The Instigator
MultiCulturalism
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Immigration is good for the west

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 752 times Debate No: 73608
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

MultiCulturalism

Pro

I think immigration is a good option because noone wants to do the jobs they do noone wants to run a one dollar store and noone wants to clean our schools
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, MultiCulturalism, for instigating this debate.

Immigration is, overall, a bad idea for any country, let alone the West. Let me show you.



Negation Case


Premise: What is immigration?

The definition I will be using for immigration is: "the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country" [1]. Implicit within the idea of immigration is that:

1) People of different cultures are usually immigrating
2) People of different race are usually immigrating


A1: Cultural diversity creates disunity

I

In his novel, On genetic interests: family, ethny, and humanity in an age of mass migration, Frank Salter argues that “Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism” [2]. Whilst the novel is not solely based upon culture creating a homogeneous community (other things, such as race, are of influence), the argument is there which shows cultural factors to be of relevance in regards to a stable/loving/caring community.

As an example, further on in the novel, specifically on page 123, “…it follows that adaptive ethic nepotism not only selects for ethnic altruism, but for all gene-based characteristics distinctive to the group. This applies not only to traits with high heritability, such as cognitive profile… but to cultural traits passed on through socialization within the family…such as politicalculture” [3].

In English, what this means is that people are more likely to get along, be nice to each other and be more charitable if the other people are of the same culture.

II

To further support this conclusion, Professor J.P. Rushton, in his research paper, Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory, found that spouse and best friend relationships were influenced by ‘opinions and attitudes’ with a correlation of 0.5, with other factors like ‘physical appearance’ only at 0.2. Only ‘age, ethnicity and education’ scored higher (0.6) [4]. This means that for relationships of value, people are definitely basing relationships on cultural factors (i.e. opinions and attitudes).

III

Implicit Egotism is the way in which people gravitate towards places, people and situations that reflect themselves [5]. Implicit Egotism, as explored in a multi-academic circle by John T. Jones (United States Military Academy), Brett W. Pelham and Mauricio Carvallo (State University of New York at Buffalo) and Matthew C. Mirenberg (Columbia University), shows “…[the research paper’s] evidence suggests that implicit egotism is a valid and replicable phenomenon that influences people’s choice of a lifelong romantic partner in much the same way that it influences their evaluations of a stranger on a semantic differential” [5]. As also indicated in J.P Rushton’s work, people will treat strangers (effectively other members of the community) differently based on their culture.

IV

There is evidence of violence based on cultural diversity, so much so that it can be detected within families that are meant to be getting long. In Korea, “according to the Ministry of Health and Welfare… 1.72 children per every 1,000 from multicultural families are exposed to such violence. The rate is about three times higher than that of children born to Korean parents - 0.55 per 1,000” [19].

Cultural differences can create outright hatred between people. Consider the relationship between Muslim groups and some parts of the rest of the world. In a specific example, “41% of the general public in Spain says most or many Muslims in their country support Islamic extremists. But just 12% of Spain’s Muslims say most or many of the country’s Muslims support extremists like Al Qaeda” [8].

Other examples of serious problems is that in 2006, “29% of Jordanians view[ed] suicide attacks as often or sometimes justified” [8]. Another statistic from 2006, “61% of Nigeria’s Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden” [8]. Have a look at what these statistics do to the relationship between Muslims and Westerners:



It is not that either culture is inferior. It is not that some Muslims and some Westerners cannot be friendly to each other. It is that these cultures living together cause serious damage. Recently, it only took ***one*** Islamic Extremist to bring Sydney to a standstill [9]. It is differing cultures that create these atrocities.


Impacts under A1:

Therefore, on average, the absence of cultural similarity creates more disunity than the presence of it, and this will generally make people less happy, friendly, altruistic and trusting of each other than would be found in a culturally homogenous community. There is also a serious increase chance of violence.



A2: Language barriers

Overall, having multiple languages in a country hurts it. I am going to show you the damaging result of differing languages in a community.

