If all immigration never existed, and was never allowed, would all countries be living in peace. It seems that when aliens enter a country some sort of disturbance starts. Some experts have stated that if people stayed in their own country instead of running to some other country, they would be forced to stand up and resolve the problems in their own country. We see so many immigrants run from their birth country to another country because it is peaceful and then they try and turn that country into what their birth country was. Some people say to send all immigrants back to where they come from, let them sort out their own countries problems. some experts say that if there are 100000 people fleeing from one country to escape the violence, they should be armed and sent back to where they came from, I suppose 100000 armed people would have to make a difference. Immigration never seems to help a country, politicians say it helps the economy, but there is no proof that the economy would not progress without them.
asked 28 Dec '13, 05:36
showing 0 of 3 show 3 more comments
No, I don't believe there are any historical accounts of a land or country being utterly "destroyed" due to immigration. But from the additional comments following your question, it seems that what you are really asking is:
Does immigration sow strife, and/or alter the character of a nation or people to the extent that they lose the original qualities which made them good or valuable?
A valid question, since this might seem to be what has happened to more than one civilization in history.
It is also a highly charged, politically-themed question which we could endlessly debate. However, since Inward Quest is a "spirituality, reality creation, metaphysics, mind power, human consciousness" themed website...
Let's try to answer this from a metaphysical, Law-of-Attraction based perspective.
To do this, let's take an issue from past history which most people have heard of, and, to most, seems just so horrible and unfair:
The immigration of Europeans to America, and the subsequent displacement of the American Indians.
I will attempt to summarize what I believe is the prevailing modern sentiment about this historical situation:
The American Indians were a mostly peaceful people who were the rightful indigenous inhabitants of America. When Europeans arrived, they were welcomed with nothing but the best of intentions--with open arms by the natives. However, the Whites, in their cruelty and greed, began to steal and cheat the Indians out of their land. The Indians united in a pan-Indian alliance and attempted to resist...however, the vastly superior numbers and technology of the Whites was just too much for them. This conflict culminated in a massive holocaust in which the Indians were completely wiped out, deprived of their culture, and forced to live on pathetic reservations, where, due to White oppression, they live in eternal poverty and servitude.
Having a lifelong fascination with the American Indian, about ten years ago I began reading everything I could written by the Indians themselves, as well as firsthand accounts of the Indians by the early white colonists and explorers. What I found was a bit different than the summary I posted above. To wit:
The American Indians were a mostly peaceful people
The Indians were (and are) a highly diverse bunch. Many of the tribes first encountered by European settlers, such as the Iroquois, Narragansetts, Powhatans, etc., regularly fought each other in struggles for power and territory, and typically practiced ritual torture (to the death) of their captives. Although I will not go into further detail here, those who need evidence can read a Jesuit account here: http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/relations_05.html or, from a Indian's own account, the autobiography of Red Cloud here: http://books.google.com/books?id=PpE-zGJZmk8C&q=103#v=onepage&q=scalped%20alive&f=false
There also existed vast Indian Empires such as the Aztec, as well as the Iroquois Nation--the latter whom completely dominated the American Northeast and North Midwest, and counted plate body armor, walled cities, and siege engines among their various tools of war.
Rival tribes frequently slaughtered and displaced each other.
Also, it should be noted that many of the apparently "genocidal" actions perpetrated by the Europeans were considered retribution for similar actions perpetrated by the native Americans. An example of this is the Sullivan Expedition (during the American Revolution), which was ordered by George Washington in direct response to the Cherry Hill Massacre and Wyoming Massacre. Another example is King Philip's War, in which nearly half of all towns in New England were burned to the ground--an attempt by the Indians to completely wipe out the white settlers. When Narragansett Indians approached Providence, Rhode Island, full of peaceful, neutral Quakers, they were met by a pleading Roger Williams. The Indians dismissed his pleas and burnt down Providence.
How does all of this look from a like-attracts-like perspective?
When Europeans arrived, they were welcomed with nothing but the best of intentions--with open arms by the natives.
In many cases (the pilgrims, for one), Indians immediately began devising ways to use and manipulate the colonists in their power-struggles with other tribes. See the stories of Squanto and Massaoit for examples as related in Nathaniel Philbrick's Mayflower.
The Whites, in their cruelty and greed, began to steal and cheat the Indians out of their land.
To be sure, many did. Others were simply poor, desperate squatters trying to eke out a living any way they could. Others maintained excellent friendships with the Indians, such as Benjamin Church and Roger Williams.
The Indians united in a pan-Indian alliance and attempted to resist.
Some tribes did manage to unite and resist. Other tribes sided with the whites and aided them. Still others remained neutral and did not engage in fighting at all. Many conflicts with the Indians were only won by the Whites after they themselves obtained the aid and alliance with other tribes.
