My real life experience of multiculture; some immigration is good, mass immigration is bad…

[Amorphos]

My real life experience of multiculture; some immigration is good, mass immigration is bad…

As so much is being said about multiculture atm I thought I would give my real life examples of that, and perhaps some of you could give yours.

I live in a village where there are a few families from other cultures, some mixed some not. My experience is that my good friend and best man at my wedding was black, he died from cancer at only 30 and I was devastated, I didn’t even think of him as black as he was simply my mate.
On the other hand when I lived in London prior to that it was a complete contrast in experience, I found a lot of mixing but I also found a lot of racism esp casual racism [not quite hatred just a general dislike], I even experienced a lot of racism towards we English in our own country!

It seams to me that when you clump groups of people from different ethnicities together in one area, then this facilitates a kind of ‘tribalism’ and a breeding ground for racism. Although I think the racism is naturally there in all of us to some degree, I feel this is exasperated by this tribalism.

I think mass migration is never a good thing especially when helped by the state, if you let immigration happen naturally with nations of roughly similar wealth then I doubt if you would even get mass migration. Equally getting in cheap immigrant labour seams racist to me and an avoidance of economic problems which we would eventually have to tackle anyway.

Right I wont bore you and I wont argue every point, the above is just generalities there only to ask about the title statement; some immigration is good, mass immigration is bad?

[Squiggle]

I agree. This should be a general axiom of human experience, I genuinely dont understand when people operate under the opposing view, which I can only characterize as a delusion at this point.

[motiv-8]

I don't even know why you bothered putting the word "multiculture" in here. Mass immigration and multiculturalism are two different things entirely.

[eran]

When the immigration is slower they are fitting better in the new country.
I think that it's too fast in Europe.

[Copperknickers II]

I don't even know why you bothered putting the word "multiculture" in here. Mass immigration and multiculturalism are two different things entirely.

QFT, i am mixed race Asian British and it can be almost intimidating being foreign-looking in a place where non-white foreigners are rarely ever seen. On the other hand, in some places in big cities there are massive amounts of immigrants, whole ghetto communities where English isn't even spoken by 50% of the people.

In fact tbh, it doesn't matter so much that they don't speak English: the same problem occurs with the massive white working class council estates, you wouldn't go into one even if you were native. Any large insular community that rejects outside control is bad, if its culture and language is different that just exacerbates things but its the same problem.

[Amorphos]

I don't even know why you bothered putting the word "multiculture" in here. Mass immigration and multiculturalism are two different things entirely.

Elaborate?
or do you mean that it is more about societal duality generally [as below]?

In fact tbh, it doesn't matter so much that they don't speak English: the same problem occurs with the massive white working class council estates, you wouldn't go into one even if you were native. Any large insular community that rejects outside control is bad, if its culture and language is different that just exacerbates things but its the same problem.

That I agree with, the tribalism is the same on many levels, the problem is the duality caused by having massive localised differences, it’s a societal issue which should have been addressed long ago. When people complain that multiculture doesn’t work, perhaps they should see that we haven’t even arrived at it yet. More than that, perhaps the whole point is that it is a general societal duality and not a thing of race/ethnicity. Placement of people in large council estates is little different to the placement [even by their own volition] of ethnic groups, though neither are particularly problematic on a smaller scale, hence I’ll stick to my original point on such issues.

[motiv-8]

Yeah, I wanted to point out that multiculuralism doesn't promote or celebrate tribalism within societies, its aim is to end exactly that by destroying the walls between tribes.

[Amorphos]

Yeah, I wanted to point out that multiculuralism doesn't promote or celebrate tribalism within societies, its aim is to end exactly that by destroying the walls between tribes.

I see, so governments around the world have actually been failing to implement it properly [by creating tribalism]. The problem is that mass migration has often been done for economic reasons rather than simply allowing people freedom of movement [which generally is a right]. There are still problems, if you allow freedom when some nations are massively richer than others, that will facilitate mass migration. If filtered properly [not in tribal fashion] then you can allow for quite massive migration, but there are limits and commerce doesn’t always recognise them.

Better probably if state and ‘the man’ [corporate business etc,] kept out of peoples affairs?