I

According to Psychology Today, as a generous estimate, 20% of Americans are at least bilingual (which includes children under 5 years) [12]. That means at least 80% are monolingual. Clearly, what this means is that the vast majority of Americans will not understand you if begin talking in a different language. Furthermore, nearly one in 10 working-age U.S. adults—19.2 million persons aged 16 to 64—is considered limited English proficient [14]. This means that these ~10% will not understand you or understand little if you begin speaking in a language other than the one they know.

II

Even with the 20% of Americans that are bilingual, there is still a problem. According to Testyourvocab.com, most native English adult speakers know 20,000-35,000 +/- 10% words, whilst most foreign learners of English know 2,500-9000 +/- 10%, which is significantly lower [10][11]. What this means is that bilingual people will have at most half ~45% the vocabulary of native English speakers, at worst an appalling ~5%. Remember that these are the bilingual immigrants. As you can see, bilingual people sacrifice greater competency in the languages they know.

Obviously, preservation of these non-English mono-linguistic languages hurts the community because of the language barrier. Furthermore, as relating to my first argument, the differing (cultural) language creates a disunity.


A3: Racism is natural and can have serious consequences

In a 2003 study which also evaluated past study findings, this study found that despite “there [being] often multiple plausible ways of partitioning the “ethnic groups” of a country… It is interesting to learn, then, that despite sharply different formulations of “ethnic group,”the aggregate measure of ethnic fractionalization based on the Atlas Narodov Mira [a previous study that this new one looked at] data and the data presented here are moderately well correlated, at .75” [15].

Furthermore, “Very similar correlations obtain between the Soviet ELF [Soviet Atlas study data], and the “ethnic” and “linguistic” fractionalization measures produced by Alesina et al. (2002). Roeder’s (2002) several measures correlate at around .81 with my measure F and at about .88 with the Soviet ELF. So as a measure of aggregate ethnic diversity across countries, fractionalization appears to be fairly robust to the looseness of the concept of “ethnic group”" [15]. In other words, there is a super strong correlation between people dividing based on ethnic and/or linguistic differences.

Now, the impact of natural racism is twofold: I. that a nation can be divided based on race, and II. that race wars can erupt.


I.

In a 1997 study, performed on African people, it was found that, “high ethnic diversity is closely associated with low schooling, underdeveloped financial systems, distorted foreign exchange markets, and insufficient infrastructure” [13].

In 2002, 58% of Mexicans thought that the U.S.A belonged to Mexico [16].

In 2005, 72% of American Blacks were in favour of Affirmative Action for minority groups, whilst 49% of American whites opposed [17].



For monetary compensation for slavery, “67% of Blacks support it whilst only 4% of Whites did, too” [18].

This conflict of interest clearly divides people of a nation, which weakens the nation.

II.

An example of a race war was the systematic extermination of Jews living in Nazi Germany. It is estimated that 6 million Jews or 2/3 European Jews living in Nazi Germany were exterminated during the Holocaust [20].

For the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is basically two racial groups competing for land, there have been over 100,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries recorded [21].

Unless you think that genocide is a good thing, it is clear that different races living together can risk extremely serious consequences.


Counter-arguments


“noone wants to do the jobs they do noone wants to run a one dollar store and noone wants to clean our schools”

I think it is self-evident that all the impacts I argued out-weigh these by some margin. Besides, my opponent does not prove this bare assertion, meaning that this argument is a logical fallacy [22].


