What implication does spiral dynamics have for immigration policy?

[Infinity16]

Immigration is one of the many points of contention between stage blue and stages orange and green. Now the main point of contention is that according to those in stage blue, migrants from poor countries cannot integrate into the cultures of rich countries. Stage green does not believe this.

As we all might figure, poorer countries tend to be at lower stages with most being at stage blue or even red or purple (red and purple lead to rampant government corruption). We already know of the tendency for immigrants to form enclaves so as to be surrounded by those who share their culture. People in stage blue also complain that migrants bring crime which is a stage red behavior (the extent to which this is true vs which is unsubstantiated rumors is not known).

To the credit of stage green, it's actually better at dealing with red and purple people than blue is with diversity being considered to be a virtue. However, tolerance does get called into question whenever the subject turns towards anything that clashes with green values such as forced marriage, honor killings, and FGM.

[Daniel Balan]

The response to this question requires a lot of nuance and we shall avoid over simplification. In my eyes, stage blue's approach is very narrow-minded, they don't hate migrants for being violent, they hate them for diluting their culture. Stage blue is also viciously violent and the people from their in-group commit murder and rape among their own people, so blue is more concerned about the loss of traditions and culture rather than violence. 

My personal stance on immigration is that we shouldn't shy away from allowing immigrants, but I'd only allow immigrants that have a squeaky clean criminal record, that have job expertise, that are coming legally etc. But as soon as one immigrant commits any kind of violent crime, even if he steals money from someone's pocket, that person should get kicked forever out of the country together with his family. Also I wouldn't allow too many of them because at some point they start to form big communities that clash with the locals. For example if a country has 20 million people, I'd never allow more than 2 million of immigrants. Also I'd never take refugees, those only wreck havoc and destroy societies. Only skilled workers and squeaky clean criminal record people and only in moderation. 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

2 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

But as soon as one immigrant commits any kind of violent crime, even if he steals money from someone's pocket, that person should get kicked forever out of the country together with his family.

Other than this statement, I completely agree with your take, I believe everyone should be prosecuted equally and justly, according to the crime they commited, they should be treated as individuals, not looked at as a group. And I believe this is the most important factor of all, the best kinds of people are the ones who put their individuality far above their belonging to a group, to a point where they wouldn't even care or think about that group

[Leo Gura]

The implication is that immigration must be tightly regulated to prevent triggering a stage Blue fascist reactionary backlash.

Gotta humor the fascists to keep them at bay.

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Daniel Balan]

37 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Other than this statement, I completely agree with your take, I believe everyone should be prosecuted equally and justly, according to the crime they commited, they should be treated as individuals, not looked at as a group. And I believe this is the most important factor of all, the best kinds of people are the ones who put their individuality far above their belonging to a group, to a point where they wouldn't even care or think about that group

What you quoted is what I would do to even the natives of a country if I'd be a dictator. I'd deport to Antarctica anyone who ever commits violent crimes. And for those who do murder, I'd propose to hang those in broad daylight at a bridge. No one should pay taxes to feed criminals and murders. If you took someone's life with full intention and will, the person who does this must be unalived ASAP. I think no one would DARE to behave like a devil ever again if my vision would be implemented.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

24 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

What you quoted is what I would do to even the natives of a country if I'd be a dictator. I'd deport to Antarctica anyone who ever commits violent crimes. And for those who do murder, I'd propose to hang those in broad daylight at a bridge. No one should pay taxes to feed criminals and murders. If you took someone's life with full intention and will, the person who does this must be unalived ASAP. I think no one would DARE to behave like a devil ever again if my vision would be implemented.

Now we're getting away from the topic of discussion, there should never be any dictator since that assumes a concept of a society completely trampling over the rights and freedoms of an individual, with all that being said. I think this kind of take lacks empathy and is purely reactionary, it also assumes that you can permanently solve violence with a violence which obviously never works, just take a glance at human history. I think due to nature of this topic, there can never be any satisfying solution, ironically, I prefer the american model of system where they put you in jail with or without parole depending on the crime, but for some serious crimes there is a possibility of death penalty, with the prisoners being on a death row and all that stuff. Honestly, for the sake of ones mental health, it is preferable to not think about this sort of stuff

[Apparition of Jack]

I sometimes wonder if the age of the nation-state is coming to and end, and that we’re entering some sort of new, legalistic-pluralistic age that hasnt yet fully formed.

Remember, the nation-state, where one peoples lives in one self-governing country, is a relatively recent phenomenon, only really coming about during the French Revolution and later at the end of WWI. Before then, most large countries had multiple peoples all living side by side, often of different religions / ethnicities entirely.

