WMN: t3_3c7srb_t1_cst0o46

[TITLE]

CMV: Countries besides USA (and a small select otheres) have had a long, rich history of a certain ethnic group. I think it's okay for these countries to severely restrict immigration to preserve their respective nations.

[grouphugintheshower]

There's been so much uproar over Sweden and the Netherlands and other countries that have been dealing with immigration issues. I would like to move to another country in the future so I understand wanting to move to a country in Europe, although I am not seeking asylum from a war torn homeland. At any rate, these countries have a history of an ethnic population and when one thinks of Sweden, there's a certain image just as when one thinks of what and who constitutes any specific country. I would hate to have Sweden be overrun by rampant immigration from any country (my problem is not with the Muslim population specifically/Middle eastern immigration but the idea of rampant immigration in general) just as I would hate for any other country, let's say Bangladesh, to be overrun with let's say, British immigration. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[illegalmorality]

[Genetic diversity is generally good for humans.](http://www.thejournal.ie/humans-are-taller-and-smarter-2195458-Jul2015/) Honestly though, the idea that certain human ethnicities are "endangered" and should be preserved is an abstract concept that humans themselves created. Animals will always fuck each other, so there's no point to trying to prevent nature taking its course. A good example is how downward [dog breeding](http://youtu.be/aCv10_WvGxo) has gone over the centuries. The same can be applied with humans. Genetic diversity=good healthy humans; Limited diversity=pointless entertainment.

[caribbeanparty]

Insisting that in today's world we should "preserve" a people when they are not being attacked but instead individuals of that group are freely and democratically interacting with other individuals in the same space is, technically, about as intelligent as saying that we have to protect the heritage and identity of typewriters in the computers era and, socially, as imbecile as the concept of lebensraum. It is something that will be resisted by egoistic and idiot masses but at the end it's pure and simple paddling against history and freedom.

[CreepyNotebook]

If it weren't for the intermingling of cultures, cultures as we now know them wouldn't exist for them to even be defended as they currently are. Italy never would have developed "Italian" food as we know it today without embracing the tomato from the New World. Italian culture has already been changed--to say Italy has a right to "stop" that change at this arbitrary point in time would be a sign that a certain degree of preferential treatment or bias is at play. Since all cultures have been changed by others, there is no original culture to defend anywhere. It becomes a pointless, arbitrary selective process about what is now Italian (as an example) and what is not. It leaves a lot of subjectivity and ultimately what is "real" to that culture will end up being defined by sentimentality, nationalism, ethnic pride, favoritism, and other feelings that have little to do with history or objectivity. The protection of a culture or ethnic group seems to be born out of a fear, an attachment to the past, or personal sentiments. These aren't bad automatically, but they can't dictate policy, which needs to be fair to everyone as much as humanly possible.

[Globalscholar]

The U.S.A doesn't have a long history with a certain ethnic group?

[grouphugintheshower]

Immigration in the US is a separate issue, it's much more multi faceted since the idea of America is based on immigration.

[hippiechan]

There are few countries who have completely homogenous native populations. European countries are drawn roughly along cultural, ethnic, and linguistic lines, but they aren't always perfect. Some parts of Italy speak French and German, some parts of Finland are mostly Swedish, etc. Some countries are drawn so that ethnic groups appear between countries (Rwanda/Burundi, or Bavarians between Germany/Austria/Czech Republic), and some countries have multiple ethnicities and cultures within their borders (Belgium, Switzerland, and Canada are all great examples). The problem with "preserving the culture/country" from immigration is that it's difficult to really define the native population in many countries, especially countries that have changed hands of power hundreds of times over the millennial. Why should Sweden be spared immigration when they annexed and immigrated into Lappland? Why should Great Britain be spared from immigrations when they immigrated all over the world during colonization, and currently occupy part of Ireland? What even is the "native population of Great Britain"? A majority of countries will have a very poor claim to being solely or majorly inhabited by the verifiably only native population of that country. I think the only two countries that would have a solid claim to that are North and South Korea. Even then, I think it's a bad argument that blocking immigration into your super homogenously ethnic country helps "preserve the nation". From what? From people that are a bit different? Many countries stand as examples that modern countries can work effectively with ethnic heterogeneity, particularly Canada and Brazil. Both are countries with a lot of diversity, big immigrant populations, and people just *don't care* about race, particularly in urban centres. If a country can not be racist, it can use immigration to its advantage.

