On integration, assimilation and multiculturalism

[Theodosiya]

In my opinion, neither assimilation nor multiculturalism are particularly good ideas. The former forces immigrants and minorities to completely abandon their cultural practices, and the latter is complete nonsense which can only result in a weakened national identity in the long-term.

Integration is preferable. For someone to integrate, they need to speak their country's official language at least somewhat fluently, be a citizen of only one country (dual-citizenship results in conflicting national loyalties, making full integration impossible), respect their country's laws and adopt at least some of its cultural values. Full assimilation is not required for integration to be successful, but multiculturalism makes any hope of integration extremely difficult, and borderline impossible.

How about countries without a clear national identity?

[Sanctissima]

In my opinion, neither assimilation nor multiculturalism are particularly good ideas. The former forces immigrants and minorities to completely abandon their cultural practices, and the latter is complete nonsense which can only result in a weakened national identity in the long-term.

Integration is preferable. For someone to integrate, they need to speak their country's official language at least somewhat fluently, be a citizen of only one country (dual-citizenship results in conflicting national loyalties, making full integration impossible), respect their country's laws and adopt at least some of its cultural values. Full assimilation is not required for integration to be successful, but multiculturalism makes any hope of integration extremely difficult, and borderline impossible.

How about countries without a clear national identity?

They should speak at least one of its official languages and adopt some of the cultural practices from at least one of its main cultural groups.

[Theodosiya]

How about countries without a clear national identity?

They should speak at least one of its official languages and adopt some of the cultural practices from at least one of its main cultural groups.

Ok then. Well, if cultural group means something like Malayan group or Oceania group...

[Aelex]

2 to 7 are a must, 8 will come with time. I would also add another criteria that is feeling first and foremost that you're part of the country you migrated to; which means not designing yourself as an hyphenated-anything.

[Great Nepal]

I dont think it is useful to categorize a person as being 'integrated' because any non-trivial definition which is supposed to be used as test to determine integration level of a individual is one that is inherently inconsistent. For example based on your definition, someone who supports say establishment of a British commune wouldn't qualify as being 'integrated' even if they can trace their ancestry back to william conqueror, same with an anarchist, or anyone who doesn't agree with the normal axioms of politics as they stand today.

I'd say it is slightly more useful to determine integration of a group by comparing their views to the overall population (divided by say decade of birth to account for more liberalization as generations progress). For example, what are the views of x group born between 1970s to 1980s on a topic compared to the average population of the nation who were born during that time. Then we can get the average views of both groups (factor in any unreliability of self reporting) and see how much they differ, closer the group's average view is to the overall average view, more integrated they are in that topic (keeping in mind of course no group will be 100% integrated).

However I'd say it isn't terribly useful metric anyways beyond as an academic exercise - it isn't a person's view (or an arbitrarily selected group's view) that is important but whether state is able to enforce its laws and regulations in a equal manner and whether state is able to provide services to all groups. It is perfectly fine if an individual or a group believes only landowning men should have the vote and anyone else voting is treason, provided they don't stop people from voting involuntarily (either because of their other views or because they're arrested and tried for interfering with elections).

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I look at it this way - you move to a new place that is not your norm, not your native land, not your native language, all of that - here's what you do:

• You learn the language. You can totally keep yours, that shouldn't ever be a problem, but in order to properly function, you should learn the local language.
  
  
• You learn the laws so far as you can, and you abide by them. Should the laws be unfair, you have as much freedom as is allowed to attempt to change them through proper channels. Should none of that be available to you, one imagines you should appeal to the locals and see what can or cannot be managed. Still no deal? Perhaps this isn't the best place for you - that, or with enough native support, perhaps some protests, media attention, international attention might do the trick. Dunno, but where possible, know and follow the laws of the land.
  
  
• Respect the local traditions and culture while enjoying your own, and sharing it with others as allowed, or as possible. Proper integration works both ways, after all, with natives understanding immigrant cultures, and immigrants understanding native cultures - without insisting on the natives changing everything so non-natives can be specially accommodated. Sorry, but acceptance does not necessarily translate into vast sweeping changes for everyone else on account of any one group.

Not sure how all that gets so stupidly complicated out there, but for the most part, that all seems just common sense to me. This is why some of us have grown up with the idea that we all need to bend and change and adapt for everyone else, and others have grown up with the idea that they shouldn't have to change just because someone new shows up and demands it. That's how you get different government approaches to things, not to mention the theological impact various religions have in various places, further complicating and removing more avenues to change.

Sure, there will always be some who will argue that places like the US don't have a culture - which is wrong, but hey. Just because unlike so many other places, ours has been based more on immigration than thousands of years of development and history doesn't mean a culture doesn't exist. Ours tends to vary from place to place around the nation, having been shaped by our own development over a shorter but still significant amount of time, along with the many different native cultures who have been sadly oppressed if not outright eradicated during that time.