Look at say, the Ottoman Empire. It was a state that, before the rise of things like human rights and individual equality, had Orthodox Greeks, Sunni Turks, Sephardi Jews, Druze Arabs etc all living side-by-side in (relative) cooperation and peace. Obviously I don’t want to say that it was some sort of multicultural utopia; throughout its long history there were periods of ethnic oppression, discrimination and violence, but on the whole most of its subject people accepted that their neighbours might speak a different language or follow a different religion, yet they were all part of the same broader “cultural sphere / world” etc.

I honestly think it’s time we rethink nationality, identity, religion etc in a way that accepts that very real cultural differences exist (I highly doubt a progressive lesbian lawyer from NYC is going to see eye-to-eye with a traditionalist Moroccan immigrant), whilst also not undermining the basic human rights and rule of law our modern civilisation is built off. 

What would this look like? I don’t know. I think being openly honest about our differences and disagreements is a good start (and this would require stage Green to accept that you can’t just push hundreds of different cultures into the same room and expect everyone to get along), but also under the intention that we can find common ground and that it is possible for us to have, say, a white Protestant, an Indian Hindu  and a Jewish secularist all live side-by-side in the same city / country / society without us constantly wanting to deport the other and bickering like children, lol.

[koops]

9 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

The response to this question requires a lot of nuance and we shall avoid over simplification. In my eyes, stage blue's approach is very narrow-minded, they don't hate migrants for being violent, they hate them for diluting their culture. Stage blue is also viciously violent and the people from their in-group commit murder and rape among their own people, so blue is more concerned about the loss of traditions and culture rather than violence. 

My personal stance on immigration is that we shouldn't shy away from allowing immigrants, but I'd only allow immigrants that have a squeaky clean criminal record, that have job expertise, that are coming legally etc. But as soon as one immigrant commits any kind of violent crime, even if he steals money from someone's pocket, that person should get kicked forever out of the country together with his family. Also I wouldn't allow too many of them because at some point they start to form big communities that clash with the locals. For example if a country has 20 million people, I'd never allow more than 2 million of immigrants. Also I'd never take refugees, those only wreck havoc and destroy societies. Only skilled workers and squeaky clean criminal record people and only in moderation. 

hahah the second paragraph is exactly what most right wing parties propose.

In fact if you say that to most leftist, they would label you as 'extremist' or 'fascist'

[Basman]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The implication is that immigration must be tightly regulated to prevent triggering a stage Blue fascist reactionary backlash.

Gotta humor the fascists to keep them at bay.

It's also about managing how immigration puts a strain welfare and housing.

Ironically enough, many of the politicians on the right that are against immigration rhetorically themselves actually benefit from immigration as a source of cheap labor. Brexit is a prime example, as migration increased post-Brexit despite the rhetoric. 

Most countries are systems for which unchecked migration is unsustainable without it being deleterious politically.

Edited 6 hours ago by Basman

[Infinity16]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The implication is that immigration must be tightly regulated to prevent triggering a stage Blue fascist reactionary backlash.

Gotta humor the fascists to keep them at bay.

My post isn't about keeping migrants out to keep fascists from winning elections (that would be European politicians). It's about the stages that the migrants themselves are at. Tbh, honor killings and FGM aren't the big concerns because the victims of those tend to be migrant women and girls as opposed to the native Europeans. The bigger concern would be crimes committed by migrants which would come to the detriment of the natives.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Infinity16 said:

My post isn't about keeping migrants out to keep fascists from winning elections (that would be European politicians). It's about the stages that the migrants themselves are at. Tbh, honor killings and FGM aren't the big concerns because the victims of those tend to be migrant women and girls as opposed to the native Europeans. The bigger concern would be crimes committed by migrants which would come to the detriment of the natives.

From the statistics immigranta commit less crime than locals.

You would need to statistically demonstrate the immigrants commit more crime.

The immigration issue is truly about xenophobia. Xenophobia is a serious force. Don't underestimate it. Most humans are xenophobic.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Davino]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Xenophobia is a serious force. Don't underestimate it. Most humans are xenophobic.

It's also very ingrained in both the human psyche and the social matrix. 

I still notice some xenophobic kind of thoughts and prejudices in my mind and always surprised they are still there, kind of like a stain hard to remove.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Davino said:

I still notice some xenophobic kind of thoughts and prejudices in my mind and always surprised they are still there, kind of like a stain hard to remove.

Exactly.

I have it too.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

From the statistics immigranta commit less crime than locals.

You would need to statistically demonstrate the immigrants commit more crime.

The immigration issue is truly about xenophobia. Xenophobia is a serious force. Don't underestimate it. Most humans are xenophobic.

So True.

Btw, what do you think about how many people, including centrists and even some pragmatic progressives blame Biden for the historic level of illegal border crossings during his presidency?