[grouphugintheshower]

[STA-CITE]> ∆ [END-CITE]That's a good perspective on things.

[NorbitGorbit]

why would you suspect that the issue of resource accommodation wouldn't be a more significant and defensible reason to restrict immigration than cultural panic?

[grouphugintheshower]

I also believe that, but I don't feel like my mind could be changed about that/that's not the reason I wanted to discuss.

[NorbitGorbit]

i would say that whatever legitimacy in restricting immigration based on protecting one's culture would be tied up in that -- if you remove it from the equation, then how do you justify it?

[grouphugintheshower]

I'm not removing it from the equation, it's just the cultural aspect that's my main focus of this discussion. Resource allocation is a very real issue and is another reason for restricting immigration.

[NorbitGorbit]

well i'd put it this way -- suppose germany for example had infinite land and infinite money -- why shouldn't they allow anyone to come in? how would their culture be harmed by it? in fact, wouldn't their culture be enhanced? one of germany's most famous foods, the doner kebab, is made from the influence of other cultures.

[grouphugintheshower]

That's true, though my problem is really with mass immigration and people refusing to assimilate.

[draculabakula]

While I somewhat agree with you in that wealthy countries can't have a policy where they take anyone who wants to enter, I think the wealthy countries of the planet need to address the issues of why people are leaving. The wealthy countries of this planet have exploited impoverished countries for centuries and much of their wealth has come from this exploitation. A prime example being Belgium. Belgium profited immensely from slavery and taking gold and diamonds from Africa. Belgium should have a responsibility to start paying back the billions of dollars of stolen goods and damage they did in the past. I don't think this means they necessarily need to pay reparations but I think the first world strongly needs to look into a strong effort to build Africa. Until then I don't blame any person for showing up on these countries and saying I'm your problem now

[MisanthropeX]

There are some that applies to, and some that don't. Norway and Finland didn't exploit Africa, for instance. And Japan, a highly exploitative nation in its recent history, isn't really seeing a large influx of immigrants because they keep such tight immigration controls.

[draculabakula]

Well Japan is still a fairly openly racist country. You are right about Finland and Norway but they do benefit from past exploitation by being in the European union. Also Norway and Finland are both prime examples of populations with a completely arbitrary ethnicity.

[MisanthropeX]

Not... really. Finland has a very strong sense of ethnic cohesion, being a genetically distinct population with an ancient culture (seriously, read the Kalevala, it was a huge influence on LotR), unique cultural practices (sauna, which is a Finnish word) and they even speak a linguistic isolate. Plus, the Finns were a persecuted ethnic minority in both the Swedish and Russian empires for decades if not centuries. As someone who honestly self-identifies as "a-ethnic", I'd like to see your definition of what does and does not count as an ethnicity. Groups like the Finns would hit all of the notes in my book.

[draculabakula]

I was more taking about Norway than Finland but forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't Finland have large populations of people with Swedish and Russian ancestry? Forgive me because I don't know much about Finland but hasn't it been ruled by either Sweden or Russia far more than it has been independent in the last thousand years? Just because it is independent now, doesn't mean you can discredit that past, and the experiences of those people.

