Isn't Multiculturalism Wonderful...

[Starlight]

Are you studying your Quran? Did you buy a prayer rug yet? It is only a matter of time...

I've never read a Quran. There is a Mosque about a 10 minute bike ride from my house though, which I have never been to. There is a Buddhist center that's closer, which I should get round to finding out more about their meditation lessons because I enjoy meditation. I have a yoga mat, if that counts as a prayer rug?

What is it a 'matter of time' until? The NZ population is becoming non-religious at a rate of about 1 percentage point per year, and around 50% of people currently report 'no religion' on the census. If current trends continue, nobody in the country will be religious in 50 years. Very high immigration is currently diminishing that trend slightly, but those immigrant's kids will grow up to be non-religious themselves so I don't see that it matters.

The Muslims here seem relatively liberal and tolerant, though I don't know any personally. The one Muslim member of parliament abstained on the same-sex marriage vote a few years ago, commenting that he was personally in favor but that his religious community wouldn't be happy with him if he voted for it. We've never had any kind of terrorist attack.

As you may know from my other posts here, I personally strongly support tightening up on immigration. But I say that as someone who lives in the country with the highest immigration rate in the world relative to existing population. Whereas I think America can and should increase its immigration rate, which is relatively low, and the US particularly has a moral responsibility to accept a decent proportion of the Syrian refugees that it itself has played a major role in causing in the first place.

[Darth Executor]

As you may know from my other posts here, I personally strongly support tightening up on immigration. But I say that as someone who lives in the country with the highest immigration rate in the world relative to existing population. Whereas I think America can and should increase its immigration rate, which is relatively low

US foreign born population is 15% (official, which is probably much lower than the actual numbers), just how much higher do you think it should be? Nevermind that most of NZ's immigrants, until very recently, were just other anglos.

[Starlight]

US foreign born population is 15% (official, which is probably much lower than the actual numbers), just how much higher do you think it should be?

Notably the US had that same level of immigration from 1860-1920.

In NZ foreign-born population is currently over 25%. The US would have to take another ~35 million foreign immigrants to reach current NZ levels. So the US could take 1 million Syrian refugees like Germany, no trouble.

The US could take in the entire population of Syria (18.5 million) and still be far short of the NZ foreign-born percentage. There's a lot of land in Texas. Cow Poke's area would be good for them.

[demi-conservative]

As you may know from my other posts here, I personally strongly support tightening up on immigration. But I say that as someone who lives in the country with the highest immigration rate in the world relative to existing population.

Remember when I said progs will only go against 'OPEN BORDERS' when it gets too bad? I rest my case, mr anti-kiwiland-immigration prog.

But of course, prog Starlight says immigration for other countries should still happen!! (At heart he's still prog who supports 'OPEN BORDERS', just not in backyard of his!!!)

[Darth Executor]

Notably the US had that same level of immigration from 1860-1920.

In NZ foreign-born population is currently over 25%. The US would have to take another ~35 million foreign immigrants to reach current NZ levels. So the US could take 1 million Syrian refugees like Germany, no trouble.

The US could take in the entire population of Syria (18.5 million) and still be far short of the NZ foreign-born percentage. There's a lot of land in Texas. Cow Poke's area would be good for them.

There's nothing that says NZ level of immigration is optimal (both sound insane to me). Especially since NZ doesn't also have tens of millions of already poorly integrated minorities to begin with.

And again, most of NZ's immigrant population is British with a heavy doze of australian anglos and South African anglos. Given that NZ is just a former British colony it's like comparing apples and oranges.

[Tassman]

There's nothing that says NZ level of immigration is optimal (both sound insane to me). Especially since NZ doesn't also have tens of millions of already poorly integrated minorities to begin with.

And again, most of NZ's immigrant population is British with a heavy doze of australian anglos and South African anglos. Given that NZ is just a former British colony it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Um, the USA is a former British colony too, only more decent when it come to recognising human suffering.

[Starlight]

Um, the USA is a former British colony too, only more decent when it come to recognising human suffering.

I don't think second part of that sentence was quite how you meant it, lol.

I read an interesting book (Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies: New Zealand and the United States) written by an American professor, who, when he was over here in NZ, was amazed at what was and what wasn't said during the elections here. He traced it back to the fact that when the British were settling the colonies, they brought with them the European political philosophical ideas that were current at the time. When America was being settled, the French Revolution and the question of freedom was the major topic in Europe, and America has been absolutely obsessed with the concept of "freedom" every since and politicians of all parties use that keyword regularly during political campaigns.

Whereas when NZ was being settled, democracy had become well-established in Europe, and there was never any doubt that NZ would become a self-governing democracy, so everyone here has always taken "freedom" for granted, because of course there would be freedom (on the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index, NZ ranks as the 3rd most-free country in the world, while the US ranks 23rd). By this point in time, in Europe, the focus had moved from "should we have democracies and freedom?" (answer: obviously) to "what are the optimal political policies those democracies should enact, and what principles should govern those decisions?" (answer: fairness). So right from the beginning of NZ's colonization, the keyword "fairness" was a major theme in politics, as the thinking was that democratic political policies should be fair to everyone. And to this day the ideas of "ensuring equal opportunity for all" and that every gets a "fair go at life" and ensuring "fairness" in all laws and political dealings occupy a huge space in NZ political discussions. The US professor who wrote the book was shocked at how all throughout the elections here the word "fair" was in the mouths of all politicians when he'd expected the word "freedom" to be.

