On integration, assimilation and multiculturalism

[Kubra]

Uh... Yeah... We'll let America/UK/and especially Canada have this. Good luck et bon voyage onto this uncharted territory.

'Uncharted territory'

It's like the past two centuries didn't even happen.

it's worth noting that the values folks don't look were appealing just a century ago, world leaders like Churchill sung their praises as part of the reason they were hella stoked to colonize them.

[Olerand]

France and Quebec are living proof radical secularism has failed.

Pope Paul vi should come back from the dead and save france.

And America and England are the textbook cases of success. Brexit and Trump, success all around.

All of Algeria was never granted citizenship. Algerians who chose to immigrate to France were. Only the pieds-noirs and Algerian Jews were granted citizenship at independence, because Algeria expelled them. That the handling of their migration was very much less than ideal, I'll grant you that. But there was a pressing need for housing for French in France, so the idea of creating entire new towns of social housing didn't, at the time, seem like a bad idea at all.

It's a similar system in France, social housing is not free, but very affordable. How is it owned in America (I presume), however? In France, there are non-profit public associations which build and manage them, not the State directly, but rather indirectly.
As for looser immigration, until what we already have has been solved, that proposition is unfeasible, even if just politically.

And we don't fund mosques, churches, synagogues, etc. It is strictly illegal.

IIRC it was not for existing emigrants, but any who elected to emigrate in the first place, with few barriers to such. You're right in that I spoke wrongly, but that is nonetheless effectively granting blanket citizenship to a particular migrant group, thus setting up the migration waves that occurred.

Loosening restrictions is more about opening up the "emigration market", I suppose that's how one would term it. The reasoning goes is that immigration restrictions in the way you've proposed them cuts off these sources from market, while the black market of illegal migration is something France is in a difficult position to stem, resulting in one supplier dominating the market as a whole. France ends up with one supplier that it does not want, instead of many suppliers that it at least half-wants. The idea is not to increase the immigration rate, but to diversify the sources, and open up the market itself to greater competition. it would mean France would have to open itself up to greater cultural influences, but it's easier to deal with a multitude of smaller communities and integrate them into ones national culture as opposed to a single large one. Multiculturalism is, let's be honest, a modern and mild form of divide et impera, but hey that's a time tested principle.

Canada, so basically America lol. Publically owned an funded housing is super rare outside bigger cities of bigger provinces, and isn't limited to just large housing blocks but also townhomes and single household rent to own schemes. Folks here like to use home ownership rates as a proxy of successful economic outcomes, so programs end up geared to such. It's well, it's not the best scheme, it just happens to be incidentally useful for this particular problem.

Your french is better than mine, you being french, if you've not got a publicly available copy of the 1947 Organic Statute of Algeria I've got a JSTOR link
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4321994
Conventional wisdom is that France organized its colonial affairs of the french union on the assumption that they were keeping what they had, regardless of how they structured local autonomy, which of course creates a great incentive for emigrating to mainland france. It may be more useful to consult primary source material on the matter, but, well, I can't really do that.

Oh no, you don't have to fund, but if some folks asking for mosques end up having an easier time getting a building permit, than others, well....

Well, what's done is done, we can't fix the past.

Public housing does, and nowadays it is rather common, come as townhouses and forms other than the tall ugly Stalinesque buildings.

Oh certainly, France thought it was keeping Algeria. But Algerian Muslims were not granted citizenship unless if they relinquished themselves to French laws and customs. Alternatively, they did indeed have migration rights. But again, we can no longer change the past.

Which we do. Unfortunately, in many places, easier licenses are given to the worse groups to avoid confrontations with angry Islamists.

Uh... Yeah... We'll let America/UK/and especially Canada have this. Good luck et bon voyage onto this uncharted territory.

'Uncharted territory'

It's like the past two centuries didn't even happen.

Y'all give religious exceptions to following the law now? I know you have it bad, but I guess that's a whole nother level.

[Kubra]

Well, what's done is done, we can't fix the past.

Public housing does, and nowadays it is rather common, come as townhouses and forms other than the tall ugly Stalinesque buildings.

Oh certainly, France thought it was keeping Algeria. But Algerian Muslims were not granted citizenship unless if they relinquished themselves to French laws and customs. Alternatively, they did indeed have migration rights. But again, we can no longer change the past.

Which we do. Unfortunately, in many places, easier licenses are given to the worse groups to avoid confrontations with angry Islamists.

And it's a matter of what to do with the currently existing ethnic ghettoes that resulted from previous policy, and I say mixing em up with other migrants is at least workable compared to other solutions.

[Olerand]

Well, what's done is done, we can't fix the past.

Public housing does, and nowadays it is rather common, come as townhouses and forms other than the tall ugly Stalinesque buildings.

Oh certainly, France thought it was keeping Algeria. But Algerian Muslims were not granted citizenship unless if they relinquished themselves to French laws and customs. Alternatively, they did indeed have migration rights. But again, we can no longer change the past.