[MisanthropeX]

It's hard to say whether or not there are large populations of "Swedish" people in Finland. Swedish as a language was enforced on the people of Sweden in a similar manner to how many Native Americans were forcibly westernized in America and Canada, and even when Finland gained its independence a significant minority of the nation still spoke Swedish as a first language (and in other historical cases, Swedish nobility and gentry moved to Finland, or the Finnish middle class voluntarily learned Swedish to mingle with the elite). Many of them believe they are ethnically Finnish but belong to a separate linguistic community, others believe that they are not Finnish at all, and there's no real consensus. By contrast, the Russian population of exceedingly small and recent, making up approximately 1% of the population, having increased ten times from 0.1% since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As a whole the majority of Finland is a homogenous state, especially if you adhere to the belief that the Swedish-speaking minority are ethnically Finnish. Furthermore, a ethnicity does not need to have an independent nation-state to exist. I am descended in part from both staunch Catalan and Quebecois nationalist branches in my family: Catalonia has not been an independent country since the 14th century and Quebec has never been independent. Despite that, the Catalans and Quebecois maintain separate, distinct ethnic identities based on culture, art, history, language and consanguinity.

[draculabakula]

My point was that, even if Catalonia, Finland and Quebec have truly always believed they are a separate nation, they have clearly benefited from the policies of their colonizers. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how the Swedish cultural influence happened, you can't discredit that. Just like how as much as Mexican culture wants to play up its Aztec roots, they can't actually ignore Spanish influence

[MisanthropeX]

Finland doesn't discredit it at all. There are laws in place in Finland that force all civil services to be provided in both languages if at minimum 8% of the population report that they speak Swedish as a first language. I can't think of many other nations that do that, and education in both Finnish and Swedish is compulsory for the entire population.

[draculabakula]

Well I don't know what Finland's policy on immigration is but I'm trying to argue against the op's stance that foreign immigration ruins cultural identity, a Norton that is ridiculous

[grouphugintheshower]

I like the points you bring up, but to me what you're saying can be condensed down to a "should help, but don't have to" kind of situation. I believe I can draw a parallel between Blacks in the US and this issue. Slaves were brought here and taken advantage of and therefore the reality for many Black people in the US is poverty and overall poor standards of living. If a black person tells me that I have a duty to help change the US social/economic environment and help out the black community I would disagree. I should, and I want to because I understand what happened in the past was wrong and I have power to fix the past wrongs of my ethnicity (White american), but I did nothing directly to cause/contribute the current socioeconomical situation of Blacks in the US, so I don't HAVE to do anything by fault. These countries should be aiming and executing plans to help less fortunate countries (countries they used and then threw away) but at a cost of their homeland? I don't think that's necessary.

[NSFW895]

I'll level with you, what you don't understand is that the United Stated has unfairly treated black Americans ever since they were brought over as slaves. What should have happened is like the Indians, freed slaves should have gotten reparations whether in land or capital or resources. Because the current economic situation of black Americans all ties back to his the U.S. handled their situation after abolishing slavery. No reparations then the South had Black Codes, then Jim Crow. Both were designed to keep black people down. You can't go and say "We should do something about it" but then say "its not my fault" when your current situation in life more than likely historically (if your family is all American) has benefited from the mistreatment of black Americans. Maybe not directly but that privilege did and does exist. We should as a country come together and work together to improve our country, but many people today and look at the current economic climate of black Americans and shrug their shoulders and say not my fault. And so the problem continues.

[grouphugintheshower]

[STA-CITE]> We should as a country come together and work together to improve our country, but many people today and look at the current economic climate of black Americans and shrug their shoulders and say not my fault. And so the problem continues. [END-CITE]I don't support that at all. I see the current state of affairs of the way blacks are treated and their standard of living is deplorable and I make efforts to change that and I encourage others to as well. But assigning blame is not what we need to do and doesn't help anyone. This is off topic either way though.

