Quote:
Originally Posted by kyrobo
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I hadn't ever heard anyone say they were opposed to multiculturalism until pretty recently. I was pretty shocked. I had always just accepted multiculturalism as part of what makes America the tits. I still more or less think that way, but I also think I get the gist of your position, and if I'm right it's really not the un-American sentiment I first assumed.
So my understanding is:
- Y'all want the melting pot America, not the salad bowl. If immigrants can't integrate with the general culture then you believe we're weaker as a country. We cease to have shared values 'n stuff.
- You're fine with limited, legal immigration. We can't take on just anyone though, and people who come here illegally and abuse our sympathies to illicitly gain from our system should be punished.
That about right?
|
This is correct but the second bullet-point seems a little too interested in vengeful thinking. I'm less about punishing and more about limiting the incidence of violation. For instance, by taking in highly skilled immigrants of backgrounds that are not super-duper conservative (like Catholic Mexicans and Islamic fundies). Also by taking in people who can demonstrate a history of entrepreneurship etc. People who are technology-literate. A little closer to an interview for admittance than an arbitrary entitlement grounded solely in humanitarian arguments.
In other words, to resurrect a selfish primary bent to our immigration system rather than using what I would argue is the current humanitarian one.
I don't really understand economics and would be very happy (& grateful to any educators who step up) to gain deeper insight than I have here. But it seems common-sense to me that bringing in smart people is better for us than bringing in dumbs.