References

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://rationalwiki.org...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[10] http://testyourvocab.com...
[11] http://testyourvocab.com...
[12] http://tinyurl.com...
[13] http://tinyurl.com...
[14] http://www.brookings.edu...
[15] http://www.rrojasdatabank.info...
[16] https://www.numbersusa.com...
[17] http://www.gallup.com...
[18] http://law.jrank.org...
[19] http://www.koreatimes.co.kr...
[20] http://www.ushmm.org...
[21] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
[22] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 1
MultiCulturalism

Pro

MultiCulturalism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MultiCulturalism

Pro

MultiCulturalism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MultiCulturalism

Pro

MultiCulturalism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
@Zarroette

Read his debate with Philocat, lol.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@tejretics

I was actually aiming for a noobsnipe, lol. That's part of the reason I always construct a large, overwhelming round for the first round: it'll blow most people away.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
@Zarroette: Great and informative case. It's a pity Pro didn't respond, my understanding is that he was a good debater, judging from his debate with Philocat.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
- & I was right.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
- Damn, this is what we call overkill! I am fairly sure the guy is gonna forfeit the next round.
Posted by Kaynes 2 years ago
Kaynes
I am sorry if you found my comment offensive, I'd like to publicly apologize. I admit I went too far and I will refrain myself to comment again without thinking clearly
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@Kaynes

Typical, demonise the opponent garbage. "I hope she grows up!" "What kind of generation are we raising?" "I just read Keynes and now I'm an economist!! You are clearly wrong about everything!" "I don't have to read your arguments to know that you're wrong!" "How could you possibly wahh wahhh wahhhhhhhhhh"

Just a massive Ad Hominem attack. I'm surprised I didn't get called a bigot, this time...
Posted by Kaynes 2 years ago
Kaynes
When I originally looked at the title I laughed since I thought that no one would dare be against such a case, then I realized that someone did. I was surprised, but immediately came to the conclusion that this person ought to be playing the devil's advocate, and not really believe that immigration is actually a bad thing. How mistaken was I when I read Zarroette's information that explicitly stated that her ideal society would be comprised of an homogeneous nation.

Don't get me wrong people, i know that the FN party in France is known to have such tendancies, and some among crazyest americans certainly do also, but I never actually read or talk to such a person. For me, it is like metting a myth.

Of course I realize that this person is a 17 years old girl who will probably evolve in her ideas and conception oh human society as she get older, but still it is no less scary to me. I wonder is, instead of reading philosophers she read some Keynesian economic books, she would be thinking otherwise.

Her case sounds so crazy 'Racism is natural', and 'cultural diversity creates disunity', how could someone in their right mind could argue that ? People have irrational fear BECAUSE of the language barriers and lack of an open mind ! Nationalism, patriotism is what cause a very well know concept in the theory of international relations : 'The narcissism of the littles differences'. It is so frustrating not only to see some people getting at each others throats based on the dehumanization of propaganda, but when our kids fresh out of college have these kinds of discourse, we really have to question ourselves about the new generation and the kind of upbringing we are providing to our kids.

And we talked here about moral values and the beliefs of decent human beings(lol), but I hope pro will also appreach the subject of the economic benefits, something that is well proven now. Economic stimulus and net benefit should ring some bell,
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
I am wholly expecting a response from him/her (based on user activity), so I wanted to get through my main arguments. Also, I've got about 15k characters worth of content, so I can't argue only 3/4 k worth in the first round , or else I won't have enough room to argue everything.

Besides, it's good habit to argue properly on every occasion, because it's all too easy to get into the habit of doing the bare minimum, instead of trying to push to boundaries or invent new, better variations of your argument.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit" ~ Aristotle
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Lol...what's the point of writing up a long case when all you need is an argument or two?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
MultiCulturalismZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
MultiCulturalismZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro. Con's arguments were superior, as they went unrefuted, and Pro's only argument was a bare assertion.
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
MultiCulturalismZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, but Con's arguments were very good anyway. It's a shame they weren't responded to.
Vote Placed by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
MultiCulturalismZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct: FF. => Con's win. - Argument: Pro provided none, while Con systematically demonstrated why immigration is not good overall, particularly in the West based on the fact that racial, ethnic, cultural & linguistic gaps are time-bombs warranting bad consequences. Con's win. *OVERKILL* - Sources: Pro provided none. Con's win.