Should 'foreigners' have to integrate?

Remove all ads!

A sprout off from the Jack Straw thread really. I just wanted to hear some thoughts on whether or not people think that if a person moves to a different country, should be they forced to conform with the new countries traditions and make a big effort to integrate? Or should they basically be allowed to live how they want, even that means separating themselves from the rest of the country and alienating themselves.

The question I'd like to raise is - how far should we allow people to take their beliefs in the name of integration? I believe absolutely in freedom of religion, but Britain is a country with a certain set of laws, based on the mores we've developed over milennia. Should we waive those laws because someone else's religion decrees they're inappropriate? I don't think there are many people who have a problem with anyone's right to worship - but what if that religion then demands something we find utterly abhorrent? Like, for example, the subjugation of women to the extent they're not allowed out of the house? The cutting of an animal's throat in the street? Female circumcision? Should we simply accept it into our society, turning a blind eye because it's someone else's religion?

Discuss

 

Of cause foreigners should try to intergrate themself and the society should give them as much help as possible, but becoming part of a society dosn't meen you have to leave all parts of your old one out.
the parts that should be left, are the parts that cant be integrated or go against the new societies laws.

Language is one, its a mild one, but learning the new countries language is very importent, in fact incisting on speaking ones old language even at home slows the integration. that said, it shouldn't be forbidden.

now to address your questions about religion. As most western if not all societies have a separation of church and state, religius laws should never be raised as equal to the laws of the state, so religions that for example demands the subjugation of women, should be forced to addapt or be forbidden in does aspects and society should never turn a blind eye to such thing, just because people hide behind religion.

 

Like Equester said, immigrants should follows the laws of their new home country. All cultural or religious practices that violate any laws should be not practised any more.
The receiving society should help immigrants to integrate by making it possible to become citizens or by offering them benefits for taking language courses, for example.

That is the ideal basis.


Integration is more complicated, though. Many immigrants everywhere don't know about certain rules of communication in main society. In order to learn them, they have to make contacts to people in that society. But contacts may result in conflict, and they often do, in fact.

So the strategy of separation to build sub-societies where immigrants can rely on infrastructure they know and understand is a very comprehensible and natural way to avoid conflicts with 'aboriginies'.

Integration and eventually assimilation is a very long process that results in assimilation of both societies: the immigrant and the aboriginal one.

 

Well, you can't force someone to make a 'big effort' to integrate. Just like you can't force a native born hermit to get out a bit more. What does 'integrate' even mean? Are you suggesting a law that says that immigrants have to eat steak and ale pie at least once a week and visit the local pub at least twice a week and get season tickets to at least one soccer team?

Clearly, I am exaggerating a bit, but I'm just trying to get an idea of where you think the line should be drawn. For me, the line is drawn at the existing laws of the land. New people to a country have to obey the laws. So, no stoning of adulterers, even if your God tells you to. But you're welcome to have a 17 day wedding ceremony standing on your head if that is what is traditional for you.

 

As an American living in Korea I think I have a unique perspective on this. The fact is, I spend most of my time with other English-speaking foreigners drinking proper ales at an Irish pub and eating fish and chips and hamburgers.

Ask yourself how willing you'd be to adopt the customs and culture of, say, Saudi Arabia, if you were to spend a year, or the rest of your life, there.

 

But hanging out at an Irish bar is hardly disruptive to the lives of Koreans, so is fine.

 

I don't believe in forcing incomers to let go of their old traditions and embrace what they find in their destination. But they should always respect the local customs and do the public duty so far as possible. I have no problem with the fact that someone's religion prohibits military service. In fact, I don't even think we have to prosecute sects saying you shouldn't pay taxes (just an example; they have existed, historically, but I can't think of any in the present times) - they should be allowed to contribute to the society in some other way, maybe by work, same as with people who can't serve with guns but can surely train as field nurses. People should also be let go to their temples for the obligatory services. There's no reason to expect them all to comply with the same letter of the law as everyone else. We can make room, we can adapt. There is much else they can contribute if we don't take what they don't want to give. But when they don't want to contribute, when they want to claim our land not only as estate proprietors but even as sovereigns, that's when a problem starts. And a big one.

Consequently, if they start preaching hostility and declaring themselves as our enemies, let's treat them as enemies. If they declare contempt for us, our culture, our traditions, let us deprive them of the material fruit of our culture. Let's free them of what they despise and deport them where they came from.

