US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,371
Why is diversity an end in itself, such that Israel having "much more diversity" is a desirable outcome? It is one thing to say, "This potential immigrant does not share our broad societal identity, but they are willing to comply with our norms, not challenge our prevailing culture, and work to enrich and improve our country," but quite another to say, "We actively want people who differ from our prevailing norms." What does Israel stand to gain from the presence of Hindus, for example? What can Hindus provide for their society that Israeli Jews cannot, such that one ought to actively desire a meaningful Hindu presence?

I want to stress that I'm not suggesting people whose identities differ from the broad norm cannot meaningfully contribute to a society. Rather, it's unclear to me why they should be actively desired in most cases. After all, even if one argues there is enough space in Israel today to accommodate immigration, today is not tomorrow, and Israeli Jews have fertility rates which exceed replenishment levels. Any space one gives away today to foreigners is space which cannot be filled by one's own descendants tomorrow, and the same is doubly true for political space, since the children of those immigrants will be voting, and will feel no less entitled to shape their home society than would anyone else.

I still do not understand why westerners seem to believe diversity is an unmitigated "good." It seems that sometimes it can be beneficial, and sometimes it can be toxic, so surely one must evaluate both on an individual and systematic basis?
A starting point in any argument about human affairs is the principle of freedom, that people should be able to do what they want, including moving anywhere they want, and buy and sell anything they want, unless there are good reasons to impose restrictions. There are people around who do believe that people should be able to move to and from countries at will, and there are also those people who believe that we should all be able to trade goods and services across national borders without any tariffs or other impositions. There is the strong economic argument that giving people freedom to move labour, goods and services leads to the most prosperous economy, simply because the goods will be produced in the best place for their production, and people will move to the best places for the application of their skills. For example, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the states of USA should impose tariffs and immigration checks on their borders, basically all people in USA benefit from the fact that they can move themselves and their goods to whereever they want within the country.

Another argument in favour of such free movement is that mating between peoples of differing genotypes generally increases the health of the population. Ideas of "purity", taken to an extreme by certain historical rulers who married their own siblings, acted to weaken their health by restricting the gene pool. This is observed among Ashkenazi Jews where there are certain genetic diseases which are more prevalent than in the general population.

In the real-world (as opposed to the ideal world) there are nations which impose barriers to movement of peoples, first and foremost to prevent people with bad intent being allowed to enter. The fearis, in a country like Britain, that there is insufficient control of people entering, about half a million a year , many of whom cannot be traced. I think that immigration is to the economic advantage of people in general, but in England the population is now over 1000 a square mile and, to keep our "green and pleasant land", we cannot have a the equivalent of another provincial city added every year.
 
Last edited:

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
These are some thoughtful points, so I want to thank you for enriching the conversation with them.

A starting point in any argument about human affairs is the principle of freedom, that people should be able to do what they want, including moving anywhere they want, and buy and sell anything they want, unless there are good reasons to impose restrictions.
I agree, that's a -- not the, mind you, but a -- potential starting point, one which would be favored by libertarians in particular. If one truly accepts this principle, then one might support mass immigration to Israel, but even so, one would not see diversity as an end in itself, but rather, merely a potential outcome. Accordingly, while this might be a principle which favored immigration liberalization, it would not necessarily favor diversity itself. It would not necessarily oppose it either, though, and if a country like Israel did liberalize it's immigration policies, a number of other ethnic groups would almost certainly take advantage of it to move to the country, so one might say that such a principle implicitly favors diversity if the country adopting it is affluent.

There is the strong economic argument that giving people freedom to move labour, goods and services leads to the most prosperous economy, simply because the goods will be produced in the best place for their production, and people will move to the best places for the application of their skills. For example, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the states of USA should impose tariffs and immigration checks on their borders, basically all people in USA benefit from the fact that they can move themselves and their goods to whereever they want within the country.
Actually, anyone who has suggested secession from the United States of America has essentially argued that (and more than that), and some people have called for such a thing, although they are in the tiny minority at the present. Accordingly, at least some people would like tariff and immigration checks between them and other regions of America. That's not to say that your point about the economics of the situations is necessarily wrong; on a broad scale, so long as moderate redistribution of wealth occurs between member states, the states collectively do seem to benefit from being in a union with one another. That said, what's not clear is whether they benefit equally from such an arrangement, or whether or not they might not benefit more by ejecting, for example, certain under-performing states or states with strongly differing cultural views. It's also not clear to what extent individual citizens benefit. When it comes to illegal immigration, to shift to another example, there's an economic case to be made that it results in more total economic output, but there's also a case to be made that by being put into direct economic competition with those illegal immigrants, not only are some citizens harmed, but the ones harmed are the ones already the most vulnerable. For example, Professor Vernon Briggs argued:

Because most illegal immigrants overwhelmingly seek work in the low skilled labor market and because the black American labor force is so disproportionately concentrated in this same low wage sector, there is little doubt that there is significant overlap in competition for jobs in this sector of the labor market. Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser in this competition are low skilled black workers. This is not surprising, since if employers have an opportunity to hire illegal immigrant workers, they will always give them preference over legal workers of any race or 38 Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages & Employment of Black Workers ethnic background. This is because illegal immigrant workers view low skilled jobs in the American economy as being highly preferable to the job opportunities in their homelands that they have left. A job that pays the federal minimum wage of $7.15 an hour (some states and localities have even higher minimum wages) is often several times higher than the daily wage they could earn in their homelands, if they could get a job at all. Even the worst working conditions in the United States are typically better than what many have experienced before they came to this country. Illegal immigrants, therefore, are often grateful to receive these low wages, and they will do whatever it takes to get these jobs (even if it means living in crowded and substandard living conditions and working under harsh and dangerous conditions). It is also easier for some employers to exploit illegal immigrant workers by paying them less than the minimum wage and not paying them overtime wages because they are fearful of revealing their vulnerable status if they were to complain. Citizen workers know that paying the minimum wages means that the employer values your work at the lowest level that he/she can legally pay. Furthermore, citizen workers expect labor and safety laws to be enforced because they believe they have legal rights to job protections. It is not that citizen workers will not do the work that illegal immigrants are willing to do. Rather, it is that citizens often will not do the work for the same pay and under the same working conditions as will illegal immigrants—nor should they.
There's a certain obvious logic at work there. Again, I'm not going to say there's necessarily a correct answer, but we should remember that when speaking about broad economic trends, they don't necessarily apply evenly across the population.

Another argument in favour of such free movement is that mating between peoples of differing genotypes generally increases the health of the population. Ideas of "purity", taken to an extreme by certain historical rulers who married their own siblings, acted to weaken their health by restricting the gene pool. This is observed among Ashkenazi Jews where there are certain genetic diseases which are more prevalent than in the general population.
Genetic concerns are potentially valid. The Ashkenazi Jews do seem to have some issues, but on the other hand, they are also the group with the highest verbal intelligence in the world. Who else is up there on the IQ scale? Korea and Japan, which are also fairly homogeneous societies historically. Whatever genetic "defects" you see in these people, whether or not they as a group deem those "defects" to be worth the trade involved in maintaining what they see to be "advantages" is surely up to them. Yet even if they agree with you that this is a potential issue, there is really no need to force diversity per se upon a society to maintain a moderate influx of outside genes so long as one is willing to grant marriage visas. After all, if you're worried about genes, then the only sort of "diversity" that matters is multicultural families wherein one of the members of the family is native to the group in question, and this also maximizes the likelihood that one will gain the traces of genetic diversity one desires without being saddled with the long-term cultural diversity that can potentially create division if the cultures in question are insufficiently compatible. Even in insular countries like Korea, such policy has proven adequate to create a slow influx of outside genetics.
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,791
USA
Both parties

If the Palestinians dislike their Palestinian authorities, why don`t they vote in decent ones? Why indeed both Israelis and Palestinians don`t vote for authorities who would bring peace? Considering they both like soccer.
Sorry you feel that way and have misunderstood my points.

Sports brings people together. Sports can help but might not solve the issue between Israel and Palestine. Please no need to get upset/sarcastic with me. Im against the Israeli and Palestinian governments and thats a good thing. Its not like I was generalizing against a group based on there color or religion..The issue for me is the Government leadership. Palestinians voting is a issue of itself, there votes dont count, there leaders answer to the overlord Israeli gov and PA leaders are perhaps getting bribes from Israeli officials to stay in power and hold down the Palestinian and Israeli people from living in one Unified state which would be better for the world. Either way, the Israeli/ Palestine situation is one of IMO the ugliest situations in the world and its been going on for decades. Rich people in Israeli and PA Gov offices drive fancy cars and prop up division while the common Israeli and Palestinian want the same thing they want better freedoms.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2012
794
Sorry you feel that way and have misunderstood my points.

Sports brings people together. Sports can help but might not solve the issue between Israel and Palestine. Please no need to get upset/sarcastic with me. Im against the Israeli and Palestinian governments and thats a good thing. Its not like I was generalizing against a group based on there color or religion..The issue for me is the Government leadership. Palestinians voting is a issue of itself, there votes dont count, there leaders answer to the overload Israeli gov and are perhaps getting bribes from Israeli officials to stay in power and hold down the Palestinian and Israeli people from living in one Unified state which would be better for the world.
Sorry about the sarcasm. I sometimes can`t help it.
Palestinian covernment being in Israels paylist?? Really? HAMAS et al? I think we are now in some grazy conspiracy territory.