> It surprises me that nativist anti-immigration demands are considered righteous in some regions and evil and backwards in others.
Nativist anti-immigration demands in Europe or North America are generally criticized as hyperbole because immigration will not actually lead to demographic replacement in the near future, in spite of those activists’ claims. Furthermore, in Europe the immigrants invariably assimilate linguistically to their host country – by the second or third generation, the language of the old country is forgotten. Xinjiang is a very different case entirely: China has the numbers to change Xinjiang’s demographics, and virtually none of those Han Chinese immigrants are learning Uighur and using it in public.
> Radical Uighur groups did help China make the case with their knife attacks on civilians to be painted as "just another brand of islamic terrorism".
The major wave of knife attacks (which can be seen as a late sign of desperation) postdate China’s attempt to tie the crackdown on the Uighurs to the West’s War on Terrorism. Again, the chronology here is important.
> Nativist anti-immigration demands in Europe or North America are generally criticized as hyperbole because immigration will not actually lead to demographic replacement in the near future, in spite of those activists’ claims.
The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not?
> Furthermore, in Europe the immigrants invariably assimilate linguistically to their host country – by the second or third generation, the language of the old country is forgotten.
That would be great, but isn't the case.
> China has the numbers to change Xinjiang’s demographics, and almost none of those Han Chinese immigrants are learning Uighur and using it in public.
Absolutely. My point isn't that it's great what China is doing, it's just weird that "you need to assimilate, it's their province" is a weird take when that same stance is violently opposed in other circumstances.
I don't think it's necessary either, human rights don't need a justification of regional ownership. Even if you don't think that Han shouldn't be allowed to settle there, you can still be appalled by the things the Chinese government is doing.
> The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not?
It is not, at least not in the context of the present discussion. While whites are set to lose their majority, one of the minorities overtaking them are African-Americans, who cannot reasonably be called immigrants, because they were brought to the US against their will long ago, and they came before the late 19th-century and early 20th-century influx of European immigrants to which many white Americans trace their ancestry.
> That would be great, but isn't the case.
That certainly is the case. The second and third generations of immigrants into Europe are overwhelmingly assimilating to the host countries’ language. They may develop a new register of that European language that mixes in words and idioms from the language of their parent or grandparent’s country of origin, but few maintain a strong identification with the old language.
That's a lot of goal post moving, and for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken. Needless to say that this doesn't convince me, why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement. Principles that don't hold when transported to new circumstances aren't principles.
> why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement.
Where did I take a stand anywhere here? My post above gave a reason why some would criticize nativist anti-immigration attitudes in Europe while being concerned with the Uighurs’ situation, but I have not presented my own opinions on the morality of either Europe nor Xinjiang in this thread.
> for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken.
The sociolinguistics of second- and third-generation language shift in Europe are well documented in innumerable studies. In cases where people think that immigrants in their country are failing to assimilate linguistically, their perception is skewed due to first-generation immigrants (whether the first to arrive, or those who come later on family-reunification grounds) or that portion of second-generation immigrants who maintains active use of the language. However, anecdotes from laypeople are not data.
Nativist anti-immigration demands in Europe or North America are generally criticized as hyperbole because immigration will not actually lead to demographic replacement in the near future, in spite of those activists’ claims. Furthermore, in Europe the immigrants invariably assimilate linguistically to their host country – by the second or third generation, the language of the old country is forgotten. Xinjiang is a very different case entirely: China has the numbers to change Xinjiang’s demographics, and virtually none of those Han Chinese immigrants are learning Uighur and using it in public.
> Radical Uighur groups did help China make the case with their knife attacks on civilians to be painted as "just another brand of islamic terrorism".
The major wave of knife attacks (which can be seen as a late sign of desperation) postdate China’s attempt to tie the crackdown on the Uighurs to the West’s War on Terrorism. Again, the chronology here is important.