[NSFW895]

My point is that country of origin has nothing to do with how a country works. If an immigrant coming into your country bothers you that much, I think some introspection into your own character is needed. No country in the world besides a few in Africa are supposed to be immigration restricted as every major country had changed hands between different people for years. United States entire SW and West Coat was mostly Spanish, we fought a war and took it and Texas was an independent country then a state. France owned the Midwest. The French used to own Haiti. British were everywhere including Hong Kong and India. The world is a melting pot, unless you are WW2esque Hitler who only liked blue eyed blonde people as superior peoples, what makes sense to restrict immigration?

[grouphugintheshower]

I said to exclude America, because the idea of America is based off of immigration. It makes sense to restrict immigration for economical and cultural purposes.

[NSFW895]

No it doesn't. Unless there is a large influx of immigrants at one time (millions in a short span), there isn't a real economic reason. And unless you are Hitler Jr., there is no cultural reason. How many other countries with real cultural values and history that needs to be preserved has restricted immigration, hint there is none. You can even go to North Korea if you so choose. No European country besides Greece could claim either of two, and no other first world country anywhere can righteously defend an action regardless of reason.

[call_it_art]

Ask the Sioux if they agree.

[grouphugintheshower]

Ayy you're cool

[draculabakula]

It is a bit of a different situation in Europe because some of the royal families that plundered Africa are still in power their. So the wealth those royal families and therefore governments have is still very much a result of terrible past behavior

[tehzeroFIN]

Don't generalize, there are alot of wealthy european countries that didn't mess with Africa/new world.

[bytor99]

[STA-CITE]>when one thinks of Sweden, there's a certain image just as when one thinks of what and who constitutes any specific country [END-CITE]Why should there be? It's just an arbitrary *thing* we created. You probably couldn't tell the average Swedish person from the average French person if you didn't hear them speak. They're both white-- and after that, where is the science? Perhaps the *average* French person is shorter, yet that doesn't speak to any differences. The concept of ethnicity isn't very defined. Is a French person whose ancestors came from Sweden 500 years ago not French? Likewise, why restrict immigration to a country because a person within that country is not "ethnically" like the others? This is quite the backwards concept-- where someone is born should not determine where they wish to live. If I can afford to migrate to another country, and I can afford to buy land, and I'm willing to take a job, I should have every right to do so. "Ethnic purity" is a myth used to propagate hate

[Stokkolm]

"I don't understand it so it's just an arbitrary thing". That's flawed logic, and in this case perhaps even ignorant.

[grouphugintheshower]

I've heard a similar argument to deconstruct ethnicity and while there are many valid points, I think it's naive at times. There's a separation between what I see as physical ethnicity and identified ethnicity (not real terms, just what I could come up with). I understand someone can I identify as Swedish and not have ancestry from that region/history and I believe if you can assimilate into a country that well that you can identify with the culture, language, etc. then you have made a great effort and I believe they would be a wonderful addition to the country. But take a Japanese person and a French person and set them side by side and tell me there's no identifiable concept of physical ethnicity. "If I can afford to migrate to another country, and I can afford to buy land, and I'm willing to take a job, I should have every right to do so." That's a very libertarian view on land/a nation's right to their land. I don't know if I can adequately argue against that if that's what you believe. I'll just say this: if people from one country immigrated into a country, let's say germany, en masse to the extent that it made living in that country very different culturally so that all the Germans decided to emigrate to various different countries, it would be very sad. And essentially, the people from that country would have conquered that land by technicality.

[Denny_Craine]

Why would that be sad? The idea of imaginary lines in the ground being so restricted as to create such distinctly separate cultures is so...Kiplingesqe. in the 21st century there is absolutely no good reason to restrict cultural cross pollination. Everything about cultural fusion is beneficial, it allows new ideas to form that advance society, it reduces the possibility of large scale and individual conflict, it enriches art. This is an argument for "racial purity" dressed up in polite terms

[grouphugintheshower]

Let me create another scenario. French people move into Saudi Arabia. The french don't like Saudi culture, they like their own culture, so they don't learn the language (arabic), they set up their own closed off communities, and don't adhere to the countries dress standards, offending many people there. That's not cool right? Well it's the same thing that could happen to germany. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti mass immigration without respects to a countries' culture. It's not about restriction, it's about keeping distinct and beautiful cultures alive. Culture mixing is cool, just not unchecked immigration.

