On integration, assimilation and multiculturalism

[The Sauganash Union]

I find that calling someone "anti-American" because they hold an anti-establishment political ideology is problematic and annoying. You should only be called anti-American if you are actually in opposition to Americans.

I didn't call anybody anti-American, I'm simply saying that integration requires respecting the dominant political values, and if some people don't want to integrate I generally don't care.

Perhaps, but somebody shouldn't be denied their nationality because they don't hold the dominant political values. The US is still ostensibly a free country.

[Mushet]

I think even the Marxists and Anarchists can respect some of those values, it was a poll option, more about respecting the law as far as I see it.

We have fascists and monarchists as well as people who support theocracies here too.

Yeah in small numbers, I'm simply saying integration requires respect for the dominant political values.

[Mushet]

I didn't call anybody anti-American, I'm simply saying that integration requires respecting the dominant political values, and if some people don't want to integrate I generally don't care.

Perhaps, but somebody shouldn't be denied their nationality because they don't hold the dominant political values. The US is still ostensibly a free country.

Did I say they should? I'm only talking about successful integration, which is what the poll and thread asked me about, not about who gains entry.

[The Sauganash Union]

Perhaps, but somebody shouldn't be denied their nationality because they don't hold the dominant political values. The US is still ostensibly a free country.

Did I say they should? I'm only talking about successful integration, which is what the poll and thread asked me about, not about who gains entry.

You did not say you should. I should have clarified that I am not accusing you of holding such a beliefs. Rather, it is my addendum onto your statement.

That being said, the US has plenty of historical precedent for restricting immigration to people who hold contrarian ideologies, and this was liberally applied to anarchists, communists, and later fascists from the 1920s through World War II.

[Neutraligon]

We have fascists and monarchists as well as people who support theocracies here too.

Yeah in small numbers, I'm simply saying integration requires respect for the dominant political values.

Why should it when we do not have that standard for Americans?

[Mushet]

Yeah in small numbers, I'm simply saying integration requires respect for the dominant political values.

Why should it when we do not have that standard for Americans?

I'd say natural born citizens that do not at least respect liberal democratic values aren't very well integrated either, not that I really care.

[Neutraligon]

Why should it when we do not have that standard for Americans?

I'd say natural born citizens that do not at least respect liberal democratic values aren't very well integrated either, not that I really care.

Then we fundamentally disagree.

[The Sauganash Union]

Yeah in small numbers, I'm simply saying integration requires respect for the dominant political values.

Why should it when we do not have that standard for Americans?

The main reason is that we afford liberties to our own people and that they inherit these liberties by birthright, but that when it comes to immigration, we have the chance (some would argue the right) to be selective (because we owe nothing to foreigners) and choose those who we feel would be the best fit for our needs.

Not saying I agree or disagree here, but that is the main reason why.

[Neutraligon]

Why should it when we do not have that standard for Americans?

The main reason is that we afford liberties to our own people and that they inherit these liberties by birthright, but that when it comes to immigration, we have the chance (some would argue the right) to be selective (because we owe nothing to foreigners) and choose those who we feel would be the best fit for our needs.

Not saying I agree or disagree here, but that is the main reason why.

I see that as hypocritical. In my opinion as long as they obey the laws of the country, and are productive members of society I really do not think their political opinions should prevent them from becoming Americans or being considered Americans when they become citizens.

[The Sauganash Union]

The main reason is that we afford liberties to our own people and that they inherit these liberties by birthright, but that when it comes to immigration, we have the chance (some would argue the right) to be selective (because we owe nothing to foreigners) and choose those who we feel would be the best fit for our needs.

Not saying I agree or disagree here, but that is the main reason why.

I see that as hypocritical. In my opinion as long as they obey the laws of the country, and are productive members of society I really do not think their political opinions should prevent them from becoming Americans or being considered Americans when they become citizens.

Depends, from a utilitarian perspective, it would be morally correct to being discriminatory against hostile beliefs if you're trying to create the maximum benefits for Americans.

From a libertarian or human rights perspective, it would be morally incorrect because the right to immigrate trumps the overall consequences of such actions.

[Jello Biafra]

Of the poll options, the only one that fits is
"... they have to act in accordance with the same standards regarding treatment of sex, gender, sexual preferences etc as the general population, including at home."
They would also need to express their political views using the same rules as the general population, but they don't need to have the same views or express them in the same way.
As far as languages go, at best they would need to use (one of) the language(s) of the general population to a member of the general population when they want something from them. Speaking their own language to each other whenever they want is perfectly acceptable.
Religion and ethnicity are irrelevant. Bringing their own food over is a plus.

