Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
The question is somewhat problematic because contextual. The terms "mass immigration" and "multiculturalism" not being specifically defined nor their application given to concrete circumstances. In truth, Western countries need a degree of immigration and their cultures are really an assimilated amalgam of other cultures across time.
In terms of immigration, the truth is that as Western nations are aging demographically they will become, at least in economic terms, more dependent on immigration. The aging of their populations means fewer workers and declining economic productivity and thus a decline in the standard of living.
This further because the aging of the population is putting an enormous strain on the welfare states that Western nations have developed. There are fewer workers and thus fewer taxpayers paying into the system even as there are more retirees and thus more beneficiaries drawing resources from that system.
History shows that, as economies develop, birthrates decline and there are few incentives that society can offer to reverse this general pattern. The only way to offset it being immigration.
Of course, mass immigration is problematic. A society that absorbs too many immigrants - especially poorly educated and unskilled immigrants who may not be familiar with the native language - will incur its own economic costs. These aggravated by the fact that such poorly assimilated immigrants will tend to be their own costs in crime and social tensions.
In this sense, then, mass immigration is not beneficial. Rather, immigration must be modulated and the right kinds of immigrants brought in. Too few, the economy teeters. Too many and the economy and the culture face the same fate. The numbers and quality of immigrants then being circumstantially determined.
As to multiculturalism, here again a balance must be struck. At an irreducible level every culture is an amalgam of the subcultures within it. Indeed, it is arguable that Western civilization would not have been possible had not a mass immigration of Roman legions brought the ideas of classical Greece to all Europe. Over time this becoming a singular culture.
Even in contemporary Europe, there is truth in this. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for example, being at once a singular culture with a singular identity. Yet that identity being an admixture of Scottish, Welsh, Irish (Protestant and Catholic) and English subcultures. (Indeed, even within these subcultures there are subcultures. See also the Midlands, the Scottish Highlands, etc.)
The problem arises when these subcultures separate themselves and place themselves, or are placed, in separation from and even in opposition to the predominant culture. This in turn being contingent on the nature of the dominant culture itself.
So long answer to short question. Mass immigration is problematic. If the numbers are too large, they cannot be absorbed over time and this has negative ramifications. However, "mass" immigration is not an absolute, but a circumstantial term that each society must define in context.
Here the nexus with multiculturalism. Subcultures that do not integrate into the larger culture become a nexus for conflict - and as can be seen in places like Africa and the Middle East, even violence. Yet subcultures that integrate into the larger culture add diversity and energy to that culture and may even be a source of its growth. Thus did ancient Athens come to define the whole of Western civilization.
What people often conflate is a multiethnic society with multicultural. People who oppose multiculturalism do not oppose multiethnic contexts, yet one favorite war cry against them is that they are racists. But multicultural societies do not work. There's always a dominant culture, there has to be. Because cultures are values, and a society cannot function with competing values.
Not all cultures are equal to each other. Not all cultures are good. And cultures are de facto competing against each other. Force together pieces that do not fit and you end up with parallel communities and a segregated country. That is quite so what transpires here in Sweden were we have entire townships where not people nor police can go because it is mob-ruled by immigrants. And our southernmost city Malmö is perpetually ablaze with fights between Muslims and Jews on the religious front, (well, Muslims and nazis attacking Jews really, the Jews never fight back) Swedes and Middle Eastern immigrants pitted against one another in gang fights. Honour-killings, Burkhas, ISIS-sympathizers and terrorists are all becoming daily ocurrences.
I'm actually interested to see what you say of this topic Sir, @nightdrot
Wage dumping benefits employers. Landlords are happy because rents rise. Human traffickers have their golden age. Severe criminality and terrorism increase drastically, it's a good pretext for the state to reduce freedom and privacy of their citizens...
Isn't there something for you?