As for the situation of women, children, workers, I don't think the ethnic groups in question are ready to embrace our democratic reality with all the equality and liberty mindset. Let's think of ourselves a hundred years ago. And it's not true that we don't have any inequality or opression in our society, far from that. So, unless people are oppressed against their will (beatings, rape, property extortion, imprisonment), it might be a better idea to try less drastic and more diplomatic means and influence them with culture rather than force. We won't make islamic women happy by tearing their burkhas, hijabs and scarves off.

To sum up, my idea is that we should cooperate and make room for them, even creating new laws, new ways to do things in our system. We should go to great lenghts if they want to cooperate. But we shouldn't give up our values and we should not accept hostility, violence, hatred, contempt. Nor should we place the incomers' beliefs or values or traditions above our own. For example, crescents shouldn't be protected more than crucifixes. Muhammad should not receive legal protections we haven't applied even to Jesus. Incomers are guests, even welcome guests, but they are not hosts. And this they should understand.

 

I disagree with part of your post Chev, it seems like your saying, if incomers with a religion that goes against the countries laws, break the law in the name of the religion, the law should make room for them.
If that is what your saying, I disagree. we tried that in Denmark with Jehovas witnesses, they didn't want to serve in the army, which is not a problem in it self, because in denmark we have some forced military service, it works like a lottery, does who lose go to the army, or if it goes against thier believe do some civic service, this they denied too, saying thier religion forbids it.
In this case they are unwilling to adapt and i think people who are unwilling to do either is sent to prison or at least fined a fee.

Secondly we have muslims, who believe anything negative written about islam is an offence and should be punished, should we follow them? hell no, we have something called freedom of speech, and they will have to learn to live with it. they come to foreign country they adapt. That is the case with any immigration.

It is not the countrie that have to make room for immigrants and adapt to them. its the immigrants that have to find a spot in the society and adapt. and while they do so they might contribute and change society for the bether.

as regarding Burkhas (scarves and such im fine with) im having a hard time deciding what to do with them, mainly cause they in a certain view goes against the law (we have a law forbidding facial covering, unless necesary for protection), soin reality these pieces of clothing goes against the law. on the other hand, they are a religius outfitt that might enrage thousand of people if forced off.
and what to do about them in security checks? we had problem with a guard not wanting to cause trouble so he didn't check under a burka, guess what, the person under it was a journalist and to make it worse, male.

 

I think that if you don't like the laws in a certain country, then you should not go and live there. Simple as that.

 

Eye for an eye. It's really kinda unfortunate that many foreigners do not really find themselves fitting in, mainly due of the language barriers, and thus start to gather into separated groups. This, IMO, is a bad thing, since it basically creates isolated cultural areas where there should be none (I mean: what is the point of leaving your country only to re-create it inside a foreign one?). You know the news about those groups burning cars in France.

On the other hand, it is also unfortunate that the local population usually also views foreigners skeptically. I can understand it in the case of africans, but every other race should be welcomed and provided for. If it is not possible due of the crimes or some other reasons, they can always be removed from the country. Now, instead of seeing first, the attitudes are about judging before seeing. I.e: ridicilously tight immigration requirments, like in Finland, Russia, and Japan. Basically, you have to live half of your life in the country and speak the language like a native to have the same rights as a native. Until that happens, you are always just an alien.

Exceptions should be made, of course, like in the case of army. Conscriptism shouldn't really affect immigrants.

 

wordplay could you elaborate why you can undestand skepticism versus africans more then versus other people?

oh and The jehovas witnesses unwilling to serve thier time, arent immigrants. immigrants cant be drafted, thier children when grown can of cause.

 

Moderation is the key, as always. Making no attempt to integrate at all is just plain rude, when YOU came here of YOUR free will. Get enough people doing that, and its practically an attempt at annexing. But you don't want to be assimilated either. Maintaining your own culture is a good thing, as it promotes diversity.

The biggest problem is where to draw the line, and difficulties arise when people draw the line way back in their own country. Some things simply MUST be integrated, law being first and foremost, language coming second (communication is extremely important in today's world), and then everything else needs to be merged. We're not asking you to drop your own culture, just to adopt ours as well and create a good mix of the two. I don't think there are that many actually mutually exclusive cultures out there, and the few that exist...probably just shouldn't trade citizens.

 

2 rules I would have in place for them.

1. Learn the Language. Don't walk into my workplace and get pissed off with me because I don't speak Swahili or whatever. I only speak English, and I can't help you if you don't.

2: Obey the law. Your religion may teach you that it's fine to beat your wife if she displeases you, but Our laws don't allow that. Freedom of religion has it's limits...