[motiv-8]

I see, so governments around the world have actually been failing to implement it properly [by creating tribalism]. The problem is that mass migration has often been done for economic reasons rather than simply allowing people freedom of movement [which generally is a right]. There are still problems, if you allow freedom when some nations are massively richer than others, that will facilitate mass migration. If filtered properly [not in tribal fashion] then you can allow for quite massive migration, but there are limits and commerce doesn’t always recognise them.

Better probably if state and ‘the man’ [corporate business etc,] kept out of peoples affairs?

I think you can argue that policies by the state to break down barriers have had generally ineffective or even detrimental effects. But part of that is because the state itself is paralyzed in degrees by disparate politics -- those who want to coddle those of other cultures vs. those who are essentially xenophobic and/or racist vs. those who don't care either way.

But yes, you hit another nail on the head -- most immigration is done because the emigre wants a better economic or political life, not because they are inherently disposed towards the host culture and want to immerse themselves in it in every way. Multiculturalism dictates respecting this attitude by not forcibly assimilating the new citizen into host culture, or else. But it also doesn't dictate setting up a system by which the new citizen is allowed to actively segregate their lives and their community off from the host culture and ignore the laws or dispute the traditions of the host country. Multiculturalism involves allowing varous ethnicities display, celebrate, promote their own cultural habits and customs, as in the form of festivals and such, as long as they don't infringe on the guaranteed rights of others. Sovereign law is the only thing that is inviolable here.

I think Argentina has a good system. Their constitution explicitly encourages immigration and guarantees the retaining of previous citizenship even after being naturalized, combined with a rather laissez faire approach to cultural celebration and promotion through public gathering and media.

[Amorphos]

Wait, do you mean I cannot make joke about English in UK??

Not at all, joking is fine in the right context [when there isnt an obvious racist mentality behind it], what I am talking about is people getting stabbed and families stopping their sons and daughters from having relationships with English people etc etc.

I think you can argue that policies by the state to break down barriers have had generally ineffective or even detrimental effects. But part of that is because the state itself is paralyzed in degrees by disparate politics -- those who want to coddle those of other cultures vs. those who are essentially xenophobic and/or racist vs. those who don't care either way.
But yes, you hit another nail on the head -- most immigration is done because the emigre wants a better economic or political life, not because they are inherently disposed towards the host culture and want to immerse themselves in it in every way. Multiculturalism dictates respecting this attitude by not forcibly assimilating the new citizen into host culture, or else. But it also doesn't dictate setting up a system by which the new citizen is allowed to actively segregate their lives and their community off from the host culture and ignore the laws or dispute the traditions of the host country. Multiculturalism involves allowing varous ethnicities display, celebrate, promote their own cultural habits and customs, as in the form of festivals and such, as long as they don't infringe on the guaranteed rights of others. Sovereign law is the only thing that is inviolable here.
I think Argentina has a good system. Their constitution explicitly encourages immigration and guarantees the retaining of previous citizenship even after being naturalized, combined with a rather laissez faire approach to cultural celebration and promotion through public gathering and media.

good points!

Well to me multiculture simply facilitates my right to e.g. live in spain and go to a café which sells full English breakfast etc, or if I were a muslim, to live in Britain and eat halal meat. what it doesn’t do is allow e.g. I was watching mr dawkins debate with a muslim who said ‘you make your women dress like prostitutes’ to wit dawkins replied, ‘I don’t make them dress like anything, they dress themselves’. it should be that simple, and perhaps if the state and other bodies kept their noses out of it, it would be.

[chilon]

Yeah, I wanted to point out that multiculuralism doesn't promote or celebrate tribalism within societies, its aim is to end exactly that by destroying the walls between tribes.

The problem is that modern society is filled with Ethnic organizations. This can easily be mapped to every big university campus in America. Most traditional Fraternities and Sororities are all white. The ones that are not white are almost always all another ethnicity. Sure the white ones have their token members of color to pretend to be diverse but most frats and sororities are solidly one ethnic group. Then of course there are all the ethnic organizations on campus the Asian-American student groups, the Black student groups, and then even more specific ones like the Persian Student group. So students end up mostly divided along ethnic boundaries. Again there is some token intermixing and of course there are a small percentage of students that have mixed relationships but mostly the organizations tend to divide along ethnic lines, even at some of the most "diverse" Universities (like UCLA). This pattern on Universities is continued with organizations in greater society and produces tribalism even if the social planners from on high think "multiculturalism" can be created merely by waving hands and creating a few laws.