That said. we have been a sort of melting pot - the melt just hasn't gone as smoothly as some would like. We have regional cultures, regional politics, even regional prevailing religions and varying histories. One still ought to attempt to learn the basic language that prevails here - English. One ought to attempt to obey the laws while living here - or attempting to live here, ie legal immigration rather than all the border-hopping and hiding out and fake idents that some have engaged in. One ought to not be trying to force adaptation to their cultures, religions, or any of the rest on those already living here, nor to change the various cultures purely in order to suit themselves. (See above points again for references about unfair laws etc before ranting about that whole bag of cats, please.) That pretty much ought to cover everything from jihadist activities to hate crimes, to all the rest from the immigrant side of things.

At the same time, those of us who are legal citizens who aren't recent immigrants, lets say, can do a better job of understanding some of the different cultures moving in, and accepting that they can be different without necessarily being a threat. We also need to obey our own laws, meaning no hate crimes or racially-motivated nastiness, no unfair profiling, none of that crap. We can engage others and befriend others and help them feel welcome. After all, like it or not, it is a two-way street.

[Conserative Morality]

They have to believe in and love the culture they now embrace as their own. No more, no less. The well-spoken democratic Christian businessman who comes over from another country and doesn't care for America isn't American, but the poor Buddhist laborer who can barely stammer through a few sentences of English and loves the US is.

[Ashmoria]

in my opinion all they have to do is show up.

they don't have to be assimilated at all. their CHILDREN will be assimilated and their grandchildren will be indistinguishable from any other American.

or <wherever>ian

[Conserative Morality]

In my opinion, neither assimilation nor multiculturalism are particularly good ideas. The former forces immigrants and minorities to completely abandon their cultural practices, and the latter is complete nonsense which can only result in a weakened national identity in the long-term.

Integration is preferable. For someone to integrate, they need to speak their country's official language at least somewhat fluently, be a citizen of only one country (dual-citizenship results in conflicting national loyalties, making full integration impossible), respect their country's laws and adopt at least some of its cultural values. Full assimilation is not required for integration to be successful, but multiculturalism makes any hope of integration extremely difficult, and borderline impossible.

I really don't think dual-citizenship is a problem in most cases. The West and allies are more or less a coherent whole at this point.

[Sanctissima]

In my opinion, neither assimilation nor multiculturalism are particularly good ideas. The former forces immigrants and minorities to completely abandon their cultural practices, and the latter is complete nonsense which can only result in a weakened national identity in the long-term.

Integration is preferable. For someone to integrate, they need to speak their country's official language at least somewhat fluently, be a citizen of only one country (dual-citizenship results in conflicting national loyalties, making full integration impossible), respect their country's laws and adopt at least some of its cultural values. Full assimilation is not required for integration to be successful, but multiculturalism makes any hope of integration extremely difficult, and borderline impossible.

I really don't think dual-citizenship is a problem in most cases. The West and allies are more or less a coherent whole at this point.

There are similarities, but Western civilization isn't some culturally homogeneous monolith. If you have citizenship in more than one country, you have conflicting loyalties, and that should not be allowed.

[Arcanda]

It depends which country we're talking about.

But assuming it's about a generic democratic Western nation, I'd advocate balance. Not only in immigration numbers (Quotas) but also on ways to integrate. Integration is necessary - Through language, values, and culture. But adopting the culture of your new home country doesn't mean you can't preserve yours. Any religion is fine, as long as it doesn't harm the general population.

Even if I'm mostly opposed to that notion, I'm however starting to see that racial immigration quotas (For those aiming at being long-term citizens) could be good, since coupled with a strong integration policy, it could help assimilation - But I don't think it can be done realistically speaking anymore.

[Faarali]

Multiculuturalism rarely works. Even when it does it is like a mexican standoff between the ethnicities, look at Bosnia, Iraq or Lebanon for example. Even in Canada there is tension between the Francophones and Anglophones.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Picked 1, 2, 4, and 5. Asking immigrants to speak the general language of the public with each other at home is a bit much. Every community has the right to practice their own culture and speak their own language, so long as they can also communicate with members of the public in the general language and participate in said country's civic life.

[Genivaria]

So noone responded to my question but I think it needs asking for this topic.
Are we drawing a distinction between a scenario where cultural minorities immigrate to another country and a scenario where cultural minorities suddenly live in a new country via conquest.

Multiculuturalism rarely works. Even when it does it is like a mexican standoff between the ethnicities, look at Bosnia, Iraq or Lebanon for example. Even in Canada there is tension between the Francophones and Anglophones.

See this is why I asked the question.
Everyone else is talking about immigration whereas you brought up cultures that already existed in the area and used the same label 'multiculturalism' as if they're the same thing.
A distinction needs to be made.

