What benefits do migrants bring to a country? Immigrants of some sort probably do most of the menial tasks that the vagaries of which uterus you emerged from let you avoid. They're also the doctors who treat you, your coworkers if you're in tech like most of us are, the people who cook both whatever trendy food you enjoy and whatever comfort food you enjoy. They're the people who actually believe in the fictions the West tells itself about what it is and what it wants to be. They're the people who work twice as hard as you do because they actually know the value of what you were born with and never appreciated like they did.
If we strip your comment from the emotional affect, you're essentially saying that immigrants are happy to do menial jobs that the locals do not.
How do countries without large immigrant (I won't even go to refugees) populations handle this? Switzerland seems to be doing fine. Japan isn't falling apart because there's nobody to cook. Most of Asia is doing fine without allowing any immigrants.
So on a strict analysis of whether immigrants are beneficial to the host population, your argument isn't made.
1. I don't think of foreigners who live in Switzerland as 'immigrants' (despite the article calling them that). They are foreigners who are residing in the country (and most of them come from Europe anyways). It's extremely hard to obtain Swiss citizenship.
2. All the talk about Japan economy doing badly is nonsense. If you believe that narrative (which is totally understandable as that's the conventional wisdom), I strongly suggest you read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/the-true-st...
Basically many Japan watchers (ie people who live there and know the country intimately well) subscribe to this 'alternative' view.
I've asked this question probably two dozen times to various people, in as earnest and non-confrontational a manner as I can , and the only time I've been able to receive a response that departed from "You're a racist." was when I was told by my professor to leave the room.
As a resident of the eastern side of my street, why wouldn't forming an identity and political system based on east-dweller supremacy be in my interest?
I guess because the rivalry would have no meaning and no real benefits, and could lead to needless aggression. And because having conflicts with faraway people I'll never meet is bad enough; having conflicts with my neighbors is an unsettling proposition.
If the residents of the eastern side of your street were, on average, more intelligent, wealthy, and altruistic than those on the western side, while being frequently victimized by west side residents who proudly declared their resentment of easterners, then yes, I believe it would be in the eastern residents interest to form a community separate from the westerners.
Interesting. My well being is so intertwined with that of my neighbors that I don't know how well separating our communities would work. Would I have to build a wall down the middle of the street?
How permanent is that solution? If a child born on the opposite side of the street had access to good education, health care, and jobs, could they also become "intelligent, wealthy and altruistic," and if so, wouldn't it be in my best interests to help that happen? Or even for no direct benefit, wouldn't I just want to help because of that altruism you mentioned?
Conversely, if they are kept isolated from us, wouldn't it make it even harder for them to achieve that potential? If so, doesn't their enduring poverty and lack of intelligence and empathy mean that they're more likely to grow up to commit crimes on my side of the street?