Opinion
17Opinion
Well the best way to answer this is imagine what our country would be like if the only ethnicity we had was the one who first colonized us. There are so many aspects of our culture that would be completely bland if we only had English roots. But we don't and it has turned out well. First of all we gain by enjoying a multitude of perspectives in all issues. Here is a good way to describe it. No population survives long without some degree of genetic diversity. If you have 1,000 horses and all are the grandchildren of the same ten mated pairs of horses then within a few generations the population will die off from various disease and defects. This is not just true with genetics but also with culture. No nation has flourished for more than a few centuries without cultural diversity. Japan's isolation almost destroyed it. North Korea is but 70 years old and it is almost completely self destructed and it is about the most culturally isolated nation on the planet. Ten, perhaps twenty years from now, N Korea will implode.
Problem as I know is that when European countries started accepting people on political asylum from country during the 1980s they forgot to do background checks.
Many actual criminals went and claimed political asylum and made profut out of it as they proclaimed to be political workers when in fact they were common theives and had no persecution. And this I know because many people claimed to live in my town but when they were confronted about the address they gave fake addresses belonging to people we knew ourselves.
What instead could have stopped mass immigration was the support of the Western countries on social level.
One example is the German doctora and nurses who settled and stayed in my country during the 1950s and 1960s.
In this way these people actually helped out the foreign countries without accepting much foreigners. Surely, they married here but I think it helped spread culture in a much better way.
Instead of diluting the milk, they can start diluting the water.
Had that practice continued their would have been more Europeans living and engaging in positive development of societies in these countries.
As they would have backing of stronger host states, this would have prevented local governments from persecuting them like they persecute their own people in the third world
It’s not really about what anyone brings or doesn’t bring. It’s just that national borders are imaginary lines only observed by one species of animal out of an estimated 8.7 million, so the whole thing is just fake life to me. Countries only exist because humans say they do, and I don’t consider that valid. “Borders” are things you can’t readily pass, like oceans or mountain ranges. I don’t really think it’s any human’s or group of humans’ place to say anybody can’t go anywhere they fucking want, it only serves to preserve a manufactured reality that only applies to our species that I view as ultimately invalid.
None. As you can see from the dysmal condition of American society and that of some of the more open european countries.
It might seem harsh, but uniformity of culture and intent is the only way in which maximum efficiency can be attained.
And now, to have globalist dimwits to bring their braindead opinions on my take.
if you want the answer, just look at the 1000's of once prosperous American cities that became war zones after they turned brown. Or the welfare costs. or the prison costs. or all the extra police that are needed. Or the cost to companies of putting incompetents in important positions so they can defend against discrimination lawsuits. Or the higher insurance everyone has to pay because certain groups have more claims. Or the dumbing down of schools to accommodate groups who learn more slowly
More robberies, more deadly assaults, more murder and more rapes... Especially more rapes. Ahh can't you just smell the culture enrichment our clown overlords are gracing us with?
The main benefit -as I see it- is to prevent stagnation or progress.
'Values' MUST be questioned, tested and evolved/adapted;
and having additional 'exteriour' input rather is a gift than a threat.
Absolutely nothing especially migration from poverty stricken socially backward hell hole countries.
Bringing misery, poverty and social lag into your territory is the height of stupidity.
Nothing at all.
Votes for left wing parties, and cheaper workers for companies.
Other than that, it's food. I wouldn't sacrifice my nation for interesting cuisines...
It brings no benefit that comes even close to balancing the harm.
There is zero benefit.
Mass immigration and multiculturalism are being used to carry out a slow genocide of the white races.
The U. S. Has become what it is, a powerful nation, BECAUSE of multiculturalism.
It worked for the bloody romans.
For about a thousand years, we probably got another decade before shit is going to get really scared.
Immigrants are above average more successful, educated and contribute more to society.
Zero benifit most criminals are immigrants. Maybe some good food but is it worth low wage high crime rate and high housing price?
LOL... that's why I have Locks on the doors of my Home... to keep strangers OUT
More for the benefit of the person immigrating
Yes i see your point of view
TACOS and lawn maintenance.
Democracy, and inclusion
You can also add your opinion below!
