Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

I would have to go with citizenry as the preferred method.

Temporary guest workers don't feel any ownership in their new residence because they have nothing to lose (they can just move to another state to work). I watched it happen in Kuwait and Iraq. Temporary workers are not as passionate about doing a good job.

As you've stated before. Strong Immigration is lifeblood to the U.S. Our vitalogy. Doctors don't give you temporary blood infusions do they?

Give our immigrants a reason to stay and contribute to society. Give them ownership. Ownership implies responsibility. Responsibility shared creates nationalism.

Citizenship - that's how you bring new blood into the political system. Look at what's happening here. We have a candidate who is genuinely shaking up the system. In part, that is generational, and in part, that is racial. But it's also the product of immigration. In-bred political systems die.

The US must address the dual citizenship issue. Interesting that the historic US policy forbidding dual citizenship was changed without public knowledge or expert review. It would be interesting to know how many US citizens hold dual citizenship?

On our last trip to Ireland we kept running into young Polish kids working in hotels, pubs, and restaurants. I asked around and was told that 20% of the workforce in Ireland is foreign born. An amazing figure for that small island country. EU citizens can work in any EU country. The Poles and Irish share the Catholic faith and the Poles have been learning English in their schools. it seems to be a good fit. We also discovered that Poles are working in very low paying agricultural jobs in Spain. Mexicans come to America to picks crops and Poles go to Spain to do the same thing. What a world! One thing that disturbed me was the amount of property in Ireland that was being bought by wealth mainlanders. Lots of new houses in coastal areas being bought by British, German and Dutch investors. It would be interesting to focus on a small country like Ireland to see how the mobile workforce of globalization will affect national identity.

While you are right that Southeast Asians are immigrating to the Middle East, its important to remember that this system is nothing like Europe or the US. Immigrants are housed in areas of the country that are closed off from the rest. They are given no "path to citizenship" and can in no way, affect the culture of those nations. They're generally single men who work and send money back home. They could complain about "lack of rights" but no one would listen.

"In-bred political systems die."

Just the opposite I'm afraid. This statement probably reflects your own belief system as opposed to any honest analysis. Homogeneous nations are by far, the most healthy and stable of political configurations. The reason nations like Japan and Denmark are "dying" has more to do with birthrates than anything else. Look at all the non-"inbred" countries of the world and then you'll find some dying political systems (or at least some dying people). Imagine the US Constitution being written in a non-"inbred" situation? Do you think it would have ever happened? Its probably better if you write something like "I prefer to live in a diverse nation" instead of making such a sweeping statement like you did. Don't take this harshly, one of the reasons I like blogs so much is because we can try out new ideas in a semi-public place and make mistakes without any repercussions. We can work out ideas that we think are good and have them crushed in the privacy of our own homes.

To: GJA
Having recovered from the experience of being "crushed" , I thought I would offer a response -
1. I was not just referring to diversity, but to the ability of a political system to incorporate outsiders. Historically, successful empires have had this attribute, notably the Romans and the Mongols. I suggest that this attribute also applies to the British political system, which you might think of as "in-bred", but two of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers, Disraeli and Lloyd George, were assimilated members of ethnic minorities. If you didn't notice, France has also recently turned to a son of immigrants in order to shake up its political system. In any event, the population of the British Isles is neither in-bred nor stable, being the product of constant waves of invasions (Celts of various types, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Norman-French) that led to the development of a mongrelized but highly adaptable language called English, which bears little resemblance to the language actually spoken by the Angles. Even after these invasions, British history was marked by protracted civil wars and even today, a study of British politics reflects that ethno-religious backgrounds, even more than economic class, tend to influence political affiliation.
2. You introduced the concept of "stability", not me. I view the ability to grow and adapt to changed circumstances as being equally important to the health of a society as stability. Homogenous societies may be stable when they are isolated (Iceland), but isolation is a chimera in the world of globalization. The homogenous Danes are discovering how unstable things can get when you insult the Prophet. Moreover, a state that seeks to maintain an exclusionary political system in a non-isolated context can be highly de-stabilizing. Germany and Japan are examples of countries that historically had very closed political systems. Instead of growing by assimilating outsiders, these states attemped to grow by means of forcible expansion, the result being the most destructive war (or wars) in human history. At the risk of being inflammatory, I would also suggest that Israel and Saudi Arabia are other examples of countries that are attempting to maintain exclusionary political systems in a non-isolated context, with consequences that are very de-stabilizing.
3. Even using stability as the sole measure of a country's health, diverse states can be highly stable, so long as the state's political system is one that has been chosen by the diverse groups. Switzerland is the best example of this; I think Canada is probably another good example, as I think that the Quebecois have achieved a modus vivendi and I don't think secession is likely. Australia is another highly diverse country, and the New Core is almost entirely made up of extremely diverse states (India, South Africa, the ABC countries of South America). To be sure, there are many examples of diverse states that are highly unstable, but these are "fake states" like Yugoslavia and Iraq, i.e., states that were not created by the people living there but were imposed by external forces, which is also the case for much of Africa. Interestingly, stability in the former Yugoslavia is being achieved not just by the break-up into smaller homogenous states, but by the voluntary incorporation of those states into an even larger, more diverse political system, namely, the European Union. I see the European Union developing into a kind of giant Switzerland - a loose, voluntary confederation of diverse groups that will draw political leadership from all of those groups. Whether or not there are limits on the adaptability of that confederation (e.g., can it incorporate Turkey) remains to be seen.
4. As for America, the founders of the U.S. were actually a pretty diverse group including Catholics and Protestants of numerous denominations ranging from Calvinist to Quaker (as well as Unitarians and Deists), and whose ethnic backgrounds were not just English, but included Scots, Irish, Welsh, Scots-Irish, Dutch, German, and even Italian. No other country in 1776 had a political leadership that was that diverse. Indeed, I believe that it was the need to deal with this diversity that led to the writing of the Constitution. Of course, the initial Constitution was a failure that collapsed into civil war, requiring substantial post-war adaptations. American history has been extremely bloody (we dealt with the indigenous population not through assimilation but through genocide) and often "unstable", but again, stability isn't everything. Growth and adaptability, more than stability, are the hallmarks of American success.
I don't just prefer living in a diverse nation, I actually do. And prefer it or not, we all live in a diverse, interconnected world. Successful nations have political systems consistent with that world.
(Sorry if this is too long, but it seems as though some leeway should be given to a poster who has been crushed).

