Mass immigration has been the undoing of leftwing political parties across Europe since it erodes the shared values that are an essential prerequisite of a well-funded welfare state. Why should indigenous, working populations support the high levels of taxation necessary to sustain generous welfare payments if the beneficiaries are people unlike themselves? If they cant look at a benefit recipient and think, There, but for the grace of God, go I, why should they continue to pay such high taxes? This problem was spelt out by David Willetts a few years ago: The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldnt do? This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests. When it comes to differences between countries, social cohesion plays a major role. Broadly speaking, countires that are more ethnically or racially homogenous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality by transfering some of the resources fr9om the richer to poorer people frough the fiscal system. This may explain why Swedes complain less about high taxes than the inhabitants of a country of immigrants such as America. But it also suggests that even in societies with a tradition of high taxes (such as those in Scandinavia) might find that their citizens would become less willing to finance generous welfare programs were immigrants to make up a greater share of their populations.
After the wall fell, West Germans had problems integrating East Germans, who were German, but less educated and poorer. Many immigrants into Europe uneducated and poor. Maybe another factor is that immigrants are well enough off on European welfare, they don't see a need to seek work. People generally understand the need for a safety net, but get upset when it becomes a hammock.
This is perfectly true and it only shows how wrong are the American liberals, who promote more diversity and immigration, yet they also support large welfare state. The liberal left is much more dangerous than all mainline socialists.
Sweden is actually in the midst of significant demographic change, because of all the muslim immigration: http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/203518-sweden-now-violent-muslim-country.html It will be interesting to see how this diversity will effect swedish conceptions of "shared values", and whether people will continue to favor such generous welfare benefits when most of the recipients are of a foreign culture and ethnicity. Sweden is a sociological experiment in the making. We should be sure to check back in 20 years and see if the famous high scandinavian standards of living deteriorate. The fate of Sweden will have serious implications for the viability of the ideology of "multiculturalism".
Multiculturalism has shattered American unity permanently. The division is so great that it prevents America from dealing effectively with the crisis that is upon the country.
This is from wikipedia: Diversity and Social Trust Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how diversity affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "dont trust the local mayor, they dont trust the local paper, they dont trust other people and they dont trust institutions," writes Putnam. Sailer, Steve, "Fragmented Future," American Conservative, Jan. 15, 2007. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam wrote that, "We hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And its not just that we dont trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we dont trust people who do look like us." Ethologist Frank Salter wrote: Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States...find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure..... A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogenous cities. Salter, Frank, On Genetic Interests, pg.146. Integration in Germany: In October 2010 German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam near Berlin that attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany had "utterly failed", stating: "The concept that we are now living side by side and are happy about it does not work". She continued to say that immigrants should integrate and adopt Germany's culture and values. This has added to a growing debate within Germany on the levels of immigration, its effect on Germany and the degree to which Muslim immigrants have integrated into German society. ^ "Merkel says German multicultural society has failed". BBC News. 2010-10-17.
This is not surprising at all. All the wealthy nations that exist today started out being based on some basic principles of common interest. Today most immigrants are interested only in what the new state can go for them, and in fact resent being told to change anything about themselves. There is no way to force people to be thankful or good-hearted. The best strategy is to figure out better ways to pick those kind for immigration in the first place.
The uniting of west and east germany clearly demonstrates that ethnicity and culture trumps economic factors in their influence on social cohesion.
Robert Putnam studied the downsides of diversity, and found that people in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television." Michael Jonas wrote about ethnic diversity, "Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they are also less likely to look out for one another.
