Immigrants ought to fully assimilate culturally for the good of the host country

Rebuttals Interactions with other cultures " It [interaction with other cultures] not "inevitable"; we are arguing whether it should happen!!" No, we are arguing whether full cultural assimilation should occur within a particular country. In the modern-day globalized world, interaction with other cultures is inevitable. In 2009, for example, around 10% of the American population (around 30 million) traveled overseas, 85.4% for leisure and 21.2% for business (with some travelling for both) [1]. Meanwhile, in 2013, around 70 million tourists visited the United States [2]. And of course, this is not taking in account interaction with other cultures through the use of the Internet. It is doubtful whether any modern-day resident of a First World country would never interact with another culture, even if full cultural assimilation were to occur on a nation-wide scale. As I mentioned, I do not claim that interaction with a different culture is identical to living with one. However, as again I stated previously, living with another culture is conducive towards interacting with another culture. This will be expanded on later in the "Natural racism?" section. "Whether opinions differ within cultures is irrelevant to whether they differ against different cultures." It is, in fact, relevant. Full assimilation is superfluous if differing opinions within a culture may be just as diverse as between cultures. Given the difficulty that would be involved with forcing immigrants to fully assimilate culturally, it would be positive for the host country to avoid it if possible. (For example, residential schools for Aboriginals in Canada that went on for decades still did not succeed in fully assimilating all Aboriginals. [3]) Natural racism? Pro claims that due there being a strong correlation between people dividing based on ethnic and/or linguistic differences, that racism is natural. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence. To begin with, it has been found that the large majority of genes are employed in "responding to environmental signals." [4]. In other words, the environment plays a large role in what we do: if we are taught not to be intolerant, we will be much more likely to not be intolerant than if we were not. It was found, for example, that the amygdalas (associated with emotion, specifically the detection of threats) of those who had racially diverse peers reacted less than those who didn't. [5] Furthermore, there is often more genetic variation within so-called 'races' than outside of them [6] [7]. There is more genetic diversity in Africa, who are all supposedly part of the 'black' race, than outside of it [8]. Humans may possibly be naturally mistrusting of others, but it can be clearly mitigated through education. It is positive for the host country to have more tolerant citizens, given the inevitable foreign interaction mentioned above. As well, countries in the modern-day rely on imports and exports to grow and remain strong, and if that interaction is harmed through unchecked xenophobia, it's harmful for the country. Certainly, people could be simply taught that racism and xenophobia is bad, but the effects are weak against actively living with those of different cultures and learning through experience. Correlation There is always some amount of uncertainty involved with correlations, meaning that it is incorrect to claim that something is definitely causing another. I accept that it is likely , however, and recognize that there is evidence. I have already conceded that people often prefer people of the same culture, but it is irrelevant to the rest of my argument. Bilingualism "Fewer to what degree?" It is impossible to predict to what degree without actively implementing the program in itself, but judging from the bilinguality of Canada compared to America as mentioned in the previous round, it can be presumed that it would have a fair positive effect. "Users from foreign countries" = potential immigrants; this has everything to do with the debate. No, it does not. Pro fails to take in account that immigrants, once immersed in English culture, improve their English significantly according to her very source as mentioned in the previous round, meaning that the English proficiency skills prior to this point cannot be claimed to be identical to the English proficiency skills of immigrants. "This is another time my opponent has lied about what her sources say." I did not put the phrase "clearly outweigh them" in quotation marks because it was not a direct quotation. The source states, in full: "The cognitive and neurological benefits of bilingualism extend from early childhood to old age as the brain more efficiently processes information and staves off cognitive decline. What"s more, the attention and aging benefits discussed above aren"t exclusive to people who were raised bilingual; they are also seen in people who learn a second language later in life.The enriched cognitive control that comes along with bilingual experience represents just one of the advantages that bilingual people enjoy. Despite certain linguistic limitations that have been observed in bilinguals (e.g., increased naming difficulty), bilingualism has been associated with improved metalinguistic awareness (the ability to recognize language as a system that can be manipulated and explored), as well as with better memory, visual-spatial skills, and even creativity. Furthermore, beyond these cognitive and neurological advantages, there are also valuable social benefits that come from being bilingual, among them the ability to explore a culture through its native tongue or talk to someone with whom you might otherwise never be able to communicate. The cognitive, neural, and social advantages observed in bilingual people highlight the need to consider how bilingualism shapes the activity and the architecture of the brain, and ultimately how language is represented in the human mind, especially since the majority of speakers in the world experience life through more than one language." [9] Stating that the numerous positive effects of bilingualism outweigh the negative effects is a simple conclusion from examining the number of positive effects as compared to the negative ones, and the general tone of the writer. Should I state that my opponent has lied above her sources as well, because she states that "most foreign learners of English know around 2,500-9000 [words]"? Nowhere on her sources is it claimed that this is so. It is said that "they've found" that the most common vocabulary size for foreign learners is that. It is a clear lie to claim that most foreign learners of English know that much, especially since on their very site they point out that their analysis is limited [10]. Making conclusions from information provided in sources is not unreasonable. Re-rebuttals Foreign interaction "You cannot make people non-racist." Addressed in the section "Natural racism?". "... the negatives [of bilingualism] are discussed earlier..." Addressed in the section "This is another time my opponent has lied about what her sources say." Full forced assimilation " Aboriginal people of different countries were invaded by other people who did not fully assimilate!" The point of the example was to show how full cultural assimilation can be borne of the idea of cultural imperialism. Furthermore, as stated in Round 1, I do not argue that that no assimilation is necessary, but that full assimilation is not. The example of Aboriginals and Europeans simply supports my point that at least some amount of assimilation is necessary, and it cannot be claimed that full assimilation would have been better in the long run over partial assimilation on the part of the Europeans. "Racism is a biological product, addressed under "Racism". Addressed in "Natural racism?". Academic Success "Besides, a country could adopt a mono-culture without having to import East-Asians..." Certainly, but changes in culture take time: just look at how long it took for interracial marriages, to give an example, to be accepted within American society [11]. East-Asians already have that culture, which means that they immediately contribute. Natural divisions Race =/= culture but Pro has not shown that whether people of different races assimilating into a single culture will remove or significantly reduce racism. If it does not, the assimilation of people of different races into a single culture is superfluous. In conclusion... This world is globalized, and so foreign interaction is inevitable. Although tensions due to different cultures is unavoidable, it is important to mitigate them to ease foreign interaction. Living diversely can mitigate those tensions. [1] http://travel.trade.gov... [2] http://skift.com... [3] http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca... [4] http://www.discoversociety.org... [5] http://www.theatlantic.com... [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [7] http://www.quora.com... [8] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [10] http://testyourvocab.com... [11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...