Norway has often been described by the outside world as a "utopia". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01mTKDaKa6Q&feature=related But can the high standard of living and low crime of this country continue to be maintained while the country is experiencing growing ethnic diversity? In that video, the Norwegian prisoners are allowed generous levels of freedom, and very little safety precautions need to be taken. What would happen if that prison had men of other ethnic cultures in it, like the ones in Oslo? I mean honestly, just look at those unarmed (and attractive) female guards carelessly walking amongst the male prisoners, essentially out in unenclosed nature. This could never work if those prisoners were not ethnically norwegian. Norway is going to ruin the paradise it has created for itself. Just like the state of California in the USA. I am not entirely sure whether it is race, culture, poverty, or social conditions, but the one thing I do know is that things are going to change for the worse if Norway continues to bring in so many people from countries with low standards of living. We have only to look at the experiences of other countries (particularly the USA) to see that this is so. Of course, some 'cultures' are much worse than others. http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/218818-norways-capital-lost-muslims.html
I am not trying to deride people just because of what race they were born into. But does not some small part of the world deserve to be able to preserve its ethnic homogenity and culture? It just seems to me that as soon as a country manages to achieve high standards of living, all the other people from poor violence-ridden countries want to move there. All these refugees and asylum seekers place and burden on state services and the pension system, take away entry level jobs from young adults, and prevent wages from rising. Not to mention crime, causing neighborhoods to become undesirable for everyone else, and the potential for overcrowding, displacing other families. Since when did the Western European countries become obligated to take in the billions of poor people in the rest of the world? It is just a thought, but perhaps it is the people in a country that determine whether that country is a pleasant place to live. What does it mean when we are selectively taking in people from the worst countries? Just look at the unemployment rate of these people. Continuing to pay such high unemployment benefits to the unemployed is simply not going to continue to be possible if the unemployment rate goes up. Do we really want our countries to have to become like America, where each person can only receive 6 months of unemployment benefits during their lifetime, and where unemployment benefits are not even enough to live on? Again, we can look at what happened to California. University education was once free there, like it now is in many western european countries. But California took on many more immigrants from other countries than it could support, the school systems were overwhelmed, and now not only do university students have to pay most of the cost of their education (despite less funding to the schools), but a growing number of Californian-born applicants are being rejected from the state universities! I am just trying to be realistic. Ignoring the effects of immigration and ethnic diversity is just not practical. And not everyone is our society is happy to accept all this diversity. Are we just going to bring in the diversity, whether everyone likes it or not, and then when it causes tensions and problems expect everyone to go out of their way to accomodate the newcomers? And let us remember that the effects of immigration do not soon go away. People have children, and the problems associated with immigration may last several generations, perhaps much much longer. The Scandinavian countries should focus on what they do best: just giving money to projects to help people in other poor countries in the world.
