I know what you mean. Gallia Celtica has been ruined by all these Franks with their funny foreign ways. Gallia Celtica for the Celts, that's what I say.

Nobody forced France to colonise half of Africa.

It is not racism or xenophobia to want to preserve what is good about a nation's culture, and limit the import of other nations' and culture's problems.

Could you please answer the following questions:

1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable?

2. If you believe that there is such a limit; what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like, such that you would not be accusing them of xenophobia and racism? How would their arguments differ from core-questions'?

>1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable?

Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.

> what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like

It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.

> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.

There is clearly more to it than just economic and population density reasons. Culture matters. Consider, for example, that female genital mutilation is now a European problem. Or that Europe today has de facto implemented Islamic blasphemy laws - where people are afraid to criticize Islam publicly for fear of being murdered. Or that the number of rapes has gone up significantly in Sweden, with more than 80% of rape assaults being carried out by foreign-born individuals? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden) Or that 52% of British muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and that close to half of British muslims believe that wives should always obey their husbands? (https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/doc...)

So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons.

You may wish to reflect for a moment on why Africa has 430 million French speakers.

> So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons.

But it can also change for the better.

His point is that culture is not fixed and immutable. Whether it changes for better or worse depends on circumstances.

But suppose that it is perceived by the public that the net benefit from mass immigration is negative. How should they organize into a political movement or even voice their concerns, such that they do not get accused of being racist, xenophobic, populist, fascist, far-right?

> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons.

This seems like a very... austere, perhaps even autistic lens to use on the problem. It sounds like if we were just able to pack people in as perfectly as possible, like apples in a box, and somehow still maintain an average tax profitability from them, you'd be okay with whatever was happening inside the apple box.

Clearly that's a mis-characterization of you or any other reasonable person's viewpoint. The welfare of individuals, their life experience, their safety, their freedom, their ability to express themselves and find their niche... all of this matters.

> I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.

Of course not. However, it moves slowly! There's a viscosity to it, and part of that resistance to change is something like an implicit Chesterton's Fence:

> Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.

Just because you _can_ change a culture (in this case by force, by changing the cultural makeup of a region, often by fiat) does not mean that it is a moral act, or that the result you get out the other side is some predictable good. It is too complicated, too reactionary, too slippery of a concept to deal with in any way other than the purely speculative. Trends don't always continue - and conversely, pretending a trend or other demographic factor doesn't exist can be just as bad. There are far too many inconvenient truths to learn that illustrate the fallibility of humanity in every form, _particularly_ in terms of how we collectively get along with one another.

> It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.

A compelling argument that this is already the case is being made by many. The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.

> The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.

Clearly, this is what is happening with your contributions to this discussion. No matter how carefully written, your original contribution is nowhere to be found now. This only goes to show that these matters can not be debated.

>I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.

It's absolutely not fixed and immutable. That's what this whole discussion is about: whether there should be policies directed at preserving culture as it exists.

>It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.

That the Far Right has gained power in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Italy, etc etc (not to mention the US) today is all the evidence I need that we live in that time already.

No one is saying that culture is fixed and immutable. If you put X million people of <Y> origin somewhere, you'll end up with <Y> culture there.

That's precisely the problem.

Do you support mass immigration of European or Chinese people to Africa until population density becomes a problem?

There was a HN discussion here recently which made me realise, not even Japan is without racism. There is racism there towards all kinds of people, those with family trees originating in the ancient lower caste, people with Korean heritage, the ainu, and most of all, towards people who are visibly different.

This should not be a surprise to anyone who's well travelled. In fact, the least racist countries on Earth are in North America, where it is talked about the most.

Please leave your hatred for Israel out of this. Israel is extremely multicultural. All signs are officially in three languages. The population is 20% Arabic, and 60% of the Jews there come from all over the middle east and Africa.

Please leave your artificial, unfounded judgement calls about "hatred for Israel" out of this. I do not hate Israel, I just recognize it as an ethnic state that is for and by the Israeli people; while others may live there, it is clear from reading any major publication from the region that it is a regieme that operates in its own interests.

I have no issue with that. In fact, I like it so much I'd like to adopt the idea.

Israel didn't seem very welcoming of multiculturalism when they tricked Ethiopian Jewish women into being sterilized in order to keep their numbers down. Apparently some cultures in Israeli multiculturalism are more equal than others.

The Waffen SS was also extremely multicultural. It had units of fighters from Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.

This is a thread about Paris, yet all you rabid haters, who are obsessed with hating Israel, made it about Israel.

@dang -- remove these evil people from Hacker News

No hate here. No obsession with Israel. I support their right to be an ethno-nationalist state. I just don't deny that's what they're doing, which seems to be an approach too many people take.