[Amorphos]

chilon

Interesting about your universities. Perhaps america is no more an immigration nation than Britain, after all it is mainly an anglo-saxon culture just as we are. We all come from somewhere else originally.

i'll just ask this out of curiosity; perhaps it is right that it is like that?

To everyone;

Principle; ‘tolerance to accept the intolerant is not tolerance’

So if e.g. we allowed people to come here and impose Shariah law, our tolerance would be creating a culture of intolerance, therefore we must not allow that to happen in order to facilitate what it is to be tolerant. The dilemma is that if you let a mass migration occur where the majority of people in our nation are Islamic, then they could impose that upon us! This is why I say mass immigration is bad but some immigration is good.

[motiv-8]

The problem is that modern society is filled with Ethnic organizations. This can easily be mapped to every big university campus in America. Most traditional Fraternities and Sororities are all white. The ones that are not white are almost always all another ethnicity. Sure the white ones have their token members of color to pretend to be diverse but most frats and sororities are solidly one ethnic group. Then of course there are all the ethnic organizations on campus the Asian-American student groups, the Black student groups, and then even more specific ones like the Persian Student group. So students end up mostly divided along ethnic boundaries. Again there is some token intermixing and of course there are a small percentage of students that have mixed relationships but mostly the organizations tend to divide along ethnic lines, even at some of the most "diverse" Universities (like UCLA). This pattern on Universities is continued with organizations in greater society and produces tribalism even if the social planners from on high think "multiculturalism" can be created merely by waving hands and creating a few laws.

On the other hand, these same groups create public events where anybody can go and participate (and do) that are based not on single ethnocentric issues but on community gathering and outreach. My own alma mater just hosted a large international festival that was produced by all those little 'tribal' ethnic organizations and attended by alllll sorts of people to dabble in culture, art, music, food, you name it.

It's a double-edged sword at worst.

[chilon]

chilon

Interesting about your universities. Perhaps america is no more an immigration nation than Britain, after all it is mainly an anglo-saxon culture just as we are. We all come from somewhere else originally.

i'll just ask this out of curiosity; perhaps it is right that it is like that?

I am not quite sure what you are asking is right or not.

On the other hand, these same groups create public events where anybody can go and participate (and do) that are based not on single ethnocentric issues but on community gathering and outreach. My own alma mater just hosted a large international festival that was produced by all those little 'tribal' ethnic organizations and attended by alllll sorts of people to dabble in culture, art, music, food, you name it.

It's a double-edged sword at worst.

The sword cuts one more much more than the other.

Sure there might be some collaborative event once in a while but that really doesn't make up for the overall anti-intermixing effect that ethnic organizations and frats and sororities have on social life. Plus just because anyone is able to attend doesn't mean a representative mix actually attends ya know?

I bring this up because there have been studies done on this by Jim Sidanius in social psychology(formerly of UCLA now at Harvard) where he actually found that overall ethnic organizations and greek life orgs typically decrease a sense of common social identity on campus and increase greater group identification with the ethnic org/frat/soror. The overall effect is that while diversity is increased on campus, ethnic intermixing has been decreased.


This would be consistent with Samuel Huntington's early theories from Political Order in Changing Societies where he argues that societies need cross-cutting cleavages to maintain stability when there is multicultural or multi-anything dividing society. Ethnic Orgs and Greek life orgs are not cross-cutting. They are very homogeneous for the most part.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Britain was made out of wave after wave of mass immigrations, with comletely different cultures gradually mixing together and wildly altering the English language, enconomy, technology, government, food and culture. The first immigrants weren't submissive - the Romans came, saw and conquered; the Saxons displaced the native celts; the Vikings plundered and raped and murdered and settled on stolen farming land; the Normans agressively conquered the British Isles and typically acted like superiors; yet each contributed massively to what would become the very essence of "Britishness". We should count ourselves lucky, that today immigrants start at the bottom of the food chain and gradually climb towards being accepted as Brits while changing the defention of bring a Brit at the same time. The Jews used to be the lowest of the low, outsiders who didn't act like proper Britons and kept to themselves, but today you couldn't possibly imagine the British Isles without the Jews. The Germans used to be the butt of all jokes, seen as simpletons and crooks who opened a bakery on every street-corner and spoke horrid English - yet today the Royal Family is more German than English or French! The Jamaicans and Blacks changed the British lexicon in a way you couldn't possibly begin to imagine; the Arabs, the Asians, the Gypsies, the Italians - immigration is what made and continues to make Britain what it is. Multiculturalism isn't actually many cultures living in one country - it is one, everchanging culture that gets more vibrant and magnificent every day.