Which we do. Unfortunately, in many places, easier licenses are given to the worse groups to avoid confrontations with angry Islamists.

And it's a matter of what to do with the currently existing ethnic ghettoes that resulted from previous policy, and I say mixing em up with other migrants is at least workable compared to other solutions.

True enough. Breaking up or mixing up the ghettos is obviously an imperative now.

[Kubra]

And it's a matter of what to do with the currently existing ethnic ghettoes that resulted from previous policy, and I say mixing em up with other migrants is at least workable compared to other solutions.

True enough. Breaking up or mixing up the ghettos is obviously an imperative now.

tbh ya'll should take in more filipinos, I can get good kebab anywhere but you know how hard it is to find good adobo?
cuz I tell ya google maps exploring Paris place looks a bit thin on cool fusion cuisine, gonna be a rough couple weeks.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And it's a matter of what to do with the currently existing ethnic ghettoes that resulted from previous policy, and I say mixing em up with other migrants is at least workable compared to other solutions.

True enough. Breaking up or mixing up the ghettos is obviously an imperative now.

...Or you could do a less controversial task and create jobs in the ghettos?

[Rio Cana]

True enough. Breaking up or mixing up the ghettos is obviously an imperative now.

tbh ya'll should take in more filipinos, I can get good kebab anywhere but you know how hard it is to find good adobo?
cuz I tell ya google maps exploring Paris place looks a bit thin on cool fusion cuisine, gonna be a rough couple weeks.

So buy and sprinkle some of this (see photo below) and you will have instant tasting adobo food.

Photo - http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/261850673 ... -l1000.jpg

[Kubra]

tbh ya'll should take in more filipinos, I can get good kebab anywhere but you know how hard it is to find good adobo?
cuz I tell ya google maps exploring Paris place looks a bit thin on cool fusion cuisine, gonna be a rough couple weeks.

So buy and sprinkle some of this (see photo below) and you will have instant tasting adobo food.

Photo - http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/261850673 ... -l1000.jpg

lol jeez wrong adobo
the only all purpose seasoning needed is pepper and MSG

[Major-Tom]

France and Quebec are living proof radical secularism has failed.

Pope Paul vi should come back from the dead and save france.

Im sorry? What are you talking about?

Indeed. Frankly, I admire the French and Québécois models of secularism. Definitely allows for great liberty while also respecting religious freedom.

[The Conez Imperium]

An interesting thread.

Definitely to integrate properly with a country, immigrants must speak the host nation's language to an acceptable level.

However, I don't agree with the wording of the other points. I'm on the opinion that immigrants must adopt the mindset of making the community a better place than it was before.

I am hesitant to fully submit to the wording that immigrants must adopt the same western, liberal mindset as the general populace because of arbitrary lines.

We consider Trotskyites born in Australia to be Australian citizens. However, if a Trotskyite were to immigrate to Australia, they may be refused because they are too different. If we deny people on that basis, why don't we evict Australian born Trotskyites? Arguably, those immigrants are more willing to be Australian citizens than the Austrlian born Trotskyites.

[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.

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

Two of the poll options are "they have to follow/not follow the same religion as the general population" and "they have to be part of the same ethnic group as the general population". I don't think either of these things are necessary for an immigrant to be sufficiently integrated.

[John76]

Some people say multiculturalism is great. Others say it's awful. Almost everyone agrees that immigrants should integrate or even assimilate to some degree, but they mean different DSS rent.
That's not really helpful when we debate these issues. One person might say "I think multiculturalism is a bad thing" and mean that they are worried about people who don't share a commitment to liberal democracy exerting political power. But someone else might interpret this to mean that they're offended by there being a mosque in the city, or by people speaking a foreign language at the supermarket and.

So I wonder: are there different kinds of multiculturalism? Like, if you have people from many different cultural backgrounds and religions all committed to a liberal democratic political system, voting for various parties without explicit reference to their cultural background, is that a kind of multiculturalism?

The poll has a few options for what an immigrant should be doing before you consider them sufficiently "integrated" or "assimilated" (I realise that the two can mean different things, but for the purposes of this thread and the poll, it's probably easier to just take them both to mean "a part of 'us' to such a degree that their presence doesn't arouse particular feelings or resentments in me"). The poll is also biased towards integration in a Western country of the sort most of us are from, in which you have a liberal democracy with mostly socially liberal values.

To me, integration would be reached with just two of the above options: "sharing the same commitment to liberal, democratic political values as the general population" and "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". To me, that would be enough to take part in society in a way that doesn't infringe on the way the society works in an unreasonable way. Diversity of any other sort is not necessarily a bad thing, and can be dealt with using the same general principles of how to treat other people as we already apply when dealing with the native-born.

So as a result, to me multiculturalism doesn't mean tolerating people who beat their wives or agitate for a theocracy. But it does mean tolerating that there's a Buddhist temple in town and that there are people speaking five different language when I catch public transport. For a long time I thought this was obvious, but it happens every so often that people have completely different ideas of what the word means and then talk past each other.

