Here is, IMO, the crux of difference between immigration restrictionists and principled freedom of movement advocates: Goodhart says that
"But in 25 years in the U.K. we have gone, as I said earlier, from 90 to 70%. That is a really dramatic change, and you do not have to be racist to be discomfited by that. If your whole neighborhood changes and fills up with people you don’t share a language with, or a way of life or a culture ... the social norms matter, and if they change in your neighborhood too fast, it’s going to be very discomfiting to you."
I would say that that discomfiture is in fact a sign of bad character-- that people who are more comfortable with demographics changing around them are, all else equal, more virtuous than people than people who are less comfortable-- and more importantly, that in a free society it cannot be a valid reason for state coercion. If a bunch of black or brown people move into your neighborhood and it makes you feel uneasy, *and* you then use that unease as an excuse to try and use the government to keep them out by force, then yes, you are a racist and a bad person.
"I would say that that discomfiture is in fact a sign of bad character-- that people who are more comfortable with demographics changing around them are, all else equal, more virtuous than people than people who are less comfortable"
- what a ridiculous statement on it's own, unless you put qualifying bumper guards on it.
What about when an entire neighborhood / region / community is quickly taken over by a different (ie difficult) culture and makes the natives out to be the enemy such as is happening in the UK where gangs are taking over and now both sexually and physically assaulting locals?
Are the locals no longer virtuous because they refuse to put up with it??
This is happening because the rate of change was too quick, too sudden and too overwhelming for integration to take place. It's as simple as that.
The next question is, why are these changes being pushed for? And THAT is an entirely different discussion to itself...and one nobody wants to really have.
He was specifically referring to the percentage of whites in the population. There's no way to share a language, way of life, or culture with someone whose skin color is different, dontcha know.
Here is, IMO, the crux of difference between immigration restrictionists and principled freedom of movement advocates: Goodhart says that
"But in 25 years in the U.K. we have gone, as I said earlier, from 90 to 70%. That is a really dramatic change, and you do not have to be racist to be discomfited by that. If your whole neighborhood changes and fills up with people you don’t share a language with, or a way of life or a culture ... the social norms matter, and if they change in your neighborhood too fast, it’s going to be very discomfiting to you."
I would say that that discomfiture is in fact a sign of bad character-- that people who are more comfortable with demographics changing around them are, all else equal, more virtuous than people than people who are less comfortable-- and more importantly, that in a free society it cannot be a valid reason for state coercion. If a bunch of black or brown people move into your neighborhood and it makes you feel uneasy, *and* you then use that unease as an excuse to try and use the government to keep them out by force, then yes, you are a racist and a bad person.
"I would say that that discomfiture is in fact a sign of bad character-- that people who are more comfortable with demographics changing around them are, all else equal, more virtuous than people than people who are less comfortable"
- what a ridiculous statement on it's own, unless you put qualifying bumper guards on it.
What about when an entire neighborhood / region / community is quickly taken over by a different (ie difficult) culture and makes the natives out to be the enemy such as is happening in the UK where gangs are taking over and now both sexually and physically assaulting locals?
Are the locals no longer virtuous because they refuse to put up with it??
This is happening because the rate of change was too quick, too sudden and too overwhelming for integration to take place. It's as simple as that.
The next question is, why are these changes being pushed for? And THAT is an entirely different discussion to itself...and one nobody wants to really have.
He was specifically referring to the percentage of whites in the population. There's no way to share a language, way of life, or culture with someone whose skin color is different, dontcha know.
Yes, that's sarcasm.
I disagree with Kristol. The people deserve to get the immigration restrictions they want, and they deserve to get them good and hard.
Why is the percentage of white children in school an important immigration metric?
I am loving these videos of the conference. Thanks for posting them!