Immigraton and Diversity

The world tells us that we need immigration for diversity, but what kind of diversity? Is it a diversity of experiences and lived life, a physical reality of diversity seen with the senses and experienced as reality? Or is it diversity as a mental construct existing only in our head? If we never meet the immigrants is the diversity simply a mental construct? But even if we meet them, even if live next door to them, is the diversity truly experienced without authentic contact? If we read from scripts during our exchanges, if we hide our true opinions and play a role, is living next door diversity any different from a mental construct? Do we need immigrants for a lived experience of diversity which is no better than a purely mental construct where we have no lived experiences with the immigrants, but take satisfaction in closing our eyes and seeing a mental construct of our country which is diverse? All of these questions are valid and important to the immigration debate. But every answer is not, how can one justify diversity as a mental construct? If diversity from immigration is not a lived experience then there is no purpose to it. The mental construct that satisfies so many people can be mentally constructed without immigration. They can imagine themselves as world citizens, as cosmopolitans, and satisfy themselves by sitting back and viewing in their minds a mental construct of the entire world thus achieving maximum possible diversity. If diversity is not to be lived but experienced as a mental construct than the most diverse mental construct belongs to he who views himself as a citizen of the world and this is a choice one can make without supporting immigration, without effectively destroying the West.

But what is diversity as a lived experience? As a lived experience diversity can lead to three end results, conflict, assimilation, or falseness. Diversity as a lived experience requires genuineness, it requires authenticity. You are not being exposed to a another culture if the people you meet are not genuine representatives of that culture and they are not being exposed to your culture if you are not a genuine representative of your culture. What if your cultures are genuinely incompatible? If cultures are genuinely incompatible the result of putting them into contact is conflict. This can be avoided, make it a rule, most likely unofficial, that when you are around people from outside your culture you read from a script. You play a role, you become an actor for the duration of the interaction. This avoids conflict, but the falseness of it means there is no lived experience of diversity. If we follow an unofficial rule of playing a role around people from other cultures then diversity is never a lived experience. The first choice is conflict, the second choice is avoiding conflict through falseness. The third choice is to be genuine with each other, to not hide our cultures yet not be in conflict, to be different and yet get along. This is the third choice and the ideal of those who promote diversity, they claim this is the ultimate benefit of the diversity they seek.

But what happens with this third choice? If we are genuine with each other and live as friends and closely interact there is going to be assimilation. It might be mutual, a new culture combining elements from the diverse elements may emerge. But if we are genuine with each other and get along we are going to influence each other. We are going to culturally influence each other. The technical term for this is assimilation. We will assimilate each other, learn from each other and influence each other. The end result may be one group assimilating into another. The end result may be both groups forming a new culture that combines elements from both. But in the end influencing will happen and the long term result of this influencing is assimilation. And then what is the purpose of diversity? Because after the assimilation is done the diversity is gone. Even the physical diversity will eventually disappear due to intermarriage. If we are genuine with each other and get along in peace we will eventually become each other. The diversity is gone at that point. If you mix cold water with hot water you get warm water, but that is just one kind. The diversity disappears in the situation which advocates hold as the ideal, the situation of genuineness and friendliness. There is no point in immigration if the motive is diversity and the diversity will only be temporary. And if it is not temporary it is because we are in conflict or because we become false and play a role around others.

There are only two ways diversity can be permanent without conflict. One way is to live as virtual islands apart from each other. This is no different from lack of diversity. If we live as islands apart from each other there is no lived experience of diversity only diversity as a mental construct which could be achieved without immigration through considering oneself a world citizen. The other way is falseness, to be among each other, to be neighbors, but to play a role as soon as we leave our homes. This avoids conflict but where is the lived experience of diversity? Any idealized form of diversity as genuine and peaceful leads to cross cultural influencing, it leads to assimilation and this erodes and finally ends diversity. After assimilation we are all the same, that is the opposite of all being different. That is the opposite of diversity. The lived experience of diversity can either be one of conflict or or friendship. If it is one of friendship than there will inevitably be influences across the cultures, across people, across individuals. And then the diversity is gone.

What is the end result of immigration fueled diversity? If it is conflict than I ask why do we need immigrants? If it is falseness I ask the same question. If the immigrants are to live on virtual islands among us then why is that better than them living in their own countries? If the immigrants live on virtual islands then they are living on virtual countries of their own. With falseness and conflict and virtual islands there is no benefit. Whatever benefit which is a mental construct could be gained by those who desire it without immigration by viewing their country as the whole world and themselves as cosmopolitans, this is the most diverse mental construct possible. And if diversity is going to work as intended, if we are going to have the lived experience of diversity and live in friendship then we will influence each other. Friends influence friends. And then we assimilate into each other and the diversity is gone. These are the possibilities and none of them justifies immigration. The only possible outcomes fail to justify the open door policy, the granting of citizenship to all applicants. Diversity as a lived experience will result in diversity as an eroding reality as we influence each other. It is a false hope at best and a recipe for endless conflict at worst. There has to be a better way.