Personally, I feel like he did the best he could to deal with such an unprecedented wave of illegal foreigners desperately trying to get into the country due to the ending of COVID and their own countries having suffered from really bad conditions at the time. Not to mention all of the legal constraints, partisan gridlock in Congress, and lack of infrastructure he didn't until he finally had enough in place to close down the border effectively in the summer of 2024.

Plus, that immigration crisis actually helped save our country from the inflation crisis and gave our entire economy a significant boost.

Edited 6 hours ago by Hardkill

[Twentyfirst]

14 minutes ago, Davino said:

It's also very ingrained in both the human psyche and the social matrix. 

I still notice some xenophobic kind of thoughts and prejudices in my mind and always surprised they are still there, kind of like a stain hard to remove.

Do you have endogamy? Thats the boss level haha

[koops]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

From the statistics immigranta commit less crime than locals.

You would need to statistically demonstrate the immigrants commit more crime.

The immigration issue is truly about xenophobia. Xenophobia is a serious force. Don't underestimate it. Most humans are xenophobic.

Of course its clearly demonstrated

A quick google search is enough to find out.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by koops

[Daniel Balan]

4 hours ago, koops said:

hahah the second paragraph is exactly what most right wing parties propose.

In fact if you say that to most leftist, they would label you as 'extremist' or 'fascist'

The irony is that I view myself actually more to the left than the right, a centrist liberal I'd define myself. 

But I will admit, when it comes to policing and safety, I am dictatorial, fascist and totally extremist in my views. I have no problems with people that have a different color than mine, I treat everyone with respect, but as soon as someone, regarless whether he is a local or immigrant, commits a violent crime, I believe that punishment should be as severe to the extent of the crime commited. Basically an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 

Leftists will say "yea but until the whole world goes blind" this is bullshit, if someone commited a pre meditated murder of somebody, in my eyes that someone's right to live has expired. That murderer must be annihilated.

It is all fun and games until somebody kills you or somebody you hold dear, then all the leftist ideals of "caring for the feelings of murderers", fly out the window. 

I don't care what anybody thinks of what I said here, in my eyes society should punish with the utmost force and determination any acts of violence. 

And regarding to immigrants, I have no problem with them, hell, they could ever replace the natives almost totally, I have no problem with them as long as they are not violent. If you are a muslim or a black person that behaves civil and respectful I'd always be more of a friend to you than a white local countryman of mine that is a violent thug.

Edited 5 hours ago by Daniel Balan

[nerdspeak]

17 minutes ago, koops said:

Of course its clearly demonstrated

A quick google search is enough to find out.

 

 

Leo was talking about the USA, where crime by citizens is much higher and integration into the labor force by immigrants (even illegal immigrants) is very easy.

Europe is very different. Integration in one generation, even two, is almost impossible, and base crime rates are extremely low by US standards. 

Having lived in both I could go on and on. People really underestimate how different the US and Europe are. 

[koops]

11 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

The irony is that I view myself actually more to the left than the right, a centrist liberal I'd define myself. 

But I will admit, when it comes to policing and safety, I am dictatorial, fascist and totally extremist in my views. I have no problems with people that have a different color than mine, I treat everyone with respect, but as soon as someone, regarless whether he is a local or immigrant, commits a violent crime, I believe that punishment should be as severe to the extent of the crime commited. Basically an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 

Leftists will say "yea but until the whole world goes blind" this is bullshit, if someone commited a pre meditated murder of somebody, in my eyes that someone's right to live has expired. That murderer must be annihilated.

It is all fun and games until somebody kills you or somebody you hold dear, then all the leftist ideals of "caring for the feelings of murderers", fly out the window. 

I don't care what anybody thinks of what I said here, in my eyes society should punish with the utmost force and determination any acts of violence. 

And regarding to immigrants, I have no problem with them, hell, they could ever replace the natives almost totally, I have no problem with them as long as they are not violent. If you are a muslim or a black person that behaves civil and respectful I'd always be more of a friend to you than a white local countryman of mine that is a violent thug.

Yeah, the left is totally wrong about immigration. They wont admit that, because admitting that would be accepting the far-right premise.

Its obvious that the numbers of immigration in Europe and the US is getting out of hand.

Some people live in their bubble, but when they travel to some specific cities they realize whats really happening (because they wont accept the data).

I know people that vote for the left but admit that the far right is correct about immigration.

Its not about hate, its about whats best for your country and for your people.
Its about having solid borders, the same way you have them at your home. You invite people in, yes, but there is a solid standard.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, koops said:

Of course its clearly demonstrated

A quick google search is enough to find out.

I am less familiar with the situation in Europe.

I am open to the possibility that immigrants in Europe commit more crime. If that is true then it is an important factor to consider.

But we also have to be careful in not letting that data feed into racist and xenophobic fascistic narratives. Even if immigrants commit more crime there are other positive factors such as immigrants also contributing positively to society in many ways. We have to weigh the negatives with the positives.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura