why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

[Beskar]

Uh, since when did any "western" state have "unmanaged immigration" going on?

"Really poorly managed immigration"

[Watchman]

"Really poorly managed immigration"

The KKK wannabes 'round these parts consider everything short of "back to Africa" to be that, you know.
Pray tell what would be your particular criteria for "well-managed immigration"?

[Beskar]

The KKK wannabes 'round these parts consider everything short of "back to Africa" to be that, you know.
Pray tell what would be your particular criteria for "well-managed immigration"?

That would be a new one, I am being association with the Klu Klux Klan. As for your question, if you read my earlier posts, you would clearly see my criteria.

In short:
If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded. This is where population control comes in as the population of Britain needs to decrease, there needs to be more emigration from the Isles to elsewhere and this number needs to be greater than the influx. On the otherhand, there are other nations (Such as Poland) which require more (and want more) migration so they are able to have better use of the land and for industry.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

[Watchman]

That would be a new one, I am being association with the Klu Klux Klan.

What, you're one of the Finnish "immigration critical" types?

As for your question, if you read my earlier posts, you would clearly see my criteria.

Would it kill you to reiterate? Please. I insist.

In short:
If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded. This is where population control comes in as the population of Britain needs to decrease, there needs to be more emigration from the Isles to elsewhere and this number needs to be greater than the influx. On the otherhand, there are other nations (Such as Poland) which require more (and want more) migration so they are able to have better use of the land and for industry.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

Uh, are you talking about the ability to feed the population? 'Cause if so Germany is probably the worst example in Europe, as they essentially starved to death already in WW1. (The Nazis bent over backwards - and made some pretty stupid decisions - in an effort to avoid a rerun.) In fact what you're talking about seems to have no bearing at all on how national nevermind global economies have functioned for well over a century now...

[Furunculus]

If everyone crams onto an island, it is pretty evident that very quickly, this island will not be able to support the population on it. In my example of Britain, Britain cannot support it's population without very heavy reliance on imports, it is simply too crowded.

Thus, waton immigration on the isles is a pretty moronic policy as Britain is no where near self-sufficient and this is decreasing rapidly with the decline of agriculture and industry. While a global trade policy you do not have to be able to be fully sufficient, however, you need your exports to be greater than your imports for viable economic growth and sustainability, which Germany is a very good example of.

the problem britain has isn't the absolute level of immigration, we can easily choose to import more.

no, the real problem with immigration in britain is:
> the relative level of change, which cannot easily be accommodated by the population centres where immigrants tend to accumulate, where people tend to be poorer and thus more reliant on a stable and recognisable community.

this 'dissatisfaction' is further catalysed by the following:
> the degree of difference of the immigrant culture, and its perceived compatibility
> an orthodoxy that discourages the native culture from expecting the immigrant culture to adapt to their sensitivities.

to turn it into an argument about demographic sustainability is rather irrelevant, the man on the street doesn't give a damn about that.