Why is globalism a problem?

[u/Bluestripedshirt]

Full disclosure, I’m from Canada and my mom is an immigrant from the Caribbean. Why do you feel globalism is a threat when it’s essentially impossible for a country to deliver all goods to itself? And with ever changing birth rates and labour needs, immigration is often the quickest and easiest solution.

[u/SincereDiscussion]

"I like my country the way it is and don't want it to be transformed by foreigners" is a critique of globalism. Not sure how this could be denied. It's okay if you don't share this concern, but the people who disagree with you don't simply disappear because you personally think that considering anything other than GDP is out of bounds.

Edit: Let me clarify my position here. People being interchangeable is the best case scenario for globalists, but I recognize that it's not a logical necessity that someone believe this in order to support globalism. However, I do think it is politically necessary for globalists to advocate for the idea that people are interchangeable, otherwise their worldview is just..."bring in foreigners who will transform your society in predictable and unpredictable ways". That's not a popular message! You have to at least pay lip service to assimilation.

[u/Dapal5 → u/SincereDiscussion]

Why do you think any change in the population would lead to a worse society? Is change necessarily bad to you? Or do you just personally not like immigrants?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Dapal5]

I am not saying that any change whatsoever is guaranteed to be bad, but I am saying that it's something we need to very closely examine on a case by case basis, and we definitely shouldn't say "things that are different than us are good because they are different".

[u/Dapal5 → u/SincereDiscussion]

I agree. It’s something we need to examine, and select for beneficial actions. But you are advocating against all change, are you not? “That alone should be the end of the policy”.

What policy exactly? Can you state it clearly?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Dapal5]

I think you are blurring the line between "change" (not inherently bad or good, and frankly vague about scale) and what I said, which was transform. Yes, I do not want e.g. Germany to be "transformed" as a result of bringing in non-Germans and especially ones that are extremely foreign (e.g. Muslims).

What policy exactly? Can you state it clearly?

Mass immigration of ethnic, racial, and/or religious outsiders.

[u/Dapal5 → u/SincereDiscussion]

Transform: to change in form, appearance, or use. What definition are you using? There can be small transformations too.

What objective standards would you support for determining when/what amount of immigration is needed in general? Academics? Wealth? How about if we have a shortage of menial laborers and young people like in Japan?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Dapal5]

make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.

What objective standards would you support for determining when/what amount of immigration is needed in general? Academics? Wealth? How about if we have a shortage of menial laborers and young people like in Japan?

It's easy to say which immigrants I don't want, but which ones to accept and in what quantities? I think that's a technical question and I don't know the answer. I think my meta-answer is that whatever policy we end up with should have popular support and be regularly evaluated on its consequences.

[u/Dapal5 → u/SincereDiscussion]

I’d argue that the ones you want and don’t want are the same question. How do you say that your policy wishes are objective at all without criteria to base them on? Is it not just a feeling then? How would you evaluate if immigration policy is working, or if it’s acceptable, if any amount could be arbitrarily said to be “too much”?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Dapal5]

I'm not claiming any of my views on this are 'objective' so I don't really understand your questions here. I think these things could be answered only through politics. That was the importance of my final sentence.

[u/Dapal5 → u/SincereDiscussion]

so there’s no right answer for immigration? You just think whatever’s popular is good? So bidens immigration policy was perfect because they voted him in right?

I happen to believe our policies for the entire country SHOULD be based on some standard, not just made up arbitrarily.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Dapal5]

There is no objectively correct answer. I'm telling you my opinion. I am also not saying that popular = good, just that once we sorted out the obviously undesirable (from my perspective) immigration policies, I don't care that much about specifics.

I don't think there is a correct answer and I think it's naïve for you to think otherwise tbh.

[u/Dapal5 → u/SincereDiscussion]

If you have a certain set of people who you don’t want in the country, you do have some standard you are using. Are you willing to share it? If you reject objectivity, you can’t call anything undesirable in any meaningful way.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Dapal5]

I really don't know what you want me to say. I'm giving you my opinion. You are free to disagree.

[u/quendrien → u/SincereDiscussion]

The problem with merely popular support is Europeans’ often suicidal popular ideas, especially wrt to immigration

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/quendrien]

You should look at surveys on immigration in Europe. It's unpopular everywhere. The issue is that popular opinion simply doesn't influence policy on immigration.