Size also has to be taken into consideration. Two of the most successful economies in Asia over the past few decades are Hong Kong and Singapore. Neither could be considered homogeneous, but they do have one thing in common with some of the more successful homogeneous states; small size. That allows the governments to keep track of the needs and conflicts of a diverse population more readily than in a large country, and it also reduces the likelihood of geography forcing a divergence in the interests of a homogeneous population.

stuart abrams,

I was under the impression that you were in some way defending this idea of "diversity" or "multiculturalism." Seeing that it is, for the most part un-defendable, I should have known better.

1. As you pointed out, British history is full of death as those various ethnic groups battled for resources. It actually took until the late 1990's for the last of these ethnic wars to end. I guess this means we know what to look forward to in North America and Europe? You are correct that France "turned" to a son of immigrants. I'm sure you realize that he won by adopting The National Fronts positions on immigration, right?

2. I'm not sure how you can call Denmark "Homogeneous", the reason it had such problems is because its not. As far as Germany and Japan being "closed", you're half right. Japan has traditionally been a closed a society, but is this the reason for the Second World War? After the war, Japan has continued to be closed to immigration, and I don't think anyone can say they were in anyway unsuccessful. As far as Germany being closed, you’re way off. The German states had lowered their tariffs even before the end of British Corn-Laws. Before WWI, Germany was very lively in international trade and after WWII the victors liked Germany's industry so much they took it apart and brought it home. I've seen no data suggesting that closed countries are more warlike, but maybe you can provide some? Again, Germany and Japan are still fine places to be, but due to various reasons, have faltering birthrates. Also, why do you fear sounding inflammatory when pointing out Israel’s actions? It wouldn’t be due to any ethno-interest groups with a history of intimidation to those who point out what you said, could it?

3. And then you cite S. Africa, the ABC's, and India as what, successful? Why didn't you throw Zimbabwe in there too? Canada as you point out has a separatist "problem" that’s not getting any better. The European Union is doing OK, but even there we see various ethnic groups wanting out. Have they passed a constitution yet? Europe sees "diversity" as such a strength that people are actually sent to jail there for showing too much displeasure towards it. In Britain, some arch-Bishop actually suggested adopting Sharia law, in order to not piss off the Muslims. I hope your right about Europe becoming Switzerland, without of course, the most powerful party in the EU using a campaign poster showing two white sheep kicking a black sheep out of the country (See Swiss people’s Party).

4. Your statement about "stability not being the most important thing" is very reviling. I don't know what your background is or where you live but I think you may regret that statement. No, maybe stability doesn't matter to elites who live in gated communities or 1950-like towns in the upper Midwest. But to the people who have to deal with this lack of stability, I guess it’s too bad for them, right? I guess we can look forward to the SysAdmin force patrolling East LA and Southwest? I guess we can look forward to Europe-like "hate speech" laws, or more forced busing to promote "equality." I guess our children can continue to sit in schools that are collapsing due to overcrowding and resources going to "underperforming" students. These same schools are very clear to teach our children that the founders of the country were all notorious, white men, and that this is very, very, very bad. If we have the first 175 years of American history to look forward too again, then I'm not sure how optimistic I feel.

Look, there's no question that countries need to be open to ideas, trade, and technology. You won't find a protectionist here. You stated early in your rebuttal, that you were not defending diversity, but then you want on to defend diversity? Diversity has historically meant death and destruction and don't think for a minute, that the 21st century will be different. Please understand that I DON'T WANT IT TO BE THIS WAY but why should I expect things to turn out different? The Western World + Japan are in some serious trouble. The only reason at all to embrace any sort of “diversity” is due to low birth rates. I realize this is shocking to hear as we have all be socialized to consider anything short of multi-cultural paradise as being the epitome of Nazism. But I can’t ignore what I see, and what I see is problems whenever there’s a large scale demographic transition. You correct that we live in a diverse and interconnected world. I wouldn’t have it any other way. But does that mean I have to accept this diverse world all coming to my community? I realize the dilemma is huge, the West + Japan are not having enough children. Fair enough, but don’t act if the diversity in itself is the positive when it’s clearly not.

I hope I at least helped you see another prospective here? Like I said above, we are socialized to accept multiculturalism as the grandest of religions. Any rejection of this is the highest of heresies. It’s important to look at who exactly are the biggest supporters of this religion. Here we find corporate America, identity politicians, bureaucrats (for more government jobs), world government propionates, and those in the “civil rights” racket. On the other side we find the working and middle classes. The questions to ask now are: What’s in your interests? How will your life be affected? And what kind of circumstances do you want your children to grow up in? Give this some thought.

Last, I truly appreciate your gentlemanly demeanor in this debate. Many times, people who have been socialized in the above described religion, rely on name calling and demagoguery when defending their un-defendable positions. For this, I am grateful….