by throwawayqqq11 | 2025-09-25 15:18:07+00:00
Hmmm. I don’t know, should I zoom out and recap this conversation, to eventually tune out, because it think we start to run in circles, or should I chew my way bite for bite through your statements.

I’ll start to briefly correct the most glaring and important statements first. Let’s see how long I can last.

> And for the topic at hand, what it shows is that immigration does contribute, but it also takes away.

>> There is also no debate about the positive effects of immigration on economies. Trust me, not even the tiniest debate.

> The positives are the talking point of the EU and mainstream media.

No, this is not just some media/political narrative, its scientific consensus across continents. This is my strongest argument. I said, there is no debate to have here and framing it as a biased narrative is, what right wingers in their crusade against reality do. Sorry, but that’s how it is.

https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=immigration+economic+impact

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=immigration+economic+co...

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/13/8/213

Pick any source. It’s hard to not see it.

> Any society is built on unwritten moral or ethical principles, I really hope you're not truly this naïve that you don't understand that. There are so many things you can't explicitly write into law unless you want to make the most authoritarian brutal dictatorship on the planet.

This makes no sense. Some potentially wildly different interpreted unwritten code should never be the basis for any law or social sanctions. This sounds like you don’t understand the core principles of constitutionality and you didn’t consider, that not some vague codex is the basis of any society but the fulfillment of basic needs – that’s the true core of it, anything else is secondary.

The sociological term you are locking for here is social norm (broad, uncodified definition of how to behave), but if you really want to be able to enforce some norm, you turn it into law, otherwise you better keep it unenforcable unless you might “want to make the most authoritarian brutal dictatorship on the planet” where supreme commander trump judges based on his norms.

I should have set up the cultural part the other way around: Not focusing on your argument around differences but on commonalities instead, because any human has many-many more commonalities with any other individual then differences. Tribalistic reasoning makes you focus on those few differences and construct sweeping arguments against “them”. Let me demonstrate and induce maybe a little cognitive dissonance along the way. This is a pieced together statement from two others of yours, which you didn’t state that directly/openly yourself.

> I do not want Norway to become a muslim-majority state, because I don’t want the unwritten moral law of not speaking loudly on the phone while riding a bus being violated.

Sounds weird, doesn’t it? Because “you” are tying plain antisocial behavior to an ethnicity/religion while ignoring that there no strict causal relationship.

This is how your entire cultural stuff sounds to me.

> There's quite a lot of unemployed immigrants. [...], I don't think you can claim xenophobia or racism.

Yes you can. If you would swing your magic wand to make all racism disappear in all human minds, you would still have racism. Sounds oxymoronic but it’s true. It’s called systemic racism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism ) and comes from the fact, that we are no more discriminating directly by racial traits but indirectly through other discriminators like vocabulary, grades, household income, social milieu, etc., which was negatively impacted by racial discrimination in the past. You can see it pretty good in the USA, where there is much less active racism against black people and they are formally equal to whites but there is still discrimination that effects them more then others. And ofc white racist pointing at statistics, thinking they have found the hard proof, with crime rates and prison inhabitants. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it. You need to be careful with statistics about outliers and mono causal explanations.

Ok, I’ll stop here. Let me recap and end on a positive note.

> Why do you assume immigrants are no less of a challenge [… that native] born [...] are as much of a strain as entirely foreign ones?

I didn’t say that immigration is frictionless but that it has to be addressed wisely, long term and proactively and to achieve that, we need to have a different conversation about that topic and we are so-so far away from anything like it.

When you see it from a distance, migrants don’t take away from you, they are not forcing their inferiour culture onto you and they are not prepositioned to cause harm. The problems you see are real but not exclusive to them.

Remember how this conversation started. I said something like “left and right” can’t really talk together and now I have difficulties to end this on a positive note, because I feel like this went nowhere.

> all you have to do is to slowly increase the population of muslims until you get enough support to implement Islamic law as part of a country's law.

Even if there where immigration quotas, strong integration guidance from institutions and the most important part, good living perspectives (social mobility) for migrants and natives alike? When you look at it from a distance, you can actually see it.