A lack of foundation

[Tenure]

I was debating with myself, as you do, over breakfast, the problem of immigration. Now, let's leave the economics side alone - I was more concerned with the social side. Now, it's not because it's more pertinent to the issue, but because it comes up so much. The old "Poles coming to Britain and stealing all our jobs" argument doesn't come up much, especially since the public has come to realise that, actually, the jobs that Eastern European immigrant get hired in, are ones the indigenous population don't want (and they do a much better job too).

What comes up far, far more, especially with the social stigma attached to Muslim immigrants, is the idea of 'integration'. That is, it's not enough for people to come here, to live and to work, but they should also have to integrate with their new home's customs and way of life.

But that got me thinking, in a country like Britain, do we really want that?

If immigrants integrated with the 'British way of life':

- They would demand more benefits from the government

- Their children would roam around city streets in gangs

- They would go on strike often claiming they have a democratic right to run their employer's company

Well, I can't think of many right now (I'm always bad at this analogy stuff), but my point is, that the 'British way of life' is ill-defined, and from what I have got in my 18 years of living here, simply means being melancholical and complaining about things.

I think, yes, immigrants should integrate to a certain degree, but only on the principled stuff. Immigrants shouldn't have to take 'citizenship tests' (ones that most of the public would fail, if tested), but if their new home thrives on free-trade and a government that protects rights, then those are principles of that country, and the immigrants should integrate with them, or choose a different country (he can't have the priveleges of wealth from a rich, Western country, but demand that all that nasty capitalist stuff be taken out).

But then I think, well hold on, does Britain, if you were going to take a measure of its philosophical attitude, does it really hold good, moral principles that I could ask someone to integrate with? We have a crippled (in the economic sense) and crippling (in the literal, medical sense) National Health Service, to which the solution is more money, not less regulation; we have a police force that spends more time doing paper work and checking it is being 'fair' in the demographic nature of its policing (as well as spending most of its time catching drug dealers); we have an over-crowded prison system, to which the only solution seems to be given as, "Well, let's just let the least offending go free"; we have an education system which, whilst not as bad in terms of structure as the US, is definitely worse in terms of philsophy.

We have a myriad of other problems, but I just want to get to my question: looking at Britain, what is, what it's 'founded' on, what it preaches and practices - how can one really defend a country such as this? Would it:

a) ever be moral to go to war for such a country?

ever moral to ask someone to integrate with its principles, when it seems to lack any to begin with?

To explain further, I mean that, I hold Objectivist principles at government and morality, and I would ask an immigrant to integrate with those principles, because those are the ones, whether the country wants to recognise it or not, which keep the economy healthy and the people in warm houses, with computers and good food.

[Robert J. Kolker]

To explain further, I mean that, I hold Objectivist principles at government and morality, and I would ask an immigrant to integrate with those principles, because those are the ones, whether the country wants to recognise it or not, which keep the economy healthy and the people in warm houses, with computers and good food.

How does this differ from pragmatism? This is not a criticism, but a question.

Bob Kolker

Edited September 10, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[softwareNerd]

How does this differ from pragmatism?

Saying "Do XYZ because it is the practical choice for man qua man who lives as life is a standard" is not to advocate pragmatism. In fact, Objectivism holds that the moral is the practical.

[DavidOdden]

I hold Objectivist principles at government and morality, and I would ask an immigrant to integrate with those principles, because those are the ones, whether the country wants to recognise it or not, which keep the economy healthy and the people in warm houses, with computers and good food.

But surely you would ask that of a fellow long-term citizen -- i.e. that's not something specific to immigrants.

What comes up far, far more, especially with the social stigma attached to Muslim immigrants, is the idea of 'integration'. That is, it's not enough for people to come here, to live and to work, but they should also have to integrate with their new home's customs and way of life.

But the problem is not the funny pants and curry mile in Manchester, it's the prospects of a radical "island on the island" with its own set of laws, right? The idea of actually having locations where sharia is the enforceable law of the land.

The most important question that you face is, IMO, what do you do with the elaborate class structure, melancholia and quiet worrying, feeling of powerlesness etc. My personal assessment is that the UK has a different perspective on the individual compared to the (current) US, where evaluation of action is more in terms of effect on society in the UK. An awful lot flows from that one fact, such as the NHS and council houses.

[KendallJ]

We have a myriad of other problems, but I just want to get to my question: looking at Britain, what is, what it's 'founded' on, what it preaches and practices - how can one really defend a country such as this? Would it:

a) ever be moral to go to war for such a country?

ever moral to ask someone to integrate with its principles, when it seems to lack any to begin with?

To explain further, I mean that, I hold Objectivist principles at government and morality, and I would ask an immigrant to integrate with those principles, because those are the ones, whether the country wants to recognise it or not, which keep the economy healthy and the people in warm houses, with computers and good food.

Well, since everyone is sidetracked on Stephen's essay, I'll take stab at the real questions here. To me, it hinges on a) how free are you and what is your ability to make change in this country. and b.) what are your other options?

I'm not sure that Id' say that countries like the US and UK lack principles, but that they lack consistently implemented principles. Some might say this is as bad as not having any at all, but look at a country like Afghanistan and that seems to me like a country devoid of principles, or holding wholy evil ones.