The vastly superior numbers and technology of the Whites was just too much for them.
Almost immediately after the first white settlers arrived, Indians began eagerly acquiring and using European technology. King Phillip's War, the most devastating American war ever, was fought in 1675--only 55 years after the first settlers arrived. By this time, Indians had become so reliant on firearms, that many no longer knew how to use a bow and arrow. Indians were described as fearsome marksmen, superior to the whites, and during King Phillip's War Indians used firearms to the exclusion of all other missile weapons.
This conflict culminated in a massive holocaust in which the Indians were completely wiped out, deprived of their culture, and forced to live on pathetic reservations, where, due to White oppression, they live in eternal poverty and servitude.
A few things should be noted here:
This is not to say that, when viewed through a macro-cosmic lens, that Indians did not get the "short end of the stick" as far as land and resources were concerned. But it's not quite the simple tale of unjust oppression that it is made out to be.
And clearly not all tribes and individuals followed the violent and depressing momentum of the majority of their race.
So, from a law-of-attraction perspective, how did the Indians who perished attract all of this?
In addition to the above examples already cited, it should be noted that many of the Indian tribes adhered to doomsday prophecies, the Aztecs being one of the most noted examples.
Also, among many Indian cultures, death in battle was considered the most desirable, glorious fate that one could wish for. As a Sioux warrior said, "It is better to die young on the battlefield, than to live to carry a cane."
It is also worth noting the following quotes from Sioux warriors:
You might say that the American Indians were an excellent vibrational match for the European Colonists that immigrated to their country. A perfect match, even.
So what does this mean for all of us?
In a nutshell, we will get the future we expect.
If you believe immigration is destroying your country, and it upsets you, then you will continue to shift into that possible future.
If you believe that your country will "survive" whatever issues immigration brings, and you feel good about the way your country is headed, then you will continue to shift into that possible future.
If you love, wallow in, and focus on violence, you will attract more violence.
If you believe that your nation will be destroyed, then you will start to attract that experience.
No point in re-wording what others have already said about the Law of Attraction and "problems of the world" type questions...so I'll direct you to the following thread. Take what's been said here and see how it applies:
answered 28 Dec '13, 14:32
I understand that in England Muslims have taken over whole areas and even the police won't go there. What you seem to be saying is that the English people have used the law of attraction to wish for this and the railway bombing to happen.
(28 Dec '13, 17:02) Wazza
Yes. They were using the law of attraction as all of us are all of the time.
(28 Dec '13, 17:31) lozenge123
I believe it is a more complex issue than personal belief. I think of the thousand monkey syndrome. When a thousand monkeys learned to wash potatoes. Then monkeys in other unrelated places started learning, clean potatoes taste better. Next they will learn cooked potatoes are even better with butter on them, also some rosemary now that is good! So it has to be a group belief. If you believe America will be destroyed, I believe I needn't fear unless maybe millions believe so, then I need to fear
(28 Dec '13, 21:46) Wade Casaldi
@Wade Casaldi - A belated Merry Christmas to you, Sir! " I believe I needn't fear unless maybe millions believe so, then I need to fear" ... Even if you don't believe that we shift into our own personal version of reality--as Bashar states--don't some of the examples cited above (the Hopi and Cherokee, for instance) prove that depending on one's choices and vibration, not all individuals are required to follow the momentum of the majority of their nation or race?
(04 Jan '14, 12:16) lozenge123
showing 2 of 4 show 2 more comments
It is true that if they would make the change in their own country they would not move out of their country. it is true that often they do not respect the country and people in it trying to reproduce the same pattern in their country. in those time they should start to change their inside first that is where it start for a true change. why would someone escape something not working for a better place and try to make the same bad pattern in the new better place that he is now in. it is not weapon that will change all this. weapon brings only destruction. if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. bring light on the problem that is darkness and ignorance and it will dissolve or will make battle not accepting the truth and trying to mock you it will show is true colors void, stupidity and emptiness. what the immigrant should ask him self is why do I try to change this country to make it the same that the place I have left that was full of problem that we could not solve?
also before changing this country for the worst first change your self and go change the country from where you come from. if you are not willing to change your own country why do you want to change someone else country? as long as you are in division and in your own ignorance you cannot help your self or other because you do not know your self and other. it start from the inside to the outside. do you expect to change outside things from the outside. for how long do you think it will last? you can remove pollution from a lake if there is a company dumping toxic waste in the river that supply the lake how long will the lake stay clear and pure? then did you really change something or did you make the illusion that you changed something?
if you have a problem in your own home why do you not solve it and go try to change your neighbor home? solve your own problem them you will be able to go help your neighbor.