[San Lumen]

Of the poll options, the only one that fits is
"... they have to act in accordance with the same standards regarding treatment of sex, gender, sexual preferences etc as the general population, including at home."
They would also need to express their political views using the same rules as the general population, but they don't need to have the same views or express them in the same way.
As far as languages go, at best they would need to use (one of) the language(s) of the general population to a member of the general population when they want something from them. Speaking their own language to each other whenever they want is perfectly acceptable.
Religion and ethnicity are irrelevant. Bringing their own food over is a plus.

I think you are correct aside from saying religion and ethnicity are irrelevant. Could you clarify what you mean?

[Calladan]

*shrug* If everyone agrees to follow the law of the country they are in, and respect each other's boundaries, then who gives a crap what culture you are? IDIC - we should rejoice in each other's differences.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

*shrug* If everyone agrees to follow the law of the country they are in, and respect each other's boundaries, then who gives a crap what culture you are? IDIC - we should rejoice in each other's differences.

Thing is, these differences are what usually leads people to disrespect law of the land and each other's boundaries.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Otherwise, GTFO. That's my take on how people ought to live in a foreign land.

[San Lumen]

*shrug* If everyone agrees to follow the law of the country they are in, and respect each other's boundaries, then who gives a crap what culture you are? IDIC - we should rejoice in each other's differences.

I agree that ones religion and culture shouldnt matter and should rejoice in our differences. Diversity and multiculturalism make places like San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Jersey City the great places they are.

[Resentment]

This is a very interesting topic. My votes were all the top 3 most popular ideas, but I think it's important that the host country reevaluate it's own 'culture' and society. Acculturation and integration are much easier when the immigrant shares similair values, but even when so, immigration can cause countless mental and physical health risks.

I personally, rarely blame an immigrant for their difficulties in integrating. It is my view that the state, as immigrants reside and exist under its bounds, provide the necessary resources for all citizens to flourish, find their niches, and achieve the happiest life possible. The happier my neighbor, the happier I am myself.

[Olerand]

Option 2,3,4, and 5 are fundamental for a country to remain stable and welcoming to newcomers. I'm also actually surprised that they're (relatively) popular, I thought option 1 would be much more dominant.

[Calladan]

*shrug* If everyone agrees to follow the law of the country they are in, and respect each other's boundaries, then who gives a crap what culture you are? IDIC - we should rejoice in each other's differences.

Thing is, these differences are what usually leads people to disrespect law of the land and each other's boundaries.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Otherwise, GTFO. That's my take on how people ought to live in a foreign land.

And yet when you see British ex-pats abroad, they want to live like they are still in Britain. Or at least a fair number of them do. And if you tell them they have to behave like the locals they tell you "I FOUGHT A WAR FOR THE LIKES OF THESE PEOPLE, SO THEY COULD BE FREE, FUCKIN' FRENCHY COWARDS!!"

Plus - quite honestly - I don't want Britain to stay as it is. Because it's fucking appalling in some places. I would much rather get some new cultures in and make it better, and not a throw back to the 60s, or the 1860s, it apparently is.

[Kubra]

Option 2,3,4, and 5 are fundamental for a country to remain stable and welcoming to newcomers. I'm also actually surprised that they're (relatively) popular, I thought option 1 would be much more dominant.

how can migrants express similar political views if citizens don't even
France could welcome literal nazi's and hey, there'd be citizens who they share similar political views with

[San Lumen]

Thing is, these differences are what usually leads people to disrespect law of the land and each other's boundaries.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Otherwise, GTFO. That's my take on how people ought to live in a foreign land.

And yet when you see British ex-pats abroad, they want to live like they are still in Britain. Or at least a fair number of them do. And if you tell them they have to behave like the locals they tell you "I FOUGHT A WAR FOR THE LIKES OF THESE PEOPLE, SO THEY COULD BE FREE, FUCKIN' FRENCHY COWARDS!!"

Plus - quite honestly - I don't want Britain to stay as it is. Because it's fucking appalling in some places. I would much rather get some new cultures in and make it better, and not a throw back to the 60s, or the 1860s, it apparently is.

Britain is changing demographically as is most of Europe. London is a majority minority city.

[Olerand]

Option 2,3,4, and 5 are fundamental for a country to remain stable and welcoming to newcomers. I'm also actually surprised that they're (relatively) popular, I thought option 1 would be much more dominant.

how can migrants express similar political views if citizens don't even
France could welcome literal nazi's and hey, there'd be citizens who they share similar political views with

Nazism is illegal in France, so no it could not. Any Nazi in France cannot form a group/party nor use Nazi symbolism, memorabilia, and language. That Nazis exist is obviously a reality, but not one that France accepts.