(I'm going with the presumption that you are British, and if not then you can see Britain as the perfect example of multiculturalism).

That is all true, but Britain is not exactly being mass invaded by ethnic tribes these days. Actually I would say that the Normans were the last "ingredient" added to the English/Scottish group. That was 1000 years ago. Its really not that racially diverse of a place. Britain is not exactly the America of the 19th century. It is simply not the same scale, and I really don't think it is that much of a "melting pot" (I hate that cliche). Although that god-awful curry is freakin everywhere!

The problem is that modern society is filled with Ethnic organizations. This can easily be mapped to every big university campus in America. Most traditional Fraternities and Sororities are all white. The ones that are not white are almost always all another ethnicity. Sure the white ones have their token members of color to pretend to be diverse but most frats and sororities are solidly one ethnic group. Then of course there are all the ethnic organizations on campus the Asian-American student groups, the Black student groups, and then even more specific ones like the Persian Student group. So students end up mostly divided along ethnic boundaries. Again there is some token intermixing and of course there are a small percentage of students that have mixed relationships but mostly the organizations tend to divide along ethnic lines, even at some of the most "diverse" Universities (like UCLA). This pattern on Universities is continued with organizations in greater society and produces tribalism even if the social planners from on high think "multiculturalism" can be created merely by waving hands and creating a few laws.

I agree, I think ethnic-based organizations are, in the end, bad for society. Specifically identifying with a group to the point that one separates themselves from everyone else seems like a fairly large barrier to integration and, if necessary, heeling. What exactly does the "Society of Black Engineers" do besides isolate black engineers from their peers? Yes I get the whole "protect against discrimination" angle, but I think it kind of defeats the purpose these days to only associate with engineers of a certain ethnicity. Kind of narrows your scope of "networking".

Also, since we are supposed to talk about our multicultural experiences, one thing I noticed in England was, I didn't see many teenagers working in the service industry (I did work with one, but she had dropped out of school and moved out of her mom's house in anger...). Then again, maybe I'm just unobservant. Another thing I noticed (more multicultural) was, there seem to be a lot more black-white couples. For whatever reason, I don't see much of that in America. So I guess props on that one Quetz!

[hellheaven1987]

On the other hand when I lived in London prior to that it was a complete contrast in experience, I found a lot of mixing but I also found a lot of racism esp casual racism [not quite hatred just a general dislike], I even experienced a lot of racism towards we English in our own country!

Wait, do you mean I cannot make joke about English in UK??

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

My real life experience of multiculture; some immigration is good, mass immigration is bad…

As so much is being said about multiculture atm I thought I would give my real life examples of that, and perhaps some of you could give yours.

I live in a village where there are a few families from other cultures, some mixed some not. My experience is that my good friend and best man at my wedding was black, he died from cancer at only 30 and I was devastated, I didn’t even think of him as black as he was simply my mate.
On the other hand when I lived in London prior to that it was a complete contrast in experience, I found a lot of mixing but I also found a lot of racism esp casual racism [not quite hatred just a general dislike], I even experienced a lot of racism towards we English in our own country!

It seams to me that when you clump groups of people from different ethnicities together in one area, then this facilitates a kind of ‘tribalism’ and a breeding ground for racism. Although I think the racism is naturally there in all of us to some degree, I feel this is exasperated by this tribalism.

I think mass migration is never a good thing especially when helped by the state, if you let immigration happen naturally with nations of roughly similar wealth then I doubt if you would even get mass migration. Equally getting in cheap immigrant labour seams racist to me and an avoidance of economic problems which we would eventually have to tackle anyway.

Right I wont bore you and I wont argue every point, the above is just generalities there only to ask about the title statement; some immigration is good, mass immigration is bad?