Let there be light, be the light that you can be, experience and enjoy.
answered 28 Dec '13, 21:04
People don't immigrate to change other countries, but more like let those country change them and their life for better. Most people are the consequence of their surroundings anyway. Let the environment shape you.
If you're born into a group of always angry people, will you search your inner peace, or just say screw it, and go hang out with a group always happy ones?
It's been proven if you put a person into criminal environment, the chances are high that environment will make him a criminal..
(03 Jan '14, 16:23) CalonLan
...kids are influenced by parents and this influence phenomena never stops as long as you live. Each time you liberate yourself from a certain influence a new one even stronger will appear and it will continue to mold and shape you. This site is the very example of it. People being heavily influenced by Law of Attraction and its ideals. When and if they were to liberate themselves from LOA's influence, they would just found themselves in grasps of another...
(03 Jan '14, 16:29) CalonLan
People are born into this world, children born today were born into the world WE are responsible for. Who are we to expect them to find their inner Buddha and live in a **** hole we have created instead of just running away.
Maybe we can stop pointing fingers around at immigrants and assume responsibility for our own actions. If we, as older generation, fail to provide a place people are happy to live in, then we are to blame that younger folks flee from it.
(03 Jan '14, 16:34) CalonLan
showing 2 of 3 show 1 more comments
Being a product of a multicultural and multiracial marriage, I am all for a mixing of cultures. I don't think that the issue is as simple as you portray it. You can't really discuss this without taking into account other factors such as integration, education, class issues and racial issues. And history.
Integration is a huge issue. For example: I went to an international school in Africa and many of my friends went on to immigrate to other countries all over the world. Being former international school students, my former classmates are good at adapting to other cultures because they have done so their whole lives. I now live in the UK, and many of my friends here are also immigrants, but have been very successful at integrating into British society. They are also well-educated, which helps them make a positive contribution to society, and better the economy. They enrich the culture because they have been able to integrate while still retaining their unique cultural perspectives, thus exposing natives to positive multiculturalism.
Then again, it is much easier to integrate here (especially in London, where I live) than it is in other countries. I have lived in less immigrant-friendly countries, and it's really interesting to see the LOA coming into play. Immigrants are viewed with distrust, and it is harder for them to integrate, and a lot of them just give up trying since they will always be treated as foreigners. This becomes a vicious cycle.
I am really not well schooled in the statistics and hard facts about immigration, so I can only answer this from my unique perspective. I view immigration as something which can be very good, something which can enrich cultures and improve economies, provided that the immigrants want to and are encouraged to integrate into their new society. Racism, classism and prejudice (from both sides) make this a lot more difficult.
If immigration were to be made illegal in all countries, people would still find something to fight about, for sure.
And I just want to quote @fred - "perhaps immigration is the fall guy for the real issue of unequal distribution of world resources". Excellent comment, and very true in my opinion. Without the long history of imperialism, there would not be as many immigrants as there are today. I am speaking mainly from a perspective coming from having grown up in Africa, which was heavily colonised, and not that long ago either. Resources were stolen from the colonised countries, and cultural imperialism was heavily practised, with the colonisers trying to replace native cultures with Western ones, and glorifying Western civilisation, making it very attractive for African natives who were taught that their own culture was inferior and lesser.
I could go on and on about this, but I have to be off, and really it's a huge complex issue which can't be answered in one question. But I hope I've given someone some food for thought at least.
answered 04 Jan '14, 11:59
"I could go on and on about this, but I have to be off, and really it's a huge complex issue which can't be answered in one question"
Really good answer which I agree with & enjoyed reading. Please feel free to go & on any time about this subject. It's a subject I'm particularly interested in. Thanks for sharing your insights & experiences...
(04 Jan '14, 16:15) ele
No because I'm from America, the home of immigration, the great smelting pot.
My parents to this day are very happy together, if immigration was never allowed, they would have never known each other. I would have had different parents. Maybe I would be pure Italian or pure German, maybe pure Welsh? America would still be 100% American Indian land, all the world technology would not exist since everything started with the American industrial revolution.
So no I believe it wouldn't myself. As I said I would myself be completely different with different parents.
answered 28 Dec '13, 06:43
If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8 Imagine there are no counties, nothing to kill or die for....
perhaps immigration is the fall guy for the real issue of unequal distribution of world resources
People just want to have a chance of living a better life, mostly. Would you condemn them for that? Then you would have to condemn whole humanity. For every single person wants to be happy in some way.
And lets be honest, revolutions and changing whole countries takes decades and lifetimes, there goes your life wasted..and perhaps you're not into fighting with anyone at all...so you just migrate and establish yourself in another society within years or even months instead.