As for the political opinions, the French Republic has a wide range of values that can fit into many ideologies. You can be Trotskyist and be French (with difficulty I guess), you can be communist and be French, you can be socialist and be French, you can be social-democratic and be French, you can be centrist and be French, you can be liberal and be French, you can be conservative and be French, you can be Gaullist and be French, you can be nationalist and be French.

What you can't be is a fascist, a Nazi, or an Islamist. Lots of options, lots of variety, all possible and all in accordance with being French and the values of the Republic.

[Kubra]

how can migrants express similar political views if citizens don't even
France could welcome literal nazi's and hey, there'd be citizens who they share similar political views with

Nazism is illegal in France, so no it could not. Any Nazi in France cannot form a group/party nor use Nazi symbolism, memorabilia, and language. That Nazis exist is obviously a reality, but not one that France accepts.

As for the political opinions, the French Republic has a wide range of values that can fit into many ideologies. You can be Trotskyist and be French (with difficulty I guess), you can be communist and be French, you can be socialist and be French, you can be social-democratic and be French, you can be centrist and be French, you can be liberal and be French, you can be conservative and be French, you can be Gaullist and be French, you can be nationalist and be French.

What you can't be is a fascist, a Nazi, or an Islamist. Lots of options, lots of variety, all possible and all in accordance with being French and the values of the Republic.

Nazi-organisations are banned, not nazi's. and in any case, there's still plenty of public semi-fascist options available to folks with that sort of desire. Instead of calling oneself a nazi, call oneself a counter-revolutionary and hit up Action Française.

[Olerand]

Nazism is illegal in France, so no it could not. Any Nazi in France cannot form a group/party nor use Nazi symbolism, memorabilia, and language. That Nazis exist is obviously a reality, but not one that France accepts.

As for the political opinions, the French Republic has a wide range of values that can fit into many ideologies. You can be Trotskyist and be French (with difficulty I guess), you can be communist and be French, you can be socialist and be French, you can be social-democratic and be French, you can be centrist and be French, you can be liberal and be French, you can be conservative and be French, you can be Gaullist and be French, you can be nationalist and be French.

What you can't be is a fascist, a Nazi, or an Islamist. Lots of options, lots of variety, all possible and all in accordance with being French and the values of the Republic.

Nazi-organisations are banned, not nazi's. and in any case, there's still plenty of public semi-fascist options available to folks with that sort of desire. Instead of calling oneself a nazi, call oneself a counter-revolutionary and hit up Action Française.

Well... Obviously you can't ban Nazis. I mean... How would you do that? Track every citizen to find the Nazi and deport? But Nazism is banned. Nazism is not French.

Semi-fascist, emphasis on semi, which keeps them just outside the reach of the law. But any who stumble are quickly caught and punished, as shown by the identitaires groups and trials. And indeed they can, monarchism is not illegal. But according to the values of this Republic and to almost all French politicians (Marion Maréchal-Le Pen not included), it is not French. In political rhetoric and understanding in France now, even on the right, and somewhat on the radical right, French is synonymous with Republican. That's why Marine's propaganda works so well. She defends France and the Republic, and she can use either interchangeably.

Also, Action française, fortunately, is ultra-small today. A fringe group.

[Kubra]

Nazi-organisations are banned, not nazi's. and in any case, there's still plenty of public semi-fascist options available to folks with that sort of desire. Instead of calling oneself a nazi, call oneself a counter-revolutionary and hit up Action Française.

Well... Obviously you can't ban Nazis. I mean... How would you do that? Track every citizen to find the Nazi and deport? But Nazism is banned. Nazism is not French.

Semi-fascist, emphasis on semi, which keeps them just outside the reach of the law. But any who stumble are quickly caught and punished, as shown by the identitaires groups and trials. And indeed they can, monarchism is not illegal. But according to the values of this Republic and to almost all French politicians (Marion Maréchal-Le Pen not included), it is not French. In political rhetoric and understanding in France now, even on the right, and somewhat on the radical right, French is synonymous with Republican. That's why Marine's propaganda works so well. She defends France and the Republic, and she can use either rhetorically.

Also, Action française, fortunately, is ultra-small today. A fringe group.

Exactly. Technically, one can't say that a nazi is not french, because there are french nazi's, though they are deprived of formal organization (fortunately, don't get me wrong). By the same token there are french islamists, insofar algerian migrants from after 1947 that stayed after Algerian independence were french citizens, along with their children. However, it seems be your point that this are not french in terms of spirit.