[Denny_Craine]

[STA-CITE]>Let me create another scenario. French people move into Saudi Arabia. The french don't like Saudi culture, they like their own culture, so they don't learn the language (arabic), they set up their own closed off communities, and don't adhere to the countries dress standards, offending many people there. That's not cool right? [END-CITE]Why is that not cool? No one has a right to not be offended. No one has an obligation to speak a certain way. People are free to associate with whom they wish. This is absurd [STA-CITE]>I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti mass immigration without respects to a countries' culture. It's not about restriction, it's about keeping distinct and beautiful cultures alive. Culture mixing is cool, just not unchecked immigration. [END-CITE]No culture can be kept "alive". I was educated in anthropology, ie the study of human culture, and the big thing we learn is that cultures are never hegemonic and are constantly dynamic. Culture changes everyday and evolves everyday whether we like it or not. The only way to prevent any culture from changing is to ban all mass media and mass communication and to enforce by law cultural standards. Whether you or anyone likes it or not a century from now there will be more or less a unified culture across the world simply due to media and communication. That can't be changed nor should it be All "culture" means is a set of shared ideas and perspectives. And I defy you to find a country where the ideas and perspectives don't change **constantly**. "Culture" is an oft misunderstood word that's often used to justify racism and xenophobia as you're doing here.

[grouphugintheshower]

[STA-CITE]>"Culture" is an oft misunderstood word that's often used to justify racism and xenophobia as you're doing here. [END-CITE]You're the second person to do this. Not that it hurts my feelings, I couldn't give less of a fuck, but it won't change my mind to be attacked. You're shifting my argument, I'm not saying culture doesn't and shouldn't change. I'm saying I think it's reasonable to restrict immigration (not to zero) to a certain degree as it's not healthy for a nation to have a large en masse immigration. If they assimilate well then that's good, but otherwise why would you move to a country if you don't like it's culture and won't assimilate? Yeah there are benefits to living in other countries but you don't deserve those if you can't respect a country. And I doubt if a large immigration happened to a country that they would assimilate well, it would just become a cultural divide.

[Denny_Craine]

Why is it unhealthy? Why is assimilation important? Why do the unassimilated not deserve benefits if they pay taxes? It's only a divide if people make it one. The only difference between a divide and a new experience is whether or not you're open to it. You're arguing that we should be closed. And no one is attacking you, the word culture *is* used to justify racism and xenophobia and you're literally by definition being xenophobic by literally stating you fear mass immigration

[Inelukie]

A nation needs it's people to exist. In the same way a company is only a certain company because it consists of it's unique employees. Imagine you switch out every person in a country with people from a different country. It wouldn't be the same anymore. That can be problematic. Not really shocking, right? Of course the world is in flux and trying to be ultra conservative as in "we freeze the world forever!" is futile. But it's pretty weird for many people to go to Paris and see that the typical frenchman (in cities) in a couple of decades will not be white. And in some parts of Germany the typical German will have turkish ancestors and might not even speak German. How is that not a problem for a nation, when it's members changed so dramatically, that the original core might be eroded completly over time? Of course you can say that's normal and happened all the time all over history. But why do have people to like it, when they like their country the way it is?

[Denny_Craine]

A "nation" is just an abstract. It doesn't exist except as a useful linguistic tool. Every single person in the country is switched out every generation to say otherwise is ignorance. And if someone feels "troubled" that one day French people won't be primarily white that someone needs to reevaluate their values. Who gives a shit if a bunch of Germans speak Turkish? Are you sad that almost nobody speaks Gaelic in Ireland anymore? Are you mad that the word "algebra" (arabic) is so common in English? You keep asserting that cultures and populations changing is bad but you have yet to explain *why*. Oh people like it the way it is? Well that sucks for them because it's changing no matter what. If people "kept things the way they were" segregation would still exist and being gay would be a crime.