Assuming you're still free enough in the UK to be able to try to make change through rational means, and you actually have some ability to effect it, and there aren't any really better options short of going and hiding out in the woods and establishing RoryLand, well then sure, stick around.

a. would you be moral in going to war for the country. Sure, the question would be what threat are you defending against?

b. asking immigrants to adopt UK principles. Again, depends what country they are coming from. If they were coming from Iran, I'd say absolutely, demand that they adopt the British way of life. It's a ton better than the one they are coming from.

[KendallJ]

Mods can we please split this side discussion into another thread. I might suggest in the future that hte practice of throwing out an essay and saying "I hope it is of some value" is probably not warranted. I would suggest that the author go to the trouble of at least attempting to make the connection between what is being asked and what is being provided, otherwise, your contribution risks being... well... useless.

As it is the side conversation it has generated hasn't done a thing to answer Tenure's question.

[softwareNerd]

Mods can we please split this side discussion into another thread.

Click here for the split thread.

[Tenure]

But surely you would ask that of a fellow long-term citizen -- i.e. that's not something specific to immigrants.

Well yes, that's partly my point - how does one demand that an immigrant stick to principles that the populus don't seem to even believe in? Should we then throw out the principle of 'British values' and instead say 'Individual values' or whatever, to discriminiate between what is British and what is Right?

But the problem is not the funny pants and curry mile in Manchester, it's the prospects of a radical "island on the island" with its own set of laws, right? The idea of actually having locations where sharia is the enforceable law of the land.

What scares me is that is actually possible. The police are being told not to interfere too much in highly Muslim areas, for fear of upsetting the balance of things, or some such - leave the community to the community. I fear that kind of thing is just going to create segragated areas, and unlike the Polish ghetto in East London, these people want a lawfully enforced segaragation, and they could actually get it, if a sufficiently limp-dicked party comes into power.

The most important question that you face is, IMO, what do you do with the elaborate class structure, melancholia and quiet worrying, feeling of powerlesness etc. My personal assessment is that the UK has a different perspective on the individual compared to the (current) US, where evaluation of action is more in terms of effect on society in the UK. An awful lot flows from that one fact, such as the NHS and council houses.

I think a lot of that stuff develops from the current socio-economic structure - by which, I mean, the mixture of a heavy benefit system, mixed with nanny-state law-making. The reason it continues though, is, well... having gone through the state school system here... the teachers impart that feeling onto students. A kind of melancholic irony, where they give their dismal view of life, and it really does rub off on you. I mean, it's part of your British identity to be like that, and people are very resistant to that arrogant, American, "bigger, faster, better" view of the world.

Britain is kind of like a teenage kid trying to find his identity, so he dons a bunch of gothic-style clothes and listens to obscure 80s metal, defining himself by however much he can make himself not like everyone else, rather than having something positive which others don't have.

To me, it hinges on a) how free are you and what is your ability to make change in this country. and b.) what are your other options?

Well, I'm not going to be the first to say I feel powerless in a democratic system. I'm very free, despite all the bizarre laws, to do and say what I want. The root of my question is more about the fact that immigrants coming to this country have the right attitude - 'nothing is entitled to me' - and that the rest of the citizenship has the wrong idea - I'm entitled to health care, schooling, smoking bans, etc.

[KendallJ]

Well, I'm not going to be the first to say I feel powerless in a democratic system. I'm very free, despite all the bizarre laws, to do and say what I want. The root of my question is more about the fact that immigrants coming to this country have the right attitude - 'nothing is entitled to me' - and that the rest of the citizenship has the wrong idea - I'm entitled to health care, schooling, smoking bans, etc.

Well, in general, if what is being asked of the new residents is more than what the average of the current population believes, then one would expect that the standards over time will shift, that is, it's a holdover of a better time.

I'd be careful when talking about averages, and general cultural generalizations. Some of hte rest of the citizenship has the right idea, right, so how do you generate a generalization? By what mechanism do you come to the conclusion that it is valid to say that "The rest of the citizenship..."

[Tenure]

I walk through the centre of Croydon and feel the depression sinking in. That's how.

[KendallJ]

uh, yeah. Help me out there. Obscure references don't help the never-been-to-London crowd.

[Tenure]

Ok, I'm not too sure how to describe it exactly.

Have you ever read 1984, with the proles who wonder around, drearily and aimlessly, talking only about the lottery, whilst in the pub, and such? Or just any dystopian novel?

It's like that. I lost my iPod the other day, and so have actually listened to all these people as I've walked by, and I was just appalled by the whole atmosphere around me. I can't describe it, other than to say, if you walked through there, you'd know exactly how I felt.

[softwareNerd]

Is this an area that's thick with immigrants? Or, are you referring to an area where "local"/"native" folk live, many possibly lower-income and on welfare, hang out High Street, letting the world simply pass them by?

From what I can glean from your post, it sounds like you're saying that the typical immigrant might stick to their culture and community, but that you find their culture does not include hanging around street corners whiling away their time, as you see native welfare-bums do? Thus your point that it is inappropriate to ask immigrants to adopt British culture. Instead, you want them to adopt only the rational aspects of that culture. Do I understand you correctly?

[Tenure]

You've got me spot on! (In regards to your last question)

But just to clarify:

Or, are you referring to an area where "local"/"native" folk live, many possibly lower-income and on welfare, hang out High Street, letting the world simply pass them by?

Yes, I mean this one, the latter.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Tenure