What are your thoughts on mass immigration and multiculturalism ?
Can mass immigration and multiculturalism work in any nation?
Does its success depend on context of a nation?
My video response below:
More Old Simo YouTube videos here
Mass immigration and multiculturalism can work, but its success will depend nation to nation. We must distinguish between immigration and mass immigration. Massive levels of immigration is the focal point. Furthermore, mass multiculturalism is also the focal point.
Mass multiculturalism is defined as a context that contains a truly diverse mix. Not just different ethnic groups from neighbouring countries within a continent. It would consist of a blend of Anglo Saxons, Europeans, Arabs, Africans, Asians and South Americans.
My contention is only concerned with mass immigration and multiculturalism . I want to offer a different perspective on the topic. At least, a perspective that is not fashionable right now but makes sense.
Mass immigration and multiculturalism is not something that can work in every nation. It works in the following nations: USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
New nations should be the spearhead of mass immigration and multiculturalism. From their colonial beginnings they have been melting pots. Societies built on mass immigration and multiculturalism. It was a necessity in order to build these new nations. Therefore, there has never been one dominant national ethnic identity.
There may not have been assimilation programs in the beginning. However, these nations have grown and accepted more immigrants and refugees from different parts of the world. They have been able to cultivate integration and varying degrees of assimilation via social programs and processes. This has become especially necessary for immigrants that come from third world or colonized nations.
New nations have consistently had degrees of economic need for mass immigration and multiculturalism. It has benefited their societies in many ways. Their structures and foundations are based on it.
Old nations are another matter. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the mass immigration, refugee intake and multiculturalism of European nations. Unlike new nations, European nations are not multicultural melting pots built on mass immigration. Most of them have a predominant ethnic/cultural identity. Nations like Japan or Iran are the same.
There have been times when European nations have sought mass immigration which has created a degree of multiculturalism. Countries were left devastated after two world wars and needed economic boosts and population increase. Nations like France took in millions of people from colonized nations for this reason. There was a need. These needs for mass immigration no longer exist in Europe.
European nations should take in smaller injections of immigration and refugees as they see fit. The European Union has suspiciously taken in millions of refugees from the Middle Eastern conflicts. Angela Merkel claimed it was economic but there is not enough work to go around for these high numbers.
There must be a deeper purpose for this intake, and it’s certainly not humanitarian. Though lingering feelings of colonial guilt may still exist.
The EU forcing high levels of immigration and refugee intake onto nations has been a recipe for disaster. They don’t have the integration and assimilation programs in place due to the lack of need or want for these intakes.
The resentment at having to abide by the rules of the EU creates resentment which lessens any chance of facilitating integration/assimilation. This leads to the segregated cultural and religious communities, which leads to the myriad of social and cultural issues.
Unlike new nations, European nations have a specific national ethnic identity to protect. The EU’s enforced immigration polices have eroded social and ethnic landscapes. Its no wonder that certain nationalist movements pop up. The nationalist movements in new countries have never made sense to me because they don’t have a predominant national ethnic identity to protect.
I don’t buy into the theory that nations like France should accept these mass immigration polices because of past colonialism. Modern day France should not have to suffer due to its colonial history.
France has also contributed to Middle Eastern invasions headed by the US. There are other ways to compensate for the past. France should financially contribute to helping refugees being safely resettled elsewhere.
The allocation of millions of Middle Eastern refugees was extremely suspicious. There have been far too many to make it economically beneficial. Guilt and sympathy may have played a part but globalized agenda is more likely the main reason. What could that agenda be?
I would have allocated the mass majority of Syrian and Middle Eastern refugees to the six Gulf Nations. They have the wealth, land, proximity, and same ethnicity. Despite artificial borders, they are all Arabic.
The majority of Syrian Muslims are Sunnis. Most gulf nations are Sunni majority, with the exception of Bahrain. So there’s a great deal of compatibility overall.
Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar have also supported the Syrian conflict. The US interference has suited their agenda. Therfore they can help out due to their hand in the refugee crisis.
These nations are under international obligation and scrutiny. Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman can be given compensation from the UK, France and Germany for their assistance. They have been involved in the invasions so that’s the price they pay for their involvement.
The remaining minority should have been divided up among new nations who are equipped for this type of intake. Strict vetting would obviously apply. If European nations or any other nation wants to take in a small amount then they should be able to, whether its 28 people or 300 people.
Angela Merkel declared multiculturalism to be an sham in Germany and Europe. “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a life lie or sham” She called it a failure on another occasion. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that the foundations and structure of Europe doesn’t allow for it.
Yet she still persists. You have to ask yourself why….