Xenophobes and multiculturalists

Screen Shot 2014-05-26 at 12.51.26The pessimistic, xenophobic, and implicitly socialist attitude to immigration

The successful cultural negotiation many immigrants accomplish, Dalrymple writes,

pleases neither the racist xenophobe nor the multiculturalist liberal, who are united in the belief that assimilation is wrong in principle and impossible in practice. The former wants there to be no foreign presence at all; the latter wants to preserve the foreignness of foreigners, thus provoking the very xenophobia he claims to decry and despise.

The racist xenophobe regards the wish to migrate

as more of a threat than a compliment. Because they conceive of a national economy as a cake of predetermined size, they believe the immigrants’ slice must take the crumbs from their mouths. In times of unemployment, immigrants are said to take our jobs by undercutting wages; in times of full employment, they are said to take advantage of our generous social security system and drive up our taxes. They either work too hard, or not hard enough. They can never arrive at the right moment in the economic cycle.

For his part, the multiculturalist liberal, while he approves of, indeed enthusiastically advocates, mass immigration,

believes that all cultures are equal, except for his own, which is uniquely wicked and imperialist. Assimilation, in his view, would be yet another despicable instance of cultural imperialism — but, of course, it would also throw doubt upon his own world outlook, which he has adopted precisely to establish his own superior broad-mindedness and tolerance….Keeping foreigners in cultural ghettoes is a necessity for him, if he is to preserve his self-regard.

(2001)

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Kiljoy  On April 15, 2015 at 08:25

    Yes I think people, especially in so far as they have a political bent, are necessarily going to succumb to, give rise to, dichotomies… generalisations. I believe it was the essence of Adam Smith’s idea of the Invisible Hand that, assuming a high degree of good faith, the basis of civil society (Burkes “little platoons” and “dearest domestic ties”), with the moral sentiments in good order (unlike in the world of Fred and Rose West… and Ian Huntley etc etc) then the essentially emergent properties of the market, the unintended consequences, should more often than not be good.

    However, as the more extreme (and sadly I suspect they are nowhere near as extreme as I’d like to think) societal dysfunction bears out, bad culture, encouraged by transgressive pop and ‘art’ culture and funded by political quantatative expropriation of the good, honest, prosperity in exchange for votes, drives out the good culture.

    A great deal of ruin in a nation, a great deal of bad faith, necessarily determines to large extent the nature of global markets. There is nothing more injurious to foreign peoples. It’s a sad fact that to do right by foreign people we must get our house in order… too much immigration, especially of the worst kind, seriously compromises such a process and thereby punishing foreign peoples both here and at their country of origin.

    UKIP doubtless has faults… their getting into power would certainly be disruptive for it would entail at least trying to solve problems stockpiled in no small way by the ‘New Labour “No more boom and bust” lunacy.

    Politics , like the Law, is necessarily a blunt instrument but because of the negligence of the predominating parties thus far, UKIP are looking pretty bloody sharp.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: