On integration, assimilation and multiculturalism

[Olerand]

Of course there's unequal treatment, they are citizens. Those who are not... Are not. Citizenship grants you rights that non-citizens do not have, like the right to not be deported from your only country of citizenship. This is basic political knowledge.

As for the values test, if we cannot use it to screen those already here, we certainly have the right to screen out those who are not. Being French/American/Dutch/Russian etc. is a privilege, something that that nation grants to you. Not a right. You're not owed citizenship or residency.

In both cases there was a granting of citizenship, in one case it just happened to occur automatically. As I said before, those who happen to be granted citizenship by birth can hold whatever reprehensible viewpoint they wish but only those who are seeking to become naturalized citizens are expected to meet the standards?

No they cannot, and I've said this numerous times. You can trace your lineage back to the Ancien Régime aristocracy and beyond, if you do not believe in the fundamental values of the French Republic, you should be encouraged to leave. However, and here is the distinction, by chance of birth, you are a holder of a French passport. You cannot be made stateless, nor deported.

If you are not French and do not believe there should be a separation between your religious dogma and the public sphere of citizenship, then you can, and should, be denied entry into the French nation. You are not French, and have no right to be one. There are certainly French Islamists who share your belief, but, by chance of birth, they are French, and cannot be made stateless nor deported. You, a non-French Islamist, can be denied citizenship and deported. That's "unfair", but that's life.

[Baltenstein]

I guess my problem with all these "they won't fit in"-style arguments is just that they sound so perfectly similar to the arguments people made about immigrants throughout history. My favourite is probably the turn-of-the-century American newspaper articles about the Irish, and the Italians, and the Eastern Europeans and so on. It's virtually word for word the same that people write these days about people coming from the Middle East. More or less the only thing you need to do is replace "Muslim" with "Catholic". And things really did get ugly at times. And there were riots, and crime, and anarchists. And at all times this concerned some tiny minority of the people who came over, and that's why it passed. I don't think I've seen a convincing argument for why this is any different.

Truth be told though, the journey the European immigrants to the US undertook 100 years ago was a much bigger one than the one Muslim immigrants undertake to Europe today. Once you crossed over the Atlantic, virtually all contact with the "motherland" ended, and the vast majority of immigrants didn't even visit their home countries again during their lifetimes.
Whereas today, the distances have become much shorter. There's the internet, there is satellite TV, there are cheap flight tickets, there are people like Erdogan hammering the importance of not integrating and not getting along with the native majority into his diaspora's collective heads on a regular basis, and keeping a long arm into the host country to ensure exactly that, and so on.

[Oneracon]

In both cases there was a granting of citizenship, in one case it just happened to occur automatically. As I said before, those who happen to be granted citizenship by birth can hold whatever reprehensible viewpoint they wish but only those who are seeking to become naturalized citizens are expected to meet the standards?

No they cannot, and I've said this numerous times. You can trace your lineage back to the Ancien Régime aristocracy and beyond, if you do not believe in the fundamental values of the French Republic, you should be encouraged to leave. However, and here is the distinction, by chance of birth, you are a holder of a French passport. You cannot be made stateless, nor deported.

If you are not French and do not believe there should be a separation between your religious dogma and the public sphere of citizenship, then you can, and should, be denied entry into the French nation. You are not French, and have no right to be one. There are certainly French Islamists who share your belief, but, by chance of birth, they are French, and cannot be made stateless nor deported. You, a non-French Islamist, can be denied citizenship and deported. That's "unfair", but that's life.

And I am indicating that, regardless of the current legal apparatus, it is hypocrisy... and that many (not necessarily yourself) refusing to acknowledge the existence of this hypocrisy is an issue.

[Olerand]

No they cannot, and I've said this numerous times. You can trace your lineage back to the Ancien Régime aristocracy and beyond, if you do not believe in the fundamental values of the French Republic, you should be encouraged to leave. However, and here is the distinction, by chance of birth, you are a holder of a French passport. You cannot be made stateless, nor deported.

If you are not French and do not believe there should be a separation between your religious dogma and the public sphere of citizenship, then you can, and should, be denied entry into the French nation. You are not French, and have no right to be one. There are certainly French Islamists who share your belief, but, by chance of birth, they are French, and cannot be made stateless nor deported. You, a non-French Islamist, can be denied citizenship and deported. That's "unfair", but that's life.

And I am indicating that, regardless of the current legal apparatus, it is hypocrisy... and that many (not necessarily yourself) refusing to acknowledge the existence of this hypocrisy is an issue.

Almost everything in life is hypocritical. Citizenship and the rights it grants to some people and not others is, inherently if you want to look at it that way, hypocritical. Why do French citizens have rights to welfare, while the non-French have less? Both are human, but not both are citizens. And such is the reality of politics.

[Kekonistan]

And I am indicating that, regardless of the current legal apparatus, it is hypocrisy... and that many (not necessarily yourself) refusing to acknowledge the existence of this hypocrisy is an issue.

Almost everything in life is hypocritical. Citizenship and the rights it grants to some people and not others is, inherently if you want to look at it that way, hypocritical. Why do French citizens have rights to welfare, while the non-French have less? Both are human, but not both are citizens. And such is the reality of politics.

Because one did not contribute to the economy of France by working and consuming it.

It is saying that one should receive salary whilst not working for a said company.

Not all humans are equal fam.

[Olerand]

Almost everything in life is hypocritical. Citizenship and the rights it grants to some people and not others is, inherently if you want to look at it that way, hypocritical. Why do French citizens have rights to welfare, while the non-French have less? Both are human, but not both are citizens. And such is the reality of politics.

Because one did not contribute to the economy of France by working and consuming it.

It is saying that one should receive salary whilst not working for a said company.

Not all humans are equal fam.

I don't particularly care as this is not something I defend. I am fully aware of citizenship and its rights and obligations and I am not a believer in the "global citizenship" "kumbaya circles" whateverness that English speaking liberals advocate these days.

[Kekonistan]

Because one did not contribute to the economy of France by working and consuming it.

It is saying that one should receive salary whilst not working for a said company.

Not all humans are equal fam.

I don't particularly care as this is not something I defend. I am fully aware of citizenship and its rights and obligations and I am not a believer in the "global citizenship" "kumbaya circles" whateverness that English speaking liberals advocate these days.

Because I do not understand how you see it is something hypocritical. Rather, it seems logic to me.

[Olerand]

I don't particularly care as this is not something I defend. I am fully aware of citizenship and its rights and obligations and I am not a believer in the "global citizenship" "kumbaya circles" whateverness that English speaking liberals advocate these days.

Because I do not understand how you see it is something hypocritical. Rather, it seems logic to me.

I don't. I was saying some might.

[Kekonistan]

Because I do not understand how you see it is something hypocritical. Rather, it seems logic to me.

I don't. I was saying some might.

They need to be

physically removed, so to speak

[Olerand]

I don't. I was saying some might.

They need to be

physically removed, so to speak

... No thanks.

[Shofercia]

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 things by that.

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.

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.

For an immigrant to be sufficiently integrated...

... they just have to be there, no further integration is needed - how's that working out for the EU?

... they have to share the same commitment to liberal, democratic political values as the general population - cultural values rather than political. If you come to Cali, know our language, (or learn it,) know the Culture (or learn it,) and be able to get a job without committing felonies/wobblers. As for politics, we had the Governator, we have Moonbeam - who gives a flying fuck in the end?

... they have to express similar political views using similar language in a similar way to that of the general population - language yes, politics, nope. Most Americans hate the Electoral College, while at the same time ensuring its persistence through Party Affiliation. If citizens don't get it, why should immigrants be required to get it?

... 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 - including at home? That's the part I disagree with. But maybe that's because I lived near Hollywood

... they have to speak the same language as the general population to each other in public - not have to,
but it'd be preferable

... they have to speak the same language as the general population to each other at home - why? A man's (or woman's) home is his castle. Government should fuck off unless something highly illegal, like child smuggling, is going on.

... they have to follow/not follow the same religion as the general population - more like Cultural stuff.
If you come to Cali, understand that there will be drunk pedestrians on July 4th, St. Patrick's Day, the SuperBowl, Cinco de Drinko, etc. Treat the locals with the respect that we treat each other with. Drive safe on those days. And don't shoot seals at piers.

... they have to eat/not eat the same food as the general population - as a Californian, I'm a bit confused by this requirement. We have so much different food here, that there's really no way to check it.

... they have to be part of the same ethnic group as the general population - it helps, but it shouldn't be a requirement. That's just dumb.

... is impossible - depends on the numbers. Integrating 10,000 immigrants per year for Cali is easy and fun. Integration 10,000,000 is impossible. See here for more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE