist one, regardless of whether it's capitalist or socialist or (as is the most likely scenario in the end ) social democrat or some other form of moderate left or centrist system.

Of course I don't expect many here to agree with this idea, and even I can acknowledge a certain idealism behind it, yet I see nothing wrong with a sacrificial vision for Canada, rather than a 'me first' one, as was suggested by the poster who was concerned about immigrants taking our jobs becasue they are willing to work for a lower salary.

 

[Said1]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

Interesting to say the least, although long after the politization process.

The brewing of beer actually seems to be one of the final technological steps before people begin to build monuments. Scientists think that's likely because of the nutritional advantages.

I'll vouch for that. Although I don't like wine, I'm sure it was all the rage too.

In regard to aboriginals and alcohol....We need to keep in mind that the "whiskey" they were being traded was made up of a lot of things that had nothing to do with whiskey at all. Things like turpentine (and worse) were mixed in. At the same time this systematic poisoning was taking place, oppressive conditions were being created that have led to substance abuse problems throughout history.
The British did indeed have problems with alcoholism, for instance. As more and more people moved into the cities at the beginning of the industrial revolution, the social conditions created led to massive problems. The aristocracy actually outlawed gin because of it for a time. Scotch...the preferred drink of the wealthy...remained legal.

There is also a genetic component to alcoholism and other addictions. It is poorly understood, but from what I've read it is no more prevalent in aboriginal populations than in the rest of the population.

No argument here, although I would have to say I think addiction is more environmental than genetic for the most part, in the past and present.

 

[Said1]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

I'd reacted in the last few polls to what I'd read from I can't remember who suggesting that they didn't like 'too much immigration because of the social burden on us, the job market, etc. In response, I'd suggest that if the issue is too the fear that immigrants are somehow 'bumming' off us, or stealing our jobs, or what have you, then let's go back to extreme capitalism initially so as to remove this kind of argument (after all, if there is no government service provide any more, then the anti-'too much immigration' crowd have one less argument there, sinse there would be no services for the immigrants to benefit from anymore. Heck, we could even allow employers to discriminate based on nation of origin if we wanted, just to remove that argument too, that the immigrants are taking our jobs. Besides, what's the difference between the government discriminating based on nation of origin and an individual doing the same thing?

I caught that part, you weren't very clear on a few points, but I did catch that one.

I also said I didn't feel responsible for people who were here illegally or temorarily. I didn' t say anything about too much immigration, since that isn't the situation from where I sit.

So once we'd have this kind of borderline anarchism, certainly there might be concerns that the rich are getting too rich. At that stage I can understand that some might be concerned for the rich getting richer. If that's teh case, then we could discuss how to solve the problem at that stage, without reverting back to artificial borders again. One option might be for every government to agree to a common tax on the rich, thus not giving them any particular advantage wherever they go. yet seeing that the cost of livin gmight be lower in poorer countires, some might choose to settle there, which would simply help to benefit the economy where it's needed most, and the government which receives their tax money to use that money in their own country. Beyond that, however, everyone would be free to move across borders as they see fit. And if there's too much concersn about us commies, then fine, don't tax the rich! We'd just let it fester until eventually even the right would start to favour taxing the rich, at least a little. So while such a sytem might be socialistic to some degree, you can see that it would be much less so than it is now.

Ok, does everyone pay tax, or just the rich?

Or of course another option would be to keep things as they are, except to declare universal citizenship. Needless to say that in that scenarion, many would want to come to the wealthier countries, which would naturally cause many of the original inhabitants of the wealthy country to be concerned about the misuse of the social system, which would therefore most likely result in a political shift in favour of scrapping social services anyway. Thus the same initial result as the first scenario, just in a different order. And likewise like the first scenario, after a while there might then be a concern for the rich getting too rich or a lack of services. But this time, social services would most likely be rebuilt around a concept of ensuring thay can be financially sustained even under extreme pressure from a large population desiring to benefit (i.e., lower welfare rates, but perhaps more emphasis on workfare or other practical solutions to get as many people up on their feet as possible.

And if too many people suddenly swarm the wealthier countries, then maybe some would be in favour of transfer payments to the poorer countries so as to 'get those immigrants off our backs'. So in the end, I'm sure this would be a process of breaking down a nationalist system initially, so as to make way for an internationalist one, regardless of whether it's capitalist or socialist or (as is the most likely scenario in the end ) social democrat or some other form of moderate left or centrist system.

Who's in charge if there are no boarders? Aid programs aren't very successful now, it all depends on the government recieving the funds to dole it out properly, who overseas this, a world body?

Of course I don't expect many here to agree with this idea, and even I can acknowledge a certain idealism behind it, yet I see nothing wrong with a sacrificial vision for Canada, rather than a 'me first' one, as was suggested by the poster who was concerned about immigrants taking our jobs becasue they are willing to work for a lower salary.

Sure it's ideal, but the point of discussion is to pass ideas around, that's why I ask so many questions.

And BTW, your post was much easier to read this time, thanks for the time you put into it!