Though I'm familiar with the identitaires, I'm not familiar with any trials involving them. Could you help a brother out?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a-ok to admit salafists, that's a no-no. What I'm against is the treating of french immigration policy like old french colonial policy: formal exclusion in all but formality. Consider a syrian migrant, probably has some idea of not liking the assad regime for being undemocratic and all that jazz but never having had any opportunity for formal education that involves our "values", our liberal democratic tradition and thinkers. Heck, it's not even necessary that I specify a nationality, pick and choose, uzbeks, indonesians, sudanese, rwandans, so on and so on. That's not even to speak of having them have very specific ideas of what republicanism and its values are.

And on an unrelated note, while trying to find out about prosecution of the identitaires, I found some video in which they celebrate being the generation that does not let people bum smokes. Man I don't even smoke any more and that grinds the fuck out of gears.

[Olerand]

Well... Obviously you can't ban Nazis. I mean... How would you do that? Track every citizen to find the Nazi and deport? But Nazism is banned. Nazism is not French.

Semi-fascist, emphasis on semi, which keeps them just outside the reach of the law. But any who stumble are quickly caught and punished, as shown by the identitaires groups and trials. And indeed they can, monarchism is not illegal. But according to the values of this Republic and to almost all French politicians (Marion Maréchal-Le Pen not included), it is not French. In political rhetoric and understanding in France now, even on the right, and somewhat on the radical right, French is synonymous with Republican. That's why Marine's propaganda works so well. She defends France and the Republic, and she can use either rhetorically.

Also, Action française, fortunately, is ultra-small today. A fringe group.

Exactly. Technically, one can't say that a nazi is not french, because there are french nazi's, though they are deprived of formal organization (fortunately, don't get me wrong). By the same token there are french islamists, insofar algerian migrants from after 1947 that stayed after Algerian independence were french citizens, along with their children. However, it seems be your point that this are not french in terms of spirit.

Though I'm familiar with the identitaires, I'm not familiar with any trials involving them. Could you help a brother out?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a-ok to admit salafists, that's a no-no. What I'm against is the treating of french immigration policy like old french colonial policy: formal exclusion in all but formality. Consider a syrian migrant, probably has some idea of not liking the assad regime for being undemocratic and all that jazz but never having had any opportunity for formal education that involves our "values", our liberal democratic tradition and thinkers. Heck, it's not even necessary that I specify a nationality, pick and choose, uzbeks, indonesians, sudanese, rwandans, so on and so on. That's not even to speak of having them have very specific ideas of what republicanism and its values are.

And on an unrelated note, while trying to find out about prosecution of the identitaires, I found some video in which they celebrate being the generation that does not let people bum smokes. Man I don't even smoke any more and that grinds the fuck out of gears.

Well, in practice, there are obviously French passport holders who proclaim themselves Nazis, fascists, and Islamists. But in the eyes of the Republic, in the eyes of the majority of French, in the ideal of France, in the French psyche, they are not French.

There doesn't seem to be much in depth coverage of them in English. Do you perchance speak French? Serge Ayoub is, arguably, their leading figure, and he is on trial now and has been before. He's had a few groups dissolved now too. Alain Soral is an associate who has also been in many legal affairs, as is Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. To a certain extent, Jean-Marie Le Pen and much of his clique also roamed in those circles sometimes, and they've faced legal troubles too. Notable recent trials include the killing of Clément Méric and their recent trial in Amiens. They've had many more trials too, some for hate speech, Holocaust denial etc.

And if they don't share our values, then they don't belong. France is the textbook example of a nation-State, of an ideological project. There are Syrians, mostly of the bourgeoisie and left opposition admittedly, who share France's values, and they are welcome. But, and I understand that this is a product of their acculturation and environment, there are Syrians (most Syrians), mostly of the working class and rural areas who do not share our values. And they should not come to France. Life here will not be as they want it to be, and we will not be pleased by them either. For their sake and ours they should go somewhere else. Clearly, we've not been very successful in the whole let's take them in and we'll teach them our values shtick so far, and until we find a fix, we can't keep doing this.

Bum smokes? The identitaires? Maybe. They're into some interesting causes I guess. Hitler loved animals after all

EDIT: Here is a not very detailed English Wikipedia article about it, which also compares them to the Alt-Right, apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identitarian_movement

I would contest that comparison because the identitaires are older and more organized, though ideologically they are pretty similar I guess.