[Inelukie]

Of course it changes. That's what I said myself. Unless you manage to freeze everything in time, things will change no matter what. Old people die, young people take control. Have you ever had a place you liked? Your home and neighborhood maybe? Imagine you wake up tomorrow and snobbish bankers remodelled everything and you can't afford to live there anymore. Or some other group fundamentaly changed it. Many people react badly to that. They liked it a certain way and want it to stay that way. Nothing wrong with that feeling, right? Many become really nostalgic thinking about their youth, thinking about "good old times" and special memories at certain locations. Bulldozer them down and people will become sad. I bet if your country would suddenly become a super orthodox god-state, you wouldn't be particularly happy about that development. Change is not necessarily good. Neither is the opposite true either, as your examples show. Change is change. Why do people to be happy about it, in every single case? And if they are not happy about it, why do they necessarily have to invite it? My point is only: If you change things (too) drastically, the (mental) continuity stops working. If nobody speaks German nor feels themselves as German anymore Germany ceases to exist. If you happen to see yourself as a German, that's not a problem? Becoming kind of state-less? I could point to extremes here: Should we only have one single culture in the world, one language, one style of dressing, one cuisine? If you want to have diversity, someone has to retain their distinct features.

[bytor99]

Okay, I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to pretend ethnicity is a thing and it exists (though it isn't, and I still think my argument against it is strong) My question for you would be: *why stop immigration based on ethnicity?* You simply say: [STA-CITE]> it would be very sad [END-CITE]But is that a reason to stop it altogether? And, let's look at this argument further-- do you *really* think this could happen? Think about the land behind it. There is not enough land to sell to even allow for, say, a 30% increase in population. Even if 50% of the population suddenly became another culture (culture vs ethnicity is another argument, but I won't get into that) that wouldn't destroy German-ness; it would just change it, like a melting pot. America has operated under this principle, ethnic mixing led to a culture that is different than other nations. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. In fact, if people from another country are coming in, bringing in new traditions, sharing those with me, and not coercing me to do anything-- haven't we both benefited? Aren't we more diverse, and more open to any ideas? It saddens me to see xenophobia amongst white cultures, people who believe their culture is being "overrun" by another culture. [STA-CITE]>And essentially, the people from that country would have conquered that land [END-CITE]It isn't conquering. Conquering is taking by force. Let's say I'm a property developer in Portland. Say my corporation owns 500 homes, and we sell them to people coming from India. Has India "conquered" the land? Of course not! Such a claim is absurd; because, for one, the people of India are distinct from the government of India (if the Indian *government* bought land and claimed it as New India, where Indian laws apply, that would be different). For two, *it was entirely voluntary*. Nobody forced my hypothetical corporation to sell these homes to Indian people. And for three, that's just a backwards view-- these hypothetical people are very hardworking, and kind. They've done no wrong to anyone. [STA-CITE]> That's a very libertarian view on land/a nation's right to their land. [END-CITE]I don't think it's a distinctly libertarian view. It's the concept of private property, the idea that property is owned by individuals, not collectives. I don't think that's radical at all-- that's the very views that figures like John Locke believed in. [STA-CITE]>I don't know if I can adequately argue against that [END-CITE]If you can't argue against a point that disproves your view, and, upon researching, can't find a refutation to that point, you have no reason to believe your original view. This should be grounds for changing your view, not sticking to a belief you can't defend.

