Immigrant Attitudes Change Host Country Institutions?

[Trausti]

How immigrants shape institutions

We now have the key pieces of the puzzle:

The Deep Roots literature which shows that in the long run, migration deeply shapes a nation’s level of pro-market institutions, and that a nation’s ancestry-adjusted SAT score (States, Agriculture, Technology) is a good predictor of prosperity.

The Attitude Migration literature, which shows that migrants bring a substantial portion of their attitudes toward markets, trust, and social safety nets with them from their home country.

The New Voters = New Policies literature, which shows that governments really do change when new voters show up, and that the changes start to show up in just a few years.

http://evonomics.com/do-immigrants-import-their-economic-destiny-garrett-jones/

Immigrants - legal/illegal/welcomed/or not - bring their cultures with them. How will the mass migration of the current era change the host countries? It's a question that seems pretty much verboten to ask, but surely any discussion of immigrantion policy is uninformed if the question is ignored.

 

[Derec]

It should be clear to everybody that immigration, especially mass immigration is not an unqualified good. Just like with everything else, whether something is good or not depends on details such as who the immigrants are and how many of them there are.


Look what's happening in Germany.

Slow motion national suicide.

 

[laughing dog]

If people were really that worried about what their world will look like 100s of years from now, we'd be doing a lot more to deal with global climate change.

 

[Derec]

If people were really that worried about what their world will look like 100s of years from now, we'd be doing a lot more to deal with global climate change.

Way to derail. Anything to contribute that's on topic?

 

[Trausti]

History has shown that when you invite outsiders in, the outsiders will make the place their home.

 Vortigern
 Diarmait_Mac_Murchada

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If people were really that worried about what their world will look like 100s of years from now, we'd be doing a lot more to deal with global climate change.

Way to derail. Anything to contribute that's on topic?

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[laughing dog]

If people were really that worried about what their world will look like 100s of years from now, we'd be doing a lot more to deal with global climate change.

Way to derail. Anything to contribute that's on topic?

I did. The research quoted in the OP uses data over centuries to draw conclusions. One century is 100 years. So, the OP is really worrying about the state of USA or the world over 100 years from now. My obvious point is that global climate change is a much more serious longer run issue with a much more limited range of outcomes than "OMG, my culture will be different even though I will be long dead".

 

[Derec]

I did. The research quoted in the OP uses data over centuries to draw conclusions. One century is 100 years. So, the OP is really worrying about the state of USA or the world over 100 years from now. My obvious point is that global climate change is a much more serious longer run issue with a much more limited range of outcomes than "OMG, my culture will be different even though I will be long dead".

Direction of the culture matters. And future generations will have a much easier time dealing with some climate change than with the problem of the society being dominated by Muslims.
Germany today:

Germany in 50 years if Merkel has her way with perpetual mass Muslim migration:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Make Germany great again.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I did. The research quoted in the OP uses data over centuries to draw conclusions. One century is 100 years. So, the OP is really worrying about the state of USA or the world over 100 years from now. My obvious point is that global climate change is a much more serious longer run issue with a much more limited range of outcomes than "OMG, my culture will be different even though I will be long dead".

Direction of the culture matters. And future generations will have a much easier time dealing with some climate change than with the problem of the society being dominated by Muslims.
Germany today:

Germany in 50 years if Merkel has her way with perpetual mass Muslim migration:

In the top photo the girl on the right with the purple blouse could be Arabic from Palestine or Lebanon. There are quite a few Arabs with blue or green eyes and even blonde hair. Others are dark. However Europe is getting crowded at the moment.

As for the girls in a Burqa you can't tell if they're good looking but a Palestinian friend of mine told me they look great in a Burquini

 

[laughing dog]

Direction of the culture matters.

To you. I'm sure Catholics in the Middle Ages said the same thing during the rise of the Enlightment and Protestantism.

And future generations will have a much easier time dealing with some climate change than with the problem of the society being dominated by Muslims.

In order to draw such conclusions, you would need evidence to support such a conclusion. Your conclusion requires that future generations somehow get better at trust and co-ordination that the past generations or the current one. Given human history, that assumption is equivalent to believing that the Earth was created in 6 days,.

Gee, I wonder why you keep bringing up Germany. Perhap you pine for its glory days of 80 years ago.

 

[JonA]

In the top photo the girl on the right with the purple blouse could be Arabic from Palestine or Lebanon. There are quite a few Arabs with blue or green eyes and even blonde hair. Others are dark. However Europe is getting crowded at the moment.

I don't think skin color or overall attractiveness of the women was Derec's point.

 

[RavenSky]

If people were really that worried about what their world will look like 100s of years from now, we'd be doing a lot more to deal with global climate change.

^^^ That

Human migration has been happening for as long as there have been homo sapiens. Without a habitable planet, we won't need to worry about further migration

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If people were really that worried about what their world will look like 100s of years from now, we'd be doing a lot more to deal with global climate change.

