Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[Arwon]

So... leave them in isolated and deprived ghettos without the tools to gain greater access to society and establish themselves?

You realise what you're proposing (bring people in but don't spend money to help them or welcome them or protect their communities) is essentially the failed model of non-multiculturalism used in places like Italy, Germany and France, right?

 

[civ_king]

So... leave them in isolated and deprived ghettos without the tools to gain greater access to society and establish themselves?

You realise what you're proposing (bring people in but don't spend money to help them or welcome them or protect their communities) is essentially the failed model of non-multiculturalism used in places like Italy, Germany and France, right?

What is this I don't even

The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the United States.

The regulations define a "specialty occupation" as requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor[1] including but not limited to architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, biotechnology, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties, theology, and the arts, and requiring the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent as a minimum

 

[Yeekim]

I'm not "bashing others' ideas". I just fail to see the merits or even the point of their arguments. You can't exactly blame me when these arguments veer from the cultural to the economic when pressed, without ever saying what exactly is a non-multicultural policy besides restricting immigration.

You misunderstood me. I was not accusing you of "bashing others", I said I had done this myself -and I also preemptively accepted criticism for not expressing my own ideas more clearly. I had no time yesterday but I have now - so here goes:

I think that multiculturalism is the amalgam of the following:
1) Dogmatic ideas that "ethnic nation-states are stupid" and that they should thus be changed - expressed in this thread e.g. by Bill3000 here.
2) Refusal to admit that mixing of different nations and ethnicities via immigration is highly likely to cause friction and problems as a result; or stating that benefits of such mixing will a priori outweigh such problems; or blaming all such problems on the host country, who "simply hasn't been accepting and tolerant enough"; or merely dismissing such problems by saying that they are all "solvable over time". The last one is potentially true, but still does not answer the question why should we want to be saddled with solving them in the first place. These positions have, with varying degrees of reasonableness, been put forth by numerous people in this thread, including you. I won't deny that there are countries which have, over the course of their history, greatly benefitted from immigration - I am merely stating that this result is far from granted, nor even solely in the hands of the host.
3) Naive belief that all cultures are always compatible enough to happily exist side-by-side while "being treated equally under the law and following it" - expressed in this thread by e.g. Mise here. This viewpoint ignores the fact that laws themselves are very much a product of culture, not some universal supracultural phenomenon. Who gets to write these laws then?
Japanese and Arizonans, for example, could hardly be subjected to same gun-control laws without one side feeling extreme discomfort. The best they could hope for would be some sort of a lose-lose compromise. And to improve my earlier reply to Formaldehyde: I would likely find a township of Christian Fundamentalist gun nuts as potentially unsettling neighbors as a village of Pashtun tribesmen I referred to earlier in this thread. I wouldn't be troubled for having to share an office cubicle or bus with one, but I would be quite worried about them gaining any local or national leverage.

And what do I want?
Basically the opposite:
1) Respect to wishes of people who prefer to continue living in a nation-state - don't attempt to engineer these into different kind of states. There are plenty of those in the world as well and I certainly ain't going to force them down my road either. That does not mean that already present minorities should be expelled, of course.
2) Understanding that creating a culture mix via immigration can cause problems; that the benefits are to be discussed and weighed against the costs; that every conflict has at least two sides and that it is safer to err to the side of caution when in doubt as such conflicts are far easier to create than to quench.
3) Recognition that the law of the host country must be respected as is and when it conflicts with one's beliefs or traditions, then those beliefs and traditions need to change rather than the law. If everyone in a society is happily adhering to the same laws, then that society is, in fact, not multicultural, irrespective of how many skin tones or cuisines it contains.

 

[Yeekim]

It's correct, and the entire point of freedom of expression, the free market of ideas, and globalization, except without the prissy parts by irrational traditionalists who foolishly want to protect that which should not be protected, merely recorded and left to history. May the superior memes survive and thrive, and the inferior ones die out, much like products in the market.

Nothing like the smug arrogance of an anglophone.
Or do you actually believe that the English language, for example, owes its prominence in the world to its objectively superior quality in comparison with, say, Latin? All you really have to do now is to sig "USA #1!" and start talking about how governments should keep out of free market and how taxes are theft.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think that multiculturalism is the amalgam of the following:
1) Dogmatic ideas that "ethnic nation-states are stupid" and that they should thus be changed - expressed in this thread e.g. by Bill3000 here.
2) Refusal to admit that mixing of different nations and ethnicities via immigration is highly likely to cause friction and problems as a result; or stating that benefits of such mixing will a priori outweigh such problems; or blaming all such problems on the host country, who "simply hasn't been accepting and tolerant enough"; or merely dismissing such problems by saying that they are all "solvable over time". The last one is potentially true, but still does not answer the question why should we want to be saddled with solving them in the first place. These positions have, with varying degrees of reasonableness, been put forth by numerous people in this thread, including you. I won't deny that there are countries which have, over the course of their history, greatly benefitted from immigration - I am merely stating that this result is far from granted, nor even solely in the hands of the host.
3) Naive belief that all cultures are always compatible enough to happily exist side-by-side while "being treated equally under the law and following it" - expressed in this thread by e.g. Mise here. This viewpoint ignores the fact that laws themselves are very much a product of culture, not some universal supracultural phenomenon. Who gets to write these laws then?
Japanese and Arizonans, for example, could hardly be subjected to same gun-control laws without one side feeling extreme discomfort. The best they could hope for would be some sort of a lose-lose compromise. And to improve my earlier reply to Formaldehyde: I would likely find a township of Christian Fundamentalist gun nuts as potentially unsettling neighbors as a village of Pashtun tribesmen I referred to earlier in this thread. I wouldn't be troubled for having to share an office cubicle or bus with one, but I would be quite worried about them gaining any local or national leverage.

And what do I want?
Basically the opposite:
1) Respect to wishes of people who prefer to continue living in a nation-state - don't attempt to engineer these into different kind of states. There are plenty of those in the world as well and I certainly ain't going to force them down my road either. That does not mean that already present minorities should be expelled, of course.
2) Understanding that creating a culture mix via immigration can cause problems; that the benefits are to be discussed and weighed against the costs; that every conflict has at least two sides and that it is safer to err to the side of caution when in doubt as such conflicts are far easier to create than to quench.
3) Recognition that the law of the host country must be respected as is and when it conflicts with one's beliefs or traditions, then those beliefs and traditions need to change rather than the law. If everyone in a society is happily adhering to the same laws, then that society is, in fact, not multicultural, irrespective of how many skin tones or cuisines it contains.

Great post. It's basically my position, it's sane in every way and it's not racist as some would have you believe. I don't mind some immigration for good reasons and if they retain their culture, even while abiding the law, I'd probably see the society as multicultural in that aspect. I wouldn't mind some conditions for gaining and keeping their citizenship either.

 

[Yeekim]

Great post. It's basically my position, it's sane in every way and it's not racist as some would have you believe. I don't mind some immigration for good reasons and if they retain their culture, even while abiding the law, I'd probably see the society as multicultural in that aspect. I wouldn't mind some conditions for gaining and keeping their citizenship either.

Thanks.
It should probably be said about my wish No 3 that the reality is of course more complicated - as always. For instance, some greatest recent controversies were created not by immigrants who wanted to change existing laws, but by existing laws being changed in response to immigrants (burqa ban/minaret ban etc).

These I'd qualify as "problems caused by multiculturalism". The minaret ban I found especially stupid but then apparently people were genuinely upset. And since I don't think building minarets is "a basic right" I can only say "well, you better suck it up" to offended party. It would be different if we were talking fundamental rights of course.

 

[Arwon]

What is this I don't even

Yep, Germany started off with a temporary work visa program. 2 generations, a lot of people are still there.

If everyone in a society is happily adhering to the same laws, then that society is, in fact, not multicultural, irrespective of how many skin tones or cuisines it contains.

Uh, you can define the word however you want, but parallel legal systems have got very little relation to anything countries with a formal policy of multiculturalism within their immigrationm policy their ever define it as. Adherence to laws is the sine qua non of any state, culture and law are not the same thing and this is indicative of the mindset wihich associates migrants with crime and not much else.

 

[Yeekim]

but parallel legal systems have got very little relation to anything countries with a formal policy of multiculturalism within their immigrationm policy their ever define it as.

Sorry, I don't think I understand what you intended to say.

Adherence to laws is the sine qua non of any state,

No, it is not. Most states in the world showcase rampant corruption and pathetic law enforcement. Even some immigrant hot spots.
As for countries where corruption and law enforcement are less problematic overall... just find a random thread about US/Mexico border and see how many people don't seem to even grasp the idea that illegal entry to a country is in fact considered a crime and rather seem to think of it as of some fundamental right.

culture and law are not the same thing

No, they are merely inseparably related in that one stems from another.

and this is indicative of the mindset wihich associates migrants with crime and not much else.

Pointing out that migrants of different cultures are less likely to agree with local laws does not mean "associating them with crime" and it definitely does not mean "associating them with crime and crime only".

 

[Arwon]

I have no idea what you're trying to say now. If not "multiculturalism means separate legal systems" then what? Are you saying Australia or Canada aren't multicultural societies because the migrants don't demand changes to the criminal law code? It sounds a lot like you're equating multiculturalism, by definition, to situations of failure and strife only.

Edit: I'm pretty sure you're defining frikkin Singapore out of the multiculti club here.

 

[civ_king]

Yep, Germany started off with a temporary work visa program. 2 generations, a lot of people are still there.