[Bheothachadh]

5, 7 and 9.
No non-white, non-Christian immigrants thanks, and speak our language or get out.

[North Yemen-]

So noone responded to my question but I think it needs asking for this topic.
Are we drawing a distinction between a scenario where cultural minorities immigrate to another country and a scenario where cultural minorities suddenly live in a new country via conquest.

Multiculuturalism rarely works. Even when it does it is like a mexican standoff between the ethnicities, look at Bosnia, Iraq or Lebanon for example. Even in Canada there is tension between the Francophones and Anglophones.

See this is why I asked the question.
Everyone else is talking about immigration whereas you brought up cultures that already existed in the area and used the same label 'multiculturalism' as if they're the same thing.
A distinction needs to be made.

If the latter, I'd agree that on moral grounds, the conquered people have no obligation to assimilate. I think there is a clear distinction between immigration and conquest - at least morally. Immigration implies that the person chose to come to this country at least somewhat willingly, and thus should be willing to accommodate at least a bit of change. But if they had no say, then I say bring out the zip guns and Molotovs!

[Faarali]

So noone responded to my question but I think it needs asking for this topic.
Are we drawing a distinction between a scenario where cultural minorities immigrate to another country and a scenario where cultural minorities suddenly live in a new country via conquest.

Multiculuturalism rarely works. Even when it does it is like a mexican standoff between the ethnicities, look at Bosnia, Iraq or Lebanon for example. Even in Canada there is tension between the Francophones and Anglophones.

See this is why I asked the question.
Everyone else is talking about immigration whereas you brought up cultures that already existed in the area and used the same label 'multiculturalism' as if they're the same thing.
A distinction needs to be made.

Bullshit. The Muslims, Serbs, and Croats were exposed to diversity crap. Much like in the west. They were forced, and are still being forced, to keep together by the hand of the Europeans.

[Genivaria]

So noone responded to my question but I think it needs asking for this topic.
Are we drawing a distinction between a scenario where cultural minorities immigrate to another country and a scenario where cultural minorities suddenly live in a new country via conquest.


See this is why I asked the question.
Everyone else is talking about immigration whereas you brought up cultures that already existed in the area and used the same label 'multiculturalism' as if they're the same thing.
A distinction needs to be made.

Bullshit. The Muslims, Serbs, and Croats were exposed to diversity crap. Much like in the west. They were forced, and are still being forced, to keep together by the hand of the Europeans.

Um I'm sorry what?
'exposed to diversity crap' what are you on about?

[Pasong Tirad]

My only thing is that they be able to sing the national anthem and recite the oath of citizenship (or the equivalent).

Oh fuck no, some of those anthems are absurdly long

This is logically the only pain I would like to (and legally allowed to) inflict upon a possible migrant. Suffer as we suffered when we were kids having to stand around for a few minites every day at school reciting an anthem we barely understood and you're in.

[The Liberated Territories]

People with ideologies such as naziism or communism should be excluded, otherwise it s fair game.

[Bheothachadh]

Bullshit. The Muslims, Serbs, and Croats were exposed to diversity crap. Much like in the west. They were forced, and are still being forced, to keep together by the hand of the Europeans.

Um I'm sorry what?
'exposed to diversity crap' what are you on about?

Yugoslavia.

People with ideologies such as naziism or communism should be excluded, otherwise it s fair game.

Excluded from what?

[The Liberated Territories]

Um I'm sorry what?
'exposed to diversity crap' what are you on about?

Yugoslavia.

People with ideologies such as naziism or communism should be excluded, otherwise it s fair game.

Excluded from what?

whaddya think

[Bheothachadh]

Yugoslavia.

Excluded from what?

whaddya think

i dont know thats why im asking

[New Werpland]

I think that in the West, most often the kind of multiculturalism people want is liberal. That's the kind where a diverse selection of cultures coexist in the same society, just all of them are liberalized. The way it works is that we are supposed to give ethnic minorities lots of multicultural privileges, such as the right to perform exclusive practices, schooling in their native language, affirmative action, etc, and over time they will give up all their illiberal traditions to become a full part of our liberal open societies. The problem is that this process also depends on minorities being able to situate themselves and integrate into their adoptive societies, and in countries where national identity is still very much an ethnic thing, that isn't so easy.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

A house can only have a single owner. Once you try splitting it up between several, it will inevitably devolve into petty bickering, each wanting the bigger share of the pie, until one of them eventually succeeds in driving the rest out and becoming the undisputed master of the house - by legal means or otherwise.

Same is true for a country. Only one people may legitimately claim it as their own, and outsiders dwelling there ought to remember that they are merely guests there, living at the sufferance of their hosts, and must better obey the rules of the house lest they find themselves overstaying their welcome on a short notice.