It is well known that the populations of most European countries are beginning to shrink, and that in order to keep the population (and the welfare system) afloat they’re either going to have to increase the birthrate or, more likely, accept millions more immigrants every year. It is largely taken for granted that the majority of these immigrants are going to come from the Middle East and Africa. This has lead to a backlash among the voters, and increasing concerns about cultural identity and the ability to integrate such potentially large immigrant populations. Given what’s been going on in France over the last couple days, it’s not an irrational concern.
But why should the immigrants necessarily come from that part of the world? Why shouldn’t they come from the Americas and other parts of the New World, which have a shared cultural heritage with Europe? Should that cultural heritage play a part in the making of immigration laws? Would such immigrates integrate more quickly and successfully into their new countries?
While such a system would almost by definition be culturally biased, it would not necessarily be racially biased (though the racial angle would be attractive to many people). I think it’s fair to say that, for example, a born and bred American of ANY race (and, arguably, religion) has more in common with your average Briton than does your average Moroccan or Nigerian, and would be able to integrate into British society more quickly accordingly.
I would not advocate such a system for my own country, the US – there’s no reason for us to restrict our immigrants to people from the Anglosphere. But we have a much better track record of assimilating immigrants than do most European countries (at least in the modern era), and I can’t help wondering if such a system might work for Europe. What do you think?
I think your average Mexican would be surprised to hear he has a “shared cultural heritage” with France. Other than being Catholic (which the latter really isn’t anymore) I don’t see it. Spain, maybe, but that’s only one country out of the entire continent, and I don’t know how fond the memories are.
Moreover, it wouldn’t change the fact that immigrants from the ME would likely keep coming anyway, illegal or not.
Well they also speak a Romance language. And although for a very brief period, France did rule Mexico with their proxy, Emperor Maximiliano, and they did excert some French influence on Mexican culture.
Well some countries have more similar cultures than others, obviously. I know that Spain is already trying to encourage immigrants from South America. That’s only one country, yes, but it’s one that particularly needs the immigrants since its birthrates are so low.
Most immigration from outside of Europe is from countries with a shared cultural background - North Africa’s history is intertwined with that of France, as is the Indian subcontinent with Britain’s.
Secondly, it’s a false premise that immigration is, or will continue to be, overwhelmingly from the Middle East and from Africa. There’s a lot of movement from eastern Europe, Russia, the far east, etc.
Finally, a large proportion of immigration is in the form of asylum. You can’t pick and choose which countries refugees will arrive from.
Surely for all rich Western countries, the bulk of immigration already is or is going to be from China and India because that is where the bulk of the world’s population lives.
Also, what makes you say that the US is the best at cultural assimulation? Not so sure about that.
Emmigrating is hard and expensive. It’s easier for latinamericans, espeically mexicans, to just drive and walk to the U.S. than fly or sail to Europe; likewise it’s easier for Middle Easterners to sail across the Mediterranean than the Atlantic.
Also if your’e a refugee you can only go to countries that take you in, which might not be your favorite summer destinations.