Britain was made out of wave after wave of mass immigrations, with comletely different cultures gradually mixing together and wildly altering the English language, enconomy, technology, government, food and culture. The first immigrants weren't submissive - the Romans came, saw and conquered; the Saxons displaced the native celts; the Vikings plundered and raped and murdered and settled on stolen farming land; the Normans agressively conquered the British Isles and typically acted like superiors; yet each contributed massively to what would become the very essence of "Britishness". We should count ourselves lucky, that today immigrants start at the bottom of the food chain and gradually climb towards being accepted as Brits while changing the defention of bring a Brit at the same time. The Jews used to be the lowest of the low, outsiders who didn't act like proper Britons and kept to themselves, but today you couldn't possibly imagine the British Isles without the Jews. The Germans used to be the butt of all jokes, seen as simpletons and crooks who opened a bakery on every street-corner and spoke horrid English - yet today the Royal Family is more German than English or French! The Jamaicans and Blacks changed the British lexicon in a way you couldn't possibly begin to imagine; the Arabs, the Asians, the Gypsies, the Italians - immigration is what made and continues to make Britain what it is. Multiculturalism isn't actually many cultures living in one country - it is one, everchanging culture that gets more vibrant and magnificent every day.

(I'm going with the presumption that you are British, and if not then you can see Britain as the perfect example of multiculturalism).

[Amorphos]

Goodguy1066

Britain was made out of wave after wave of mass immigrations, with comletely different cultures gradually mixing together and wildly altering the English language, enconomy, technology, government, food and culture. The first immigrants weren't submissive - the Romans came, saw and conquered; the Saxons displaced the native celts; the Vikings plundered and raped and murdered and settled on stolen farming land; the Normans agressively conquered the British Isles and typically acted like superiors; yet each contributed massively to what would become the very essence of "Britishness". We should count ourselves lucky, that today immigrants start at the bottom of the food chain and gradually climb towards being accepted as Brits while changing the defention of bring a Brit at the same time. The Jews used to be the lowest of the low, outsiders who didn't act like proper Britons and kept to themselves, but today you couldn't possibly imagine the British Isles without the Jews. The Germans used to be the butt of all jokes, seen as simpletons and crooks who opened a bakery on every street-corner and spoke horrid English - yet today the Royal Family is more German than English or French! The Jamaicans and Blacks changed the British lexicon in a way you couldn't possibly begin to imagine; the Arabs, the Asians, the Gypsies, the Italians - immigration is what made and continues to make Britain what it is. Multiculturalism isn't actually many cultures living in one country - it is one, everchanging culture that gets more vibrant and magnificent every day.

Well genetic studies show that the original Iberians are 60-80% of our population [yes I am british], so the way I see it is that in the main the romans came in small numbers, the saxons then came in larger numbers and took the upper societal positions of the romano-british as well as settling mainly on the east coast and inland of that. Then the Vikings done similar mostly in the north east, and the Normans then came and took all of those positions from the them and the saxons. The spread of genes seams to back this up as the Germanics are condensed mostly in the east of the nation getting more condensed towards the coast this is due to the initial saxon ‘clearing’ of the lands before them, ~ they landed mainly on the east coast and ethnically cleansed their way inland in the first wave. As far as I know that wave was eventually repelled and the latter immigrations didn’t seam to be as aggressive [at least in terms of ethnic cleansing].

The jews came here with permission from Cromwell to whom they invested significantly in the national debt backed by the dutch who later ruled here under William of orange. They started the banking system by merging their interests with the london goldsmiths, and since then they have worked hand in hand with the English to wit the empire was significantly built from. Some may have been poorer but take a look around, the worlds largest diamond trade in Holland is massively run by the jews, the world banking system also is, all top 5 of the american federal reserve bank are jews, david cameron has some jewish blood [as I have btw] and ed milliband is completely jewish. They certainly havent kept themselves to themselves, and have a big impact on our politics and many others, why do you think we and the yanks support Israel so much?

I agree multiculture has been good overall, but it doesn’t need to be in such vast numbers to attain a similar effect and in a less destructive manner.