Hello Neu Leonstein,

I agree with you, In the past few years, both assimilation and multiculturalism approaches to the management of immigration and diversity have been called into question. This article is an attempt to critically review and examine the key points of the debate regarding multiculturalism and multiculturalism, while arguing for an inter cultural list model of social cultural incorporation that reconciles cultural diversity with social cohesion. This paper looks at both European and North American cases and contends that when support for diversity occurs within a framework of social justice and political equality, and when all members of society are permitted to fully participate in the public space, the result is a more cohesive, albeit plural.

[Olerand]

True enough. Breaking up or mixing up the ghettos is obviously an imperative now.

...Or you could do a less controversial task and create jobs in the ghettos?

Moving people to better accommodations is not exactly controversial. And obviously there has to be jobs, but that's easier said than done.

[San Lumen]

...Or you could do a less controversial task and create jobs in the ghettos?

Moving people to better accommodations is not exactly controversial. And obviously there has to be jobs, but that's easier said than done.

What do you mean by moving people? Are you talking about gentrification?

[Olerand]

Moving people to better accommodations is not exactly controversial. And obviously there has to be jobs, but that's easier said than done.

What do you mean by moving people? Are you talking about gentrification?

I mean building better, more spread out social housing and moving people there.

[Kubumba Tribe]

What do you mean by moving people? Are you talking about gentrification?

I mean building better, more spread out social housing and moving people there.

And you think people would be willing to do so? What if they don't want to move? All you need to do is create jobs in low-income places, crack down on crime, improve education, etc. And voila. You don't need to create jobs somewhere else.

[Chessmistress]

Voted "... 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."
I think that domestic violence within certain communities is too often overlooked, not investigated enough.

[Olerand]

I mean building better, more spread out social housing and moving people there.

And you think people would be willing to do so? What if they don't want to move? All you need to do is create jobs in low-income places, crack down on crime, improve education, etc. And voila. You don't need to create jobs somewhere else.

And I can understand that rejection if... they owned their homes. But when you live in public land, and better public land is being offered to you, first I don't understand why you would reject the offer, nor do I see what basis you may have to not comply.

[San Lumen]

I mean building better, more spread out social housing and moving people there.

And you think people would be willing to do so? What if they don't want to move? All you need to do is create jobs in low-income places, crack down on crime, improve education, etc. And voila. You don't need to create jobs somewhere else.

Exactly hence why people move to cities in the first place. There is more opportunity and jobs. You don't need to build luxury housing in another area when you could simply do what you suggest.

[Olerand]

And you think people would be willing to do so? What if they don't want to move? All you need to do is create jobs in low-income places, crack down on crime, improve education, etc. And voila. You don't need to create jobs somewhere else.

Exactly hence why people move to cities in the first place. There is more opportunity and jobs. You don't need to build luxury housing in another area when you could simply do what you suggest.

Creating jobs is separate process from breaking up ghettos.

[San Lumen]

Exactly hence why people move to cities in the first place. There is more opportunity and jobs. You don't need to build luxury housing in another area when you could simply do what you suggest.

Creating jobs is separate process from breaking up ghettos.

Why do ghettos have to be broken up? Why not just create jobs there?

[Olerand]

Creating jobs is separate process from breaking up ghettos.

Why do ghettos have to be broken up? Why not just create jobs there?

Because they are, as has been proven everywhere where they have existed, a roadblock preventing the first two terms in the title of this thread.

[San Lumen]

Why do ghettos have to be broken up? Why not just create jobs there?

Because they are, as has been proven everywhere where they have existed, a roadblock preventing the first two terms in the title of this thread.

Come to areas of my city or Jersey city and you will see that is not true. There is a an area called Little Bombay in Jersey City. It has the largest concentration of Indians in the Western Hemisphere. its not a depressed area. It has plenty of economic opportunity and jobs.

[Olerand]

Because they are, as has been proven everywhere where they have existed, a roadblock preventing the first two terms in the title of this thread.

Come to areas of my city or Jersey city and you will see that is not true. There is a an area called Little Bombay in Jersey City. It has the largest concentration of Indians in the Western Hemisphere. its not a depressed area. It has plenty of economic opportunity and jobs.

That's wonderful. Is there, or has there been, a problem with the assimilation or integration of Indians in your town or... anywhere? Clearly, this applies for when there is a problem. If integration or assimilation are working fine, then there is no problem, and no need to remedy anything, as a de-ghettoization program would be doing.

[San Lumen]

Come to areas of my city or Jersey city and you will see that is not true. There is a an area called Little Bombay in Jersey City. It has the largest concentration of Indians in the Western Hemisphere. its not a depressed area. It has plenty of economic opportunity and jobs.

That's wonderful. Is there, or has there been, a problem with the assimilation or integration of Indians in your town or... anywhere? Clearly, this applies for when there is a problem. If integration or assimilation are working fine, then there is no problem, and no need to remedy anything, as a de-ghettoization program would be doing.

There have not been any problems that I know of.