[grouphugintheshower]

I agree with several points here, but they don't really change my mind about the whole argument. I agree about the conquering aspect. But regarding the "changing culture aspect", I really don't think that's a healthy change. I doubt they would "meld together", something like that would be looked at as "the event in history where a mass amount of people immigrated to germany and created a cultural divide/made a subsection of germany that was mostly populated by a different culture". [STA-CITE]>It saddens me to see xenophobia amongst white cultures, people who believe their culture is being "overrun" by another culture. [END-CITE]I really hope that's not a direct attack at me. But I can sympathize, it makes me sad to see all the hate based on stupid boundaries that makes someone think they can use to oppress their fellow man. Immigration is a great thing - I really hope to move to Japan someday and get to the point where I feel a part of the culture and can help move the nation forward in history. But that doesn't mean extensive immigration is healthy for countries. And don't think I'm riding on my white power horse, what European colonization did to Africa was terrible. [STA-CITE]>If you can't argue against a point that disproves your view, and, upon researching, can't find a refutation to that point, you have no reason to believe your original view. This should be grounds for changing your view, not sticking to a belief you can't defend. [END-CITE]What I meant was I can't just change your definition of land rights. I believe that countries have procedure and I can't just move where I choose if I want to, even if I'm willing and able to take a job.

[bytor99]

[STA-CITE]>I really hope that's not a direct attack at me. [END-CITE]No no, it wasn't! Sorry, I really didn't mean it to come off that way. [STA-CITE]>But regarding the "changing culture aspect", I really don't think that's a healthy change. I doubt they would "meld together", something like that would be looked at as "the event in history where a mass amount of people immigrated to germany and created a cultural divide/made a subsection of germany that was mostly populated by a different culture". [END-CITE]I think the arguments I posted previously still apply. First, it would be impossible for Germany to suddenly be populated by an entirely different culture. There just isn't enough land for millions of people to suddenly decide to move to Germany. But suppose there was-- I think California is a good example, in the 1800s there was a *huge* surge in Asian immigration to California, but I definitely think California turned out fine, and their culture is great. And there's some great Chinese contributions to American culture. And second, I don't think anyone is suddenly "taking culture away". Looking to for example, Indian cultures, I know that Indian people in America celebrate both cultures. There are communities dedicated to celebrating festivals, events, etc that are a part of Indian culture, and that still goes on, while they still can participate in American culture. Even if 80% of Germany suddenly were occupied by another culture, that 20% would still *be free* to practice their own culture. Nobody would be coerced into doing anything against their will. *I would still like to see in the next post a greater explanation from what you believe is so bad about these cultural shifts, other than just a claim that it is sad* [STA-CITE]>And don't think I'm riding on my white power horse, what European colonization did to Africa was terrible. [END-CITE]I think the situations aren't comparable-- European colonization wasn't wrong for exposing Africans to new cultures, it was wrong for it's coercion, for forcing people in Africa to abide by a foreign country's will, even if they did not want to. The situations aren't comparable-- a bunch of Pakistani people moving to the UK (which is I suppose the most relevant one now?) have no intention of upending the UK government, instituting their own, and oppressing the UK people. [STA-CITE]>I believe that countries have procedure and I can't just move where I choose if I want to, even if I'm willing and able to take a job. [END-CITE]This is my biggest question to you: **why do you believe that?** If everything is voluntary, who is being harmed? If I choose to move to another country, someone there chooses to sell me land, and I agree to work for a corporation who has agreed to hire me, I'm not doing any wrong to anyone- I have became a productive member of society.

[grouphugintheshower]

∆ Maybe I'm expecting the worst/not willing to admit I harbor some resentment at certain groups not assimilating into certain countries. I like your approach to this argument and the fact that you haven't compared me to hilter or some 1984 dictator because I think countries have a right to protect their culture. I just think that I as a person don't have a right to move to another country. I think people should have the access to do so if they are a good fit, but I also understand why countries would want to restrict immigration.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bytor99. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/bytor99)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[SalamanderSylph]

I'm not going to argue with any of your immigration points. However, if someone has pure ancestry, it is very easy to tell where in Europe they are from, even without hearing them speak. A Slav and a Scandinavian are very distinct, for example.