Apart from all that my basis is that financial influences aside [people only coming here to become wealthier], if left alone mass immigration wouldn’t happen. The problem is when the state and big business buts its nose in so as to get cheap labour or to grow the economy etc. most people don’t want to leave their homes and families to live abroad, if they do it is there freedom to do so, just let it happen naturally and cultures will blend naturally. you get phazes of mass immigration then phases of blending, perhaps we are just moving into the latter phase.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Goodguy1066



Well genetic studies show that the original Iberians are 60-80% of our population [yes I am british], so the way I see it is that in the main the romans came in small numbers, the saxons then came in larger numbers and took the upper societal positions of the romano-british as well as settling mainly on the east coast and inland of that. Then the Vikings done similar mostly in the north east, and the Normans then came and took all of those positions from the them and the saxons. The spread of genes seams to back this up as the Germanics are condensed mostly in the east of the nation getting more condensed towards the coast this is due to the initial saxon ‘clearing’ of the lands before them, ~ they landed mainly on the east coast and ethnically cleansed their way inland in the first wave. As far as I know that wave was eventually repelled and the latter immigrations didn’t seam to be as aggressive [at least in terms of ethnic cleansing].

The jews came here with permission from Cromwell to whom they invested significantly in the national debt backed by the dutch who later ruled here under William of orange. They started the banking system by merging their interests with the london goldsmiths, and since then they have worked hand in hand with the English to wit the empire was significantly built from. Some may have been poorer but take a look around, the worlds largest diamond trade in Holland is massively run by the jews, the world banking system also is, all top 5 of the american federal reserve bank are jews, david cameron has some jewish blood [as I have btw] and ed milliband is completely jewish. They certainly havent kept themselves to themselves, and have a big impact on our politics and many others, why do you think we and the yanks support Israel so much?

I agree multiculture has been good overall, but it doesn’t need to be in such vast numbers to attain a similar effect and in a less destructive manner.

Apart from all that my basis is that financial influences aside [people only coming here to become wealthier], if left alone mass immigration wouldn’t happen. The problem is when the state and big business buts its nose in so as to get cheap labour or to grow the economy etc. most people don’t want to leave their homes and families to live abroad, if they do it is there freedom to do so, just let it happen naturally and cultures will blend naturally. you get phazes of mass immigration then phases of blending, perhaps we are just moving into the latter phase.

Look, take the Poles and Eastern Europeans, for instance: once they got EU membership, they came in their hundreds of thousands in order to live a better life in the United Kingdom - at first they were seen as a nuisance by the average Brit and a cancer by the radicals, yet after a few years they climbed up to the middle-class and gave the enconomy a much needed boost. Take the Indians as well; they came from a wildly different land in order to seek a better life in their head-of-state's (the Queen) country, and shook the "British culture" from top to bottom. The same is happening or will happen with the Muslims, the Africans, the Chinese and immigrants from around the globe - you might not be crazy about them now, but either they'll turn into Britons or Britons themselves will change (if history has taught us anything, for the better).

[Exarch]

My real life experience of multiculture; some immigration is good, mass immigration is bad…

As so much is being said about multiculture atm I thought I would give my real life examples of that, and perhaps some of you could give yours.

I live in a village where there are a few families from other cultures, some mixed some not. My experience is that my good friend and best man at my wedding was black, he died from cancer at only 30 and I was devastated, I didn’t even think of him as black as he was simply my mate.
On the other hand when I lived in London prior to that it was a complete contrast in experience, I found a lot of mixing but I also found a lot of racism esp casual racism [not quite hatred just a general dislike], I even experienced a lot of racism towards we English in our own country!

It seams to me that when you clump groups of people from different ethnicities together in one area, then this facilitates a kind of ‘tribalism’ and a breeding ground for racism. Although I think the racism is naturally there in all of us to some degree, I feel this is exasperated by this tribalism.

I think mass migration is never a good thing especially when helped by the state, if you let immigration happen naturally with nations of roughly similar wealth then I doubt if you would even get mass migration. Equally getting in cheap immigrant labour seams racist to me and an avoidance of economic problems which we would eventually have to tackle anyway.

Right I wont bore you and I wont argue every point, the above is just generalities there only to ask about the title statement; some immigration is good, mass immigration is bad?

quetzacoatl
you and i have the benefit of living in a multicultural country which is pretty laid back in lifestyle and not so strong on the nationalism-hence little chance for conflict.
where european countries and Australia differ are national identities tend to be stronger in the older european countries and also, Australia is very very strict on granting citizenship and asylum.

if your family has $$$, or in a white collar profession then you're through the door enjoying lamingtons after your citizenship ceremony; if you're not, then expect to be in Nauru or xmas island for at least half a decade