Christians finally smashing the idol of Multiculturalism

[Jipsah]

I answered your questions. We do not have open borders.

Arrived at by redefining what "open borders" means.

But many of those that do get in illegally are doing tremendous good for Americans.

And a good many of those entering illegally are simply criminals, either fleeing the law in their home countries or operating criminal enterprises here.

 

[Jipsah]

Do you think African/Middle-eastern ethnic groups in the UK, Germany, etc. are currently showing a strong ability to assimilate?

By and large they're not even interested.

Yes, there is no doubt that an immigrant has the potential to assimilate, especially if they are grow up in the host western culture and surrounded by it, and this has happened many times, and I know some of these individuals.

By my observation (and I've observed a lot of it), East Asians assimilate remarkably well into European cultures. Sometimes a lot more quickly than their elders would like. My full-Korean cousins of my generation generally speak Korean after a fashion and are comfortable with "old country" customs. The next generation speaks Korean poorly if at all, and endures Korean courtesies but isn't really comfortable with them. Their young 'uns are basically Asian-looking white Americans. They fit the description of the old joke - they're white folks who can do math.

I've seen that same pattern in immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa here in Tennessee. They tend, by my observation, to become culturally more like white Americans than African Americans. A good thing? Depends on one's perspective, I suppose. I tend to think that when in Rome it's probably the best practice do as the Romans do as long as it isn't immoral or self destructive.

What about the 'mass' immigration situation though, where foreign ethnic groups are instead forming ethnic enclaves and carrying their culture with them? (As is undoubtedly the actual situation in western Europe)

Seems like if you come to my house, simple courtesy requires that you respect the day things are done in my home. If you can't or won't do that, then why are you here?

Should have, but is not. The UK authorities are showing much more concern with the "racism" of UK natives pointing out the ethnic component to this problem.

One of my football mates in London got cut up pretty badly in a terrorist outrage. After he got out of hospital he found himself the object of police scrutiny because he publicly made unkind remarks about what he thought of the people who'd tried to kill him (and who had succeeded in killing several innocents that day). He was jailed more than once, and required to go through what were essentially "reeducation" classes to cure him of the"racist" and "bigoted" opinions of the folks who'd simply stabbed him a few times.

 

[Yarddog]

Arrived at by redefining what "open borders" means.

Incorrect. I used the exact meaning. The only country that I know with open borders is the Vatican.

And a good many of those entering illegally are simply criminals, either fleeing the law in their home countries or operating criminal enterprises here.

Some are criminals but the vast majority are not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yea... this is a "sin" of a different religion than Christianity.

Ok. Well, I wasn't clear earlier on the exact context. I was thinking only in terms of those of us here in the U.S. who are Christian and are deliberating over whether or not it is moral to block out Haitian immigrants.

 

[lifepsyop]

Ok. Well, I wasn't clear earlier on the exact context. I was thinking only in terms of those of us here in the U.S. who are Christian and are deliberating over whether or not it is moral to block out Haitian immigrants.

In that case it is probably a sin for you personally to not host Haitian immigrants in your own home, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In that case it is probably a sin for you personally to not host Haitian immigrants in your own home, right?

Ok. I can see that you guys aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. You're drawing false inferences from seeing false implications in what it is that you think I've so far said.

What does "It's a sin to bar all immigrants" mean to you?

Do you think this also necessarily implies that we have to let "all" immigrants in? The answer is: it doesn't imply this.

 

[lifepsyop]

Ok. I can see that you guys aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. You're drawing false inferences from seeing false implications in what it is that you think I've so far said.

What does "It's a sin to bar all immigrants" mean to you?

Do you think this also necessarily implies that we have to let "all" immigrants in? The answer is: it doesn't imply this.

Because you're not being clear.

If it's a sin to not accept at least some third-world migrants into the country, isn't it also a sin to not accept at least some third-world migrants into your personal home and living space?

(*edit: and to clarify, we are talking about permanent living space, not a temporary visit)

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the difference for me.

 

[lifepsyop]

I am trying to describe the problem in the most concise way possible...

Compare these two scenarios:



------------------
A. Post-WW2 western nations become saturated with degenerate practices like atheism, no-fault divorce, usury, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, transgender propaganda, pornography, crime, etc...

Postwar Consensus Christianity's response: "Oh well... people are people... the world is a fallen place... we just have to spread the Gospel and change people's hearts!"

vs.

B. Western nations desire to preserve traditional Pre-WW2 majority culture and ethnicity by reducing or halting mass immigration from non-western countries.

