If Europe needs people from similar cultures, perhaps the EU should consider expanding to include some smaller Latin American or Caribbean countries. I can think of one particular country right now that probably could use it.
The biggest problem in countries that have decent-size Muslim minorities (such as France and Germany) is the second generation immigrants, not the first. Muslim immigrants, namely the Turks in Germany and Algerians in France, didn’t move to their respective host countries because of German or French values. They moved there for economic opportunities. After all, there wouldn’t be a need for any assimilation (beyond language and certain cultural eccentricities) if immigrants already wanted and indeed shared European values.
And there is potentially quite a bit to be afraid of even when one culture isn’t forcing another to adopt its values or traditions. The Turks and Algerians have historically been relegated to certain pockets of housing and neighborhoods in Germany and France because, at least in the case of the Turks, the Germans did not envision permanent settlement. Now that generations are growing up there, however, without much in the way of attempts to assimilate them, you’ve got a partially-segregated community. And the younger generation of that community, who was born in their host country and usually speaks the host country’s tongue, is increasingly hostile to the host country and its culture because they will never be fully accepted as a host country native yet cannot go back to the country of their parents or grandparents. The French movie “La Haine” (Hatred) is a great depiction of the young rage in these immigrant communities.
Older Europeans see this rage as evidence that the immigrant, and Muslim immigrants in particular, cannot assimilate or fit in to mainstream European culture. But it’s really a cycle.
While at one time, many parts of the Muslim world were known for their religious tolerance and pluralism, today the Muslim world is not exactly a paragon for inter-faith acceptance. If any place in the world can truly be described as having widespread religious bigotry, it’s the Middle East, not the West.
Don’t you think it’s up to the immigrant to assimilate, not the other way around?
Both. An “immigrant” can’t assimilate if the country he’s in won’t let him. “Immigrant” in quotes, since you aren’t really an immigrant if you’ve lived there your whole life.
Yes, but grouping “guest worker” housing in some of these European countries without providing much in the way of language programs or incentives to assimilate has actually made it harder to assimilate.
For example, I live on an American military base in Japan. While street signs and a few other signs around me are in Japanese, I could spend my entire tour here without learning even a marginal bit of Japanese language or culture if I simply stayed on-post. Going off-post can be uncomfortable and even intimidating, simply because I can’t read the street signs, have no idea how to get where I’m going without a map, and my American atm card doesn’t work at most banks. I’m young-ish, so I’m willing to venture out, but without the mandatory week-long Japanese language/culture class and optional weekly Japanese language lessons, I can imagine it would be very easy for someone to simply stay on-post where it is comfortable and at least mostly familiar. Assimilating is hard, especially when someone moves because they want to earn some money, not because they’re actually aiming to assimilate.
Segregating immigrants from other members of your society is going to be counterproductive, if your aim is to get the immigrants to assimilate. They won’t adopt customs of your country if they don’t have contact with other people who practice those customs.
If you make it harder or more expensive for them to learn the local language, fewer of them are going to do it. It’s basic economics- you add to the cost (in money or time) of getting something, fewer people are going to try to get it.
Assimilation is a two-way street. Countries pick up new foods, new words, new holidays, etc, from immigrants. You can’t expect it to all go one way, where the immigrants pick up the native culture and there is no change to the native culture. It doesn’t work that way. Most Americans would probably know what bagels, sushi, fried rice, pizza, and tacos are. Those things all came from immigrants and became part of our culture.
But not if your aim is to get cheap labor out of them.
Having them assimilate is counterproductive to the aim of getting cheap labor out of them. If they assimilate, they won’t work as cheap for the same reasons that the local people don’t.
And that is why “guest worker” programs exist.
Can someone explain to me if there are legal barriers to assimilation or is this primarily a cultural thing? For example, are there requirements that people live in specific neighborhoods? Is employment discrimination against certain types of people allowed?
We certainly have cultural and social barriers to assimilation in the US. But my feeling is that our legal regime helps to incentivize assimilation since it prevents explicit discrimination against immigrants in a number of areas. For example, if you’re renting or selling a house, you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion (although, I’ll grant, enforcement of this can be difficult). Similarly, if you are hiring, you can’t discriminate on that sort of basis either (enforcement is probably fine for large employers and difficult against small employers). I thought European countries had similar kinds of provisions? I’m certainly not claiming the US is always the best at creating the favorable legal regime, but I’m trying to figure out what the differences between the US and Europe are.
I read the article, and it pointed out that the East German town was artificial in nature-it was a creation of communist “central planning”. It is not near any resources, and there are no industries in the town to employ people. The fact that the young people are leaving simply reflects this fact-there are better opportunities elsewhere. The former East Germany is full of such towns-how would you like to live where they used to make Trabant “cars”?
It is like people leaving a mining town, when the mine folds up-nothing more.
Long term, Germany will suffer a drop in population-but that may be a good thing:
-it will accelerate the adoption of robotics (replacing human labor)
-it will ease the pressures on resources
-there will be much less crime (young men 15-25 make up the bulk of violent criminals)
Of course, I would not want to be a real estate salesman in such a town!:smack:
Incidentally it should be noted Muslims and other immigrants are better assimilated in America than in Europe. In America the last significant race riot was in 1992 but in Europe riots have occurred quite recently. In France the ultra-right wing reactionary Le Pen won 1/5th of the vote-in America his equivalent Pat Buchanan won some 2% of the vote back in 2000.