Very much inherent in the very concept of "fairness" and concern for it, is a concern for the poor and needy and suffering, that is simply absent from the concept of "freedom". In a strictly "free" society, the poor can be free to die on the streets without food or homes or healthcare. In a fair society, that can't happen.

[Tassman]

I don't think second part of that sentence was quite how you meant it, lol.

I read an interesting book (Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies: New Zealand and the United States) written by an American professor, who, when he was over here in NZ, was amazed at what was and what wasn't said during the elections here. He traced it back to the fact that when the British were settling the colonies, they brought with them the European political philosophical ideas that were current at the time. When America was being settled, the French Revolution and the question of freedom was the major topic in Europe, and America has been absolutely obsessed with the concept of "freedom" every since and politicians of all parties use that keyword regularly during political campaigns.

Whereas when NZ was being settled, democracy had become well-established in Europe, and there was never any doubt that NZ would become a self-governing democracy, so everyone here has always taken "freedom" for granted, because of course there would be freedom (on the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index, NZ ranks as the 3rd most-free country in the world, while the US ranks 23rd). By this point in time, in Europe, the focus had moved from "should we have democracies and freedom?" (answer: obviously) to "what are the optimal political policies those democracies should enact, and what principles should govern those decisions?" (answer: fairness). So right from the beginning of NZ's colonization, the keyword "fairness" was a major theme in politics, as the thinking was that democratic political policies should be fair to everyone. And to this day the ideas of "ensuring equal opportunity for all" and that every gets a "fair go at life" and ensuring "fairness" in all laws and political dealings occupy a huge space in NZ political discussions. The US professor who wrote the book was shocked at how all throughout the elections here the word "fair" was in the mouths of all politicians when he'd expected the word "freedom" to be.

Very much inherent in the very concept of "fairness" and concern for it, is a concern for the poor and needy and suffering, that is simply absent from the concept of "freedom". In a strictly "free" society, the poor can be free to die on the streets without food or homes or healthcare. In a fair society, that can't happen.

and alleviating,

[Roy]

One should care more about those of their nationality than people on the other side of the planet.

Why?

Because it's a practical but acceptable equivalent to racism.

[tabibito]

and alleviating,

The pollies and press are having a fair whack at it though ... they don't get quite such a free rein with it now as they used to - social media is giving people a broader information base and a chance to have a say.

[Sparko]

Don't go for simplifications. I talk to people everyday who are happy (given the situation) that they have the option to stay in another country. I am not denying that some feel different.

ask them if they would have liked to stay in their country instead of HAVING to move?

Sure they are grateful they could move away from the problems in their country. Who wouldn't be? but you can bet your behind that they would have rather stayed in their country and NOT have had to move because of war or rebels or terrorists.

The solution is not to just let ISIS take over the middle east and move out everyone who doesn't like it. The solution is to stop ISIS.

[seer]

The solution is to stop ISIS.

Yep...

[Jin-roh]

Because it's a practical but acceptable equivalent to racism.

Yeah... you see that's the thing.

It's one thing to love your nationality, or family, etc more than 'people on the other side of the planet.' We all have a more natural empathetic response to people who look like us, sound like us, speak the same accent as us, share the same culture as us. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with that kind of unconscious response.

When terrorists bombed France, I felt it more than when terrorists bomb areas in the middle east around the same time. I think most Americans did, as France is our oldest ally.

It's another thing to take this natural response, and prescribe that kind of thinking at the expense of others. That's when it becomes toxic, racist, • Edited by a Moderator •, and eventually xenophobia.

The lives of the people in the middle east are not less valuable than the lives of people in Paris.

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Edited for profanity. Please review the Campus rules.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Charles]

ask them if they would have liked to stay in their country instead of HAVING to move?

Sure they are grateful they could move away from the problems in their country. Who wouldn't be? but you can bet your behind that they would have rather stayed in their country and NOT have had to move because of war or rebels or terrorists.

The solution is not to just let ISIS take over the middle east and move out everyone who doesn't like it. The solution is to stop ISIS.

Now apart from ISIS there is another big problem called Assad. It is also his bombs, torture and killing, they are trying to escape.

Of course they would have rather stayed if it was not for ISIS and Assad. Never said the opposite. It is just a reality that does not exist, so it changes nothing.

[Sparko]

Now apart from ISIS there is another big problem called Assad. It is also his bombs, torture and killing, they are trying to escape.

Of course they would have rather stayed if it was not for ISIS and Assad. Never said the opposite. It is just a reality that does not exist, so it changes nothing.

You asked, I answered. If we do nothing, ISIS takes over the middle east and then moves on to terrorize the rest of the world, and already are. They are coming in with the immigrants, as can be seen at the events happening around the world. So since we have to do something anyway, we might as well go all the way and stop them by whatever means it takes. So just taking in immigrants and turning a blind eye to the cause does nothing but gives ISIS what they want: The land they want and an easy way to get into the west to wreak more havoc.