Postwar Consensus Christianity's response: "You are an evil racist sinner! You are cast out! You have no place in polite society! Repent!"
------------------



This is why many people conclude that a de facto new religion rose to power after WW2, when the values of the "Open Society" were established as the foundation of what makes people good or bad. Traditional concepts of Sin were largely abandoned...

and yet we still get Fire and Brimstone type of preaching whenever a westerner suggests that it's bad for 20,000 Haitians to move into their town.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because you're not being clear.

If it's a sin to not accept at least some third-world migrants into the country, isn't it also a sin to not accept at least some third-world migrants into your personal home and living space?

There are different modes, methods and ways to provide for the needs of immigrants. Besides, even if I am of the mind to do so, that doesn't mean my fellow family members are good with that too, and I have to keep in mind their welfare (both mental and physical) in mind too as a priority.

(*edit: and to clarify, we are talking about permanent living space, not a temporary visit)

Right. I understand that.

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the difference for me.

Ok. The simple point of clarification here is that I see no reason not to employ similar, but more modernly assessed, legal parameters regarding immigration into the U.S. which mirror those of Old Testament Israel.

Yeah. It's a "Shocker," I know.

I would also recommend the reading of the following book, or other books like it, to synthesize with the essential clarification I just mentioned above:

Hicks, Douglas A., and Mark R. Valeri. Global neighbors: Christian faith and moral obligation in today's economy. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008.​

 

[lifepsyop]

There are different modes, methods and ways to provide for the needs of immigrants. Besides, even if I am of the mind to do so, that doesn't mean my fellow family members are good with that too, and I have to keep in mind their welfare (both mental and physical) in mind too as a priority.

So you would agree that immigrants should only be allowed in if they have a family or household who wants to sponsor them and share resources with them? I don't have a problem with that.

Surely you would not want to take the social welfare resources allocated for our native poor population and redirect it towards foreign populations. We need to keep the mental and physical welfare of our own people as a priority over outsiders, right?

Ok. The simple point of clarification here is that I see no reason not to employ similar, but more modernly assessed, legal parameters regarding immigration into the U.S. which mirror those of Old Testament Israel.

Yeah. It's a "Shocker," I know.

But Old Testament Israel was a total theocracy. They were commanded to welcome the foreigner and treat them with respect, and yet there would have been zero tolerance if those foreigners began erecting pagan idols or spreading pagan practices within their midst.

Can we then agree that we can accept immigrants only as long as they put away any worship of false gods?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you would agree that immigrants should only be allowed in if they have a family or household who wants to sponsor them and share resources with them? I don't have a problem with that.

No, that's not what I was indicating. I'm more general and broad in my thinking on it.

First of all, "getting in" should me far more legally and procedurally stringent than it already is. But since in the U.S. we are a democratically and diversely oriented republic, my own notions of what requirements should be in place will never be instituted.

Surely you would not want to take the social welfare resources allocated for our native poor population and redirect it towards foreign populations. We need to keep the mental and physical welfare of our own people as a priority over outsiders, right?

Right. I don't think it's a Christian ideal to be ultra-liberal where resources are allocated and needed. Loving "the stranger" can't mean sacrificing one's own family or community in order to do so.

But Old Testament Israel was a total theocracy. They were commanded to welcome the foreigner and treat them with respect, and yet there would have been zero tolerance if those foreigners began erecting pagan idols or spreading pagan practices within their midst.

Right. Old Testament Israel was a total theocracy, which is why my earlier mentioning of it was highly qualified. In other words, the Old Testament, in reflection of all that Jesus, Himself, said about social responsibility, is to be used by today's Christian as a "guideline" for how to think about secular politics involving immigration.

The problem is that secularists altogether reject the notion of bringing in Old Testament concepts by which to delineate legal definitions. And I think they do that to our own demise.

Can we then agree that we can accept immigrants only as long as they put away any worship of false gods?

Yes, most definitely! As a Christians, I don't think we are to take simply anyone and everyone "à la carte" across the border, without exception. And my saying this has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity, but rather solely with ideals.

 

[lifepsyop]

First of all, "getting in" should me far more legally and procedurally stringent than it already is. But since in the U.S. we are a democratically and diversely oriented republic, my own notions of what requirements should be in place will never be instituted.

And mass immigration will continue to make it more diverse, so that you have less and less a chance of putting any kind of sensible restrictions in place.

Right. I don't think it's a Christian ideal to be ultra-liberal where resources are allocated and needed. Loving "the stranger" can't mean sacrificing one's own family or community in order to do so.

Exactly. And absent a perfect utopia with unlimited resources, mass-immigration will always mean sacrificing the poor communities already here.
The best we can hope for is to put our own house in order so that we may better help other nations, in their own nations.