^^^ That

Human migration has been happening for as long as there have been homo sapiens. Without a habitable planet, we won't need to worry about further migration

Additionally, climate change is going to have more of an impact on the equatorial regions, making them less inhabitable and less able to support large populations, so those populations are going to move north ... or just sit back and quietly die so that they don't bother the white people.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't get the issue here. People within a given country have different views based on their cultures, and the way we figure out which parts should be preserved is to talk about them and vote for representatives of various perspectives to govern us. How is it any different when people come from other parts of the world with their ideas about governance? If their ideas are unappealing to most people, they won't get implemented. If they successfully appeal to (or become) the majority, then society should adopt their ideas within the constraints of the system of constitutional protections we have in place. This is nothing new. If you don't like someone else's opinion of how to run a society, vote for representatives who agree with you and not them. Convince people by reasoned argument that your way is better. Shutting people out because you're afraid that too many of them will change the way things are currently set up is puny.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't get the issue here. People within a given country have different views based on their cultures, and the way we figure out which parts should be preserved is to talk about them and vote for representatives of various perspectives to govern us. How is it any different when people come from other parts of the world with their ideas about governance? If their ideas are unappealing to most people, they won't get implemented. If they successfully appeal to (or become) the majority, then society should adopt their ideas within the constraints of the system of constitutional protections we have in place. This is nothing new. If you don't like someone else's opinion of how to run a society, vote for representatives who agree with you and not them. Convince people by reasoned argument that your way is better. Shutting people out because you're afraid that too many of them will change the way things are currently set up is puny.

Stating it like that does not promote fear and ignorance, so racist fear mongers conservatives can't agree with your well-reasoned statement.

 

[abaddon]

I don't get the issue here. People within a given country have different views based on their cultures, and the way we figure out which parts should be preserved is to talk about them and vote for representatives of various perspectives to govern us. How is it any different when people come from other parts of the world with their ideas about governance? If their ideas are unappealing to most people, they won't get implemented. If they successfully appeal to (or become) the majority, then society should adopt their ideas within the constraints of the system of constitutional protections we have in place. This is nothing new. If you don't like someone else's opinion of how to run a society, vote for representatives who agree with you and not them. Convince people by reasoned argument that your way is better. Shutting people out because you're afraid that too many of them will change the way things are currently set up is puny.

Yes.

The perceived problem is that "we" will become more like the Muslim immigrants rather than they become more like us. So, they out-conservative the conservatives.

The solution is: to encourage change rather than cling to old values, among others, among ourselves. People who can open up to change will seek increased freedom. It’s when people shut down with fear of change is when they start getting reactionary and become a threat to freedom.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't get the issue here. People within a given country have different views based on their cultures, and the way we figure out which parts should be preserved is to talk about them and vote for representatives of various perspectives to govern us. How is it any different when people come from other parts of the world with their ideas about governance? If their ideas are unappealing to most people, they won't get implemented. If they successfully appeal to (or become) the majority, then society should adopt their ideas within the constraints of the system of constitutional protections we have in place. This is nothing new. If you don't like someone else's opinion of how to run a society, vote for representatives who agree with you and not them. Convince people by reasoned argument that your way is better. Shutting people out because you're afraid that too many of them will change the way things are currently set up is puny.

Yes.

The perceived problem is that "we" will become more like the Muslim immigrants rather than they become more like us. So, they out-conservative the conservatives.

The solution is: to encourage change rather than cling to old values, among others, among ourselves. People who can open up to change will seek increased freedom. It’s when people shut down with fear of change is when they start getting reactionary and become a threat to freedom.

Not sure if I agree. I'm not saying we should encourage change for its own sake. By all means, if you disagree with the way some immigrants want to run the government, you shouldn't have to compromise just to appear egalitarian and progressive. Just remember that we already have a process for this sort of thing, designed to accommodate opinions from all over the map. The way it works is you invite everybody in. You make your case, they make theirs, and some version of democratic consensus figures out the result. This platform is change-agnostic. Maybe the consensus favors keeping things the way they are, in which case you do that. The point is, you don't put up ad hoc barriers to prevent people with opposing viewpoints from joining the discussion just because you're afraid they might sway more people than your viewpoint.

It's ironic that the people who complain the loudest about college liberals and their 'safe spaces' are often the same ones who want the whole country to be a safe space from the cultural influence of immigrants. The important difference is that those college liberals are motivated by a desire to be inclusive, even though the way they go about it may be positively counterproductive. Trump and his ilk don't even pretend to care about any perspective other than the one they are familiar with.

 

[Derec]

To you. I'm sure Catholics in the Middle Ages said the same thing during the rise of the Enlightment and Protestantism.

Difference being
a) between homegrown change and one imposed from outside
b) progress and regress toward a 7th century backward ideology of Islamism

In order to draw such conclusions, you would need evidence to support such a conclusion. Your conclusion requires that future generations somehow get better at trust and co-ordination that the past generations or the current one.

All you really need is better technology. Practical nuclear fusion could create enough energy to reduce as much carbon in the atmosphere as needed. Then there is the idea of the sunshade.

Given human history, that assumption is equivalent to believing that the Earth was created in 6 days,.

Quite the contrary! The history of humans shows us capable of great technological progress as well as a great deal of cooperation to accomplish megaprojects. I do not see that waning unless we enter the new Dark Ages (for example because of Islam).

Gee, I wonder why you keep bringing up Germany.

Perhaps because I lived there for about six years.

Perhap you pine for its glory days of 80 years ago.

More like 20 years go, but since you bring up "80 years ago", Nazis and Islamists were friends.

And today ...

 

[Derec]

Not sure if I agree. I'm not saying we should encourage change for its own sake. By all means, if you disagree with the way some immigrants want to run the government, you shouldn't have to compromise just to appear egalitarian and progressive. Just remember that we already have a process for this sort of thing, designed to accommodate opinions from all over the map. The way it works is you invite everybody in. You make your case, they make theirs, and some version of democratic consensus figures out the result.

The problem is that with mass migration or high birth rate Muslims the "democratic consensus" will be tilted in the favor of Islamic values.

That is a real threat no matter how much the useful idiots on the Left want to ignore it.