Anti Racism does not have all the answers

 Norwegian racism, anti racism at its best. But anti-racism becomes destructive when it will dictate immigration policy.

Rune Berglund Steen from Centre against Racism think I take racism for granted and will indulge me for it by reducing refugee immigration. Racism and xenophobia must not be a pretext for migration resistance, he said.

That I agree with clergy, hatred and violence can not meet halfway. You can not compromise with someone yelling at a child with a different skin color because they celebrate 17 May. When someone dreams of a Norway free of Muslims can not negotiate with them and ask "keeps throwing out half?" These folks have withdrawn.

Not it is politically important to add to them either. If the Norwegians were so negative towards immigrants which one gets the impression in online debates would not voters filled parliament with sentrumspragmatikere and moderate immigration skeptics. Voters seem obviously that immigration reduction is the most important issue of our time.

Perhaps this is why some immigration-critical network debate is so angry when people claim depths, because deep inside they know that they have it with them. They are communists who wanted to speak for

Bjorn Stærk.

PHOTO: Thomas Sirland

working class. The real workers laughed at them. But at party meetings could continue to pretend. Perhaps Operation comment fields in the same way.

Anti Racism at its best

I am skeptical about anti racism because it has been the pride and used up racist piston . The critical faculties switched off, as the reckless driver from Norwegian mediafrom ambulance drivers in Sofienbergparken.

Anti Racism is at its best when it points to the prejudices and threats minorities live with, even the everyday. The rest of us hear little about this because people do not want to appear whiny. But that does not mean it's not annoying. Therefore, it is amazing that the Twitter hashtag # Norwegian racism in recent days have opened up to talk about it. Amazingly enough, the hypersensitive Swedish anti-racists managed to do something goofy to something constructive. Thanks, Ehsan! (Well, most Warsan .)

Has not been whiner either. Some even good, but most enlightening. This form of anti-racism creates trust and understanding.

It is sad to read the reactions in the comments here at Aftenposten, how many annoyed that this gets attention at all. We should in fact rather talk more about how horrible it is to be white and native Norwegians.

This should not be a competition for who has the worst. But as author John Scalzi once said: If you're white, and thrown in man, so you play life on the lowest difficulty level . He could have added that this applies even more if you live in Norway. I will not take your pain away. But stop for a moment.Avoid speaking in a way that gets 99 percent of the world population to rolled his eyes.

Anti Racism at its worst

Anti Racism, however, at its worst when it interferes with immigration. It can be a destructive force that obscures the deeper conflicts and difficult fagspørsmål.

In his article on the Norwegian racism draws Mina Adam Pour forth as such municipalities will not accept more refugees. There is a way to end the debate on. Municipalities are not kind enough, and the only possible solution is simply that they are more generous. But then is not that simple.This is also about the economy. It is that it is expensive to settle refugees.It's about the fact that a legitimate municipal defends the interests of its citizens.

An immigration policy can not dream away all your tensions and collisions that occur in a country with high immigration. We should not indulge us racists. But we should respect that it is difficult to change a society as soon as we do it in Norway now. Anti racists may try to create new and better people, but politicians must make the best out of the people they have.

I'm not dystopian, as Berglund Steen claims. But I'm worried. Research on immigration and ethnic diversity and admittedly little support to those most afraid immigration critics. But it shows that there is much that can go wrong, especially when not actively take political control over development.

Reason for concern

I referred to research that shows that if you have a large minority populationin your town is majority more wary of them. But when your neighborhood has ethnic diversity is, however as positive. (And it's not just because there are those skeptical that move.) This results from the United States, which has a different story than us. But it raises concerns for Oslo.

It is not certain that the people of Oslo in 30 years will be friendlier towards other ethnic groups than they are today. There is no guarantee that your kids are more tolerant than you. Not if you send them the whitest Oslo schools you can find.

Other research suggests that ethnic diversity reduces trust in the people around you. People move into his home and build fewer ties to other people.Also this is American research. It is not the case for Europe - but something similar is found in Sweden . We know that is not, but politics can not assume that everything is always the best way. The Norwegian model is based on trust. It is irresponsible not to ask how much it can take.

Can be costly

Berglund Steen wrote that the Norwegian economy needs immigration. Buteconomists tell us that immigration is very important for the economy. It contributes positively, but only slightly, and only if we actually manage to make use of labor.

In Norway we are bad at this. Most have been with him that refugee migration is costly. We will certainly not make money on refugees and their families, but it's sad and scary how many people end up unemployed. It is also difficult to solve this, because Norwegian economy are not conducive for workers with little or no education. We must at least ask if money could help more refugees in other ways.

And, worse, too labor migration can be costly . Many Eastern Europeans have come to Norway for good, but they can not speak the language, they work in exposed jobs and earn up access to welfare benefits on an equal footing with Norwegian workers.

This knowledge we can not ignore. We also can not ignore the knowledge of how the asylum system works in practice . Many see it as a humanitarian project. Perhaps it is also the world's cruellest lottery. It favors the most gifted, who are exposed to high costs and stresses of smuggling routes on the way to Europe. I would rather replace asylum with immigration quota refugees. Then we would have had political control over the number and adjusted to it after receiving ability. At the same time we could helped those who need it most, rather than those who are the best people to make use of an outdated system.

Anti Racism has no answer

These are all difficult questions. Many professionals will disagree with what I have written. But these issues have one thing in common: that anti racism does not help us to answer them. For that we need economists, sociologists and migration researchers. It does not help to be kind if you do not know what you are doing.

The tragedy of the Swedish immigration debate is precisely that it isdominated by anti-racists . They may have something to teach us about racism, but little about how to avoid that immigrants end up in a permanent exclusion in isolated suburban. On the contrary. Swedes look fascism behind every bush and rock in Norway. But Husby took them off guard.Norwegian anti-racism should go another way.