Right. Old Testament Israel was a total theocracy, which is why my earlier mentioning of it was highly qualified. In other words, the Old Testament, in reflection of all that Jesus, Himself, said about social responsibility, is to be used by today's Christian as a "guideline" for how to think about secular politics involving immigration.

The problem is that secularists altogether reject the notion of bringing in Old Testament concepts by which to delineate legal definitions. And I think they do that to our own demise.

Not only secularists, but much of mainline postwar Christianity who are some of the biggest champions of mass immigration.

Yes, most definitely! As a Christians, I don't think we are to take simply anyone and everyone "à la carte" across the border, without exception.

I agree, though sadly it is postwar Christians who champion religious pluralism and would recoil in horror at the prospect of only inviting in other converted Christians.

And my saying this has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity, but rather solely with ideals.

I see some flawed reasoning here, as ideals themselves are generated within ethnic groups. You can't so easily separate them.

The ideals of western nations for example are the result of several centuries of living together within the ideological tradition of Christendom. It is only within the last century that these traditions have begun to be abandoned as westerners celebrate more and more "diversity" of the postwar consensus.

Much of the world never shared those ideals because they have lived within ethnic groups that did not practice such traditions. So it's a little absurd to say that ethnicity has nothing to do with it, when it actually has a lot to do with it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And mass immigration will continue to make it more diverse, so that you have less and less a chance of putting any kind of sensible restrictions in place.

Yes.

Exactly. And absent a perfect utopia with unlimited resources, mass-immigration will always mean sacrificing the poor communities already here.
The best we can hope for is to put our own house in order so that we may better help other nations, in their own nations.

More or less, yes.

Not only secularists, but much of mainline postwar Christianity who are some of the biggest champions of mass immigration.

To some extent, you're right.

I agree, though sadly it is postwar Christians who champion religious pluralism and would recoil in horror at the prospect of only inviting in other converted Christians.

I don't think we can easily designate how "postwar Christians" think across the board, and it's probably best not to assume too much.

I see some flawed reasoning here, as ideals themselves are generated within ethnic groups. You can't so easily separate them.

The ideals of western nations for example are the result of several centuries of living together within the ideological tradition of Christendom. It is only within the last century that these traditions have begun to be abandoned as westerners celebrate more and more "diversity" of the postwar consensus.

Much of the world never shared those ideals because they have lived within ethnic groups that did not practice such traditions. So it's a little absurd to say that ethnicity has nothing to do with it, when it actually has a lot to do with it.

What you've said about ideals is generally true, and I agree with you that ideals themselves can be, even if they not always are, generated within ethnic groups alone. Some values and ideals become historically trans-cultural (by which, like you, I'm referring to the general international transfusion of the Christian Tradition, which goes beyond ethnicity and culturally relative "truths").

Let me add something for clarification, because I think you're reading into what I'm saying too much and drawing a false inference: When I mentioned ethnicity, I did so for the sake of those who are liberal here who may read what I've said and then, like you, draw a false inference, and by that false inference insist that I am making my evaluations as I do because I'm somehow "racist."

No, when I say that allowances for immigration should not be "à la carte," I want to make the firm delineation that the choice among diverse qualities of possible immigrants has nothing to do with whether they are red, or yellow, black or white, since they are ALL precious in His sight.

Here's the thing: despite your and my preference for the Christian faith, we're not going to be able to take an eraser, however much we'd like too, to all the things that were penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

 

[timothyu]

The world is tribal. When anyone moves to a new tribe, they cannot expect to bring the ways of their old tribe with them that are not similar or beneficial to the new tribe. Look at how many times the Hebrew people were scattered and taken as slaves. some were forced labour, while others attained high places in the administration of their new homes. While habits that would have been detrimental to their new homes was not allowed, their culture was. They lived in Egypt for instance as their own self sustaining community. It is not clear whether they were as accommodating when back in their promised land but it appears not so.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm feeling that most of us have said what we intend to say in this discussion, and now we're starting to repeat ourselves. I'll address a couple of loose threads, but then I'll probably step away from the discussion soon.

1. Is the US my personal private property?

Is it morally wrong to stop someone who desires it to enter one's home? Do you believe in private property? Do communities have no right to determine who belongs and who doesn't?

This is a flawed analogy. My nation, my state, my town, and my neighborhood are public spaces, in a way that my house is not. My house is my own personal private property, and I get to say who lives there. My state, town, and neighborhood are public spaces (containing privately-owned spaces, but the state/town/neighborhood itself is public). A person can enter my state, town, and neighborhood without showing any kind of credentials, and they are allowed to buy or rent a house in my state/town/neighborhood regardless of their ethnicity or nationality.