 

I don't think that integration is especially important - communication is, however. Immigrants and the majority need to have some common language or there is no benefit to society by having immigrants there, and plenty of potential for harm.

The ideal solution would be to teach several major languages to young children (from kindergarten up). I've heard of schools that do this and it sounds like an awesome idea.

 

Just wondering if you would be happy for Koreans to spend their time in Asian establishments, making no effort to spend time with locals?

 

Wordplay, the french immigrant youth riots aren't a result of voluntary separation, but of the forced segregation between french society and the immigrants.

 

Its very simple, IMO...

Laws first
Religion second

Everything else should be left alone. For instance, if I were to run a red light in Saudi Arabia, I have to spend a night (or two) in the slammer, compulsorily...so I don't whinge about it.

If I were to have more than one wife in India, I can face criminal charges by any of my wives...again, its the law, so I have to man up and face it.

As long as I don't expressly violate any laws of said Western country, I don't see how anyone has any right to prevent me from doing anything my religion may or may not require me to do. Just because Westerners find it distasteful is not rational and valid grounds for prohibiting certain practices.

Of course, as I said earlier, if it contradicts any particular law of the country, then there's no arguments. Complete and total ban! But if it doesn't and its just considered "weird", "gross" or "unacceptable" by Western morality systems...then I'd say take a hike!

 

@Equester: If they didn't want to do any form of civic service, I think they crossed the line of not cooperating. Maybe they could pay double tax for a year or something to compensate (historically, there used to be a tax you paid to avoid draft), but I really can't see what's so bad about getting some training in administrative duties, medical service, whatever. At the worst, I can't imagine any religion forbidding you from sweeping the streets and if they can't do anything else, they should do just that.

First of all, they should offer to do something and make a lot of effort to come through as helpful and cooperative. If they don't bother, they're asking for trouble.

That's what I said. No special protection for symbols of Islam. I believe in wide protection of religious symbols, beliefs and feelings (e.g. any desecration in art should be banned), but if they want protection above other religions, then they are trying to obtain a creeping recognition of the "fact" that Islam is better than other religions. That's bad. I would always ask them if they were ready to respect the symbols and beliefs of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hinduists, whatever other religion, the same way. If yes, then they have a legitimate wish for protection. If not, then they have creepy agenda.

Yeah, but it doesn't hurt to concede some bureaucracy and make life easier on them. Just so long as they don't become privileged over indigenous citizens. For example, if members of a sect believed they could only serve at a higher army rank than other conscripts because it's their role to lead the world etc, I would tell them to go to a military academy or get bent. If some creeps believed in sacrificing cats to their deity, I wouldn't support them either.

There should be control in such cases but only by females. There's no need whatsoever for a male to assist. Even if some of our women don't care, Islamic women have the right to. I have a problem with the idea that it's right to have cross-gender personal control if it can be avoided.

I would also like to agree with what Felinoid said, that moderation is key. Because it is. And they need to learn the language. If they refuse to, I say deport them because they are an alien body. I don't say a 60 year old demented fugitive with heaps of issues from his homeland should be forced to learn a difficulty language. But if young or middle-aged people come with ideas of creating enclaves and never cooperating with the local populace... screw them.

However, I believe the same what holds for dirt poor Asians should hold for rich American executives. If the little Cheng needs to learn Polish to sell clothes at the market, the big Jefferson T. Rosenberg, III needs to learn Polish to head a company here. Only fair.

 

Just with regards to that...its perfectly legit to have a woman check any other Islamic woman who is under a burkha, and any attempt to say otherwise is

Also, I failed to mention in my earlier post that immigrants using religion and other similar belief systems as an excuse to secure preferential treatment for themselves is blatantly dishonest and definitely not to be allowed.

Having said that, c'mon guys! Freedom of speech is all well and good, but Muslim bashing is a strict !

 

I don't know what will western countries do about it but the turban (or burkha or whatever) is a great problem here. It is forbidden for students (including university students), teachers, doctors and other workers in government offices to wear it. But number of women wearing it in the streets is increasing. Forcing people doesn't work here.

There are worse examples: In Turkey this year a man wearing a burkha (we call it sheet here actually ) was caught by police and an AK-47 was found under the burkha. In another event (also in Turkey) a male terrorist was caught under burkha.

Also some Muslims need to learn the difference between criticism and offence. Even if a cartoon, movie or something offends them, this doesn't give them the right to kill who did it.

There is also an economical problem. I know some Turks living in Germany, aren't working, taking money from government for unemployment or for having children. I understand why racism is rising there.