The nation is somewhere in between. It's a public space with a regulated border. You have to show credentials at the Canada/US border, but not at the NY/NJ border.

As to what's practical, and what's morally right, I have some thoughts below.

2. Immigration and ethnicity

And do you live in a predominantly "white" area by any chance?

It's interesting that you ask the question in this way. My neighbors who are first-generation immigrants from Ukraine and Germany and England are "white". Most of my African-American neighbors are from families whose ancestors arrived in the US 300-400 years ago, so they're definitely not immigrants.

Is your focus on immigrants, or on non-white people?

To answer the literal question in your post, here's a graphic from Wikipedia about the demographics of my state:

(Source: New Jersey - Wikipedia )

3. Preserving American culture

B. Western nations desire to preserve traditional Pre-WW2 majority culture and ethnicity by reducing or halting mass immigration from non-western countries.

Preserving American culture is (mostly) a good thing, and the desire to preserve it is sensible.

Preserving American ethnicity is something else. I'm not sure exactly what American ethnicity is, as we've had many waves of immigration over time. And historically there have been attempts to preserve purity of ethnicity that were really bad.

(I'm not in a position to say what it means to preserve culture and ethnicity in European countries, so I'll let members of those countries speak for themselves.)

4. Sensible approaches to immigration

Immigration is a complicated issue. We've put together a pretty good culture here in the US (not perfect, still needs improvement, but more good than bad), and that's worth preserving. Our culture is a tapestry made from the threads of the many cultures of origin of the people who came to North America. I envision adding new threads to the tapestry in a way that enhances (but doesn't overwhelm) the overall picture.

What that comes to, in terms of immigration legislation, is challenging to work out. Note that there's a great deal of space between "Let everybody in" and "Don't let anyone in unless they're European Protestants". Somewhere in that middle space is a satisfactory immigration policy.

I do reject a few solutions. I reject the solution of excluding everyone from country X. I reject the solution of excluding everyone with brown skin. I reject the solution of excluding everyone who practices religion Y. I reject the solution of excluding everyone who is non-religious.

But there can be other ways to craft immigration policy, to explore that middle space between "everybody" and "nobody". And we have historical precedent for people from multiple parts of the world being able to craft a community that works.

 

[timothyu]

Perhaps people like to point out the 'riff-raff' coming across the borders to distract from the fact that we as first world nations have done an amazing job of producing outstanding 'riff-raff' of our own on all levels. We just prefer to give it another face.

 

[seeking.IAM]

First of all, "getting in" should me far more legally and procedurally stringent than it already is.

I believe quite the opposite. I think there would be less illegal immigration if there was a smoother and less costly pathway to legal immigration. I think most Americans don't understand or have experience with how complex, difficult, time consuming, and costly legal immigration can be. If that is not enough, our processing system is also horribly backed-up with pending legal applications that can take years to lead to a decision.

 

[timothyu]

If that is not enough, our processing system is also horribly backed-up with pending legal applications that can take years to lead to a decision.

How many await that decision while in the country already? How many may be found fit, while others reek havoc, either by way of original cultural ethics, or by joining into established criminal elements of the new land? Is the problem the people or the increasingly corroded system once built upon sound ethics and principles that immigrants of all kinds adhered to, except of course for those who were rebellious and tribal no matter where they roamed, building their little criminal empires as a result, empires now firmly enmeshed in society. It seems people seemed to believe the ethics presented in fairy tales of movies and tv back in the day before reality set in and both media did a flip, presenting the opposite side. Regardless, the more what is called evil becomes a part of society in whatever new form it may take, the end result as history shows is always the same. Ruin. Just another civilization failing to be replaced by another heading to the same fate. It's who we are. Blind leading the blind with false wisdom born of man.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe quite the opposite. I think there would be less illegal immigration if there was a smoother and less costly pathway to legal immigration. I think most Americans don't understand or have experience with how complex, difficult, time consuming, and costly legal immigration can be. If that is not enough, our processing system is also horribly backed-up with pending legal applications that can take years to lead to a decision.

Ok.

 

[HantsUK]

The ideals of western nations for example are the result of several centuries of living together within the ideological tradition of Christendom. It is only within the last century that these traditions have begun to be abandoned as westerners celebrate more and more "diversity" of the postwar consensus.

Don't you mean 'fighting against each other'? You forget that during the past few centuries Western European Christian countires have been at war numerious times.

Reminder: the Second World War, the First World War, Crimean war, Napoleonic Wars, Anglo-Spanish war, and many more.

Within countries there have been numerous civil wars and fighting. Just one example: the English Civil War. Or more recently, 'The Troubles' (sorry, that's two examples).

Travel around the coast of Britian and you will see reminders of these conflicts.