Uh, you can define the word however you want, but parallel legal systems have got very little relation to anything countries with a formal policy of multiculturalism within their immigrationm policy their ever define it as. Adherence to laws is the sine qua non of any state, culture and law are not the same thing and this is indicative of the mindset wihich associates migrants with crime and not much else.

Did Germany's system only apply to people in specialty occupations (requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor)?

 

[Singularity]

Did Germany's system only apply to people in specialty occupations (requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor)?

No, it began with a diplomatic agreement between a reluctant Germany and an eager US administration to open up for turkish guest workers in the final part of the 50's as a tool to stabilize a Turkey with high unemployment. After having admitted tens of thousands of workers on an original two year work permit this was lifted in the early 60's after pressure from work interest organizations. Family reunification programs in the 70's increased this number exponentially, and immigration from other european enclaves to the much larger enclave of Turks in Germany led to the sizeable contingent of Turks you have in Germany today.

It had nothing to do with the H-1B visas you see today in US guest worker programs. It was a basic need for muscle in supplying workers for the growing industry in Germany, not Indian guest workers taking up positions as scientists and doctors in Massachusets.

 

[Singularity]

So... leave them in isolated and deprived ghettos without the tools to gain greater access to society and establish themselves?

You realise what you're proposing (bring people in but don't spend money to help them or welcome them or protect their communities) is essentially the failed model of non-multiculturalism used in places like Italy, Germany and France, right?

First of all those three countries have used widely different political means in dealing with immigration. And they have widely different ethnic groups within their borders. You'll observe that it's not just these countries who find themselves struggling with accepting the failed multicultural policy and reality they find themselves in. Most western european countries have it to a large degree, and they all tried to find their own magic bullets in dealing with them. And to be honest, throwing money at the problem is not part of the solution because that has been done to excess here in Norway.

It would be sweet to put the blame on the govenment for abandoning large ethnical groups in their growing ghettoes, but the fact is that those pretty much rise up wether you like it or not unless you forcibly regulate the area and seal it off for any more population from a single culture. Which smacks of a fair bit of fascism if you ask me.

There's no right answer to the OP poll. All I can say is that the problem of multicultural failure is real in Europe. To be honest I think it's the leaders positioning themselves for political currency that they can cash in when they want to propose much tougher restrictions on immigration and movement of people both from outside and into Europe and within Europe itself. Schengen has in my opinion been a horrible failure with it's open borders and lack of control. And it needs urgent ratification.

 

[Arwon]

How do you account for the fact that the ethnic groups in Europe, which you say are problematic and ghettoey, are generally smaller than populations than in Canada and Australia (countries which invented the concept of explicit multiculturalism as official policy and spent resources to support it) which aren't? Are the migrants different, the government policies different, or the majority population's attitudes different?

Our immigration minister just gave a good speech, belatedly but effectively reaffirming the value and importance of multiculturalism, it may be worth a read.

I particularly like his take on the European experience:

So, whereas some other countries may have had less than positive experiences, the Australian model of multiculturalism is different.

I mentioned before the recent debates in Germany, for example. Australian multiculturalism is very different to the German experience. Frankly, there are few positive lessons to be learnt from Germany's approach to these issues.

Germany has, for some time, had one of the highest immigration rates in Europe. But it has not regarded itself as a multicultural nation. Indeed, it has hardly regarded itself as a nation of immigration.

When Angela Merkel says multiculturalism has failed, she cannot be referring to the national policy of respecting the cultures of immigrant societies while requiring respect for traditional German values of the rule of law and democracy.

She cannot be referring to multiculturalism as we know it because Germany has never had a policy of multiculturalism. In fact, a close reading of Angela Merkel's comments can be taken as an argument to move towards an Australian version of multiculturalism.

Germany has regarded immigration as an economic necessity. A requirement for guest workers has driven an economic immigration policy. Never has a German Government proposed a policy of respect for existing cultures where they do not clash with basic German values.

While Australia's post-war immigration policy was originally driven by economic imperatives, Australian governments eventually came to recognise the societal benefits of inviting full community participation by our immigrant populations in return for a respect for, and embracing of, the cultures and customs that have been transported here by immigration.

One could argue that the large Turkish guest worker populations have not properly integrated into German society because, frankly, they have not been invited to.

Similar arguments can be learnt from France. France has been bedevilled by ethnic tensions from time to time. In 2005, it faced the spectre of widespread race riots. As Waleed Aly has pointed out, France's resistance to a formal policy of multiculturalism has not encouraged greater integration of immigrant societies but, on the contrary, it has bred resentment, separatism and violence.

Many countries in Europe have nations within nations: significant communities living 'parallel lives'. Generation after generation has perpetuated a segregation from the mainstream – based on ethnic, religious or cultural divides.

This seems to underline the benefits of the Australian approach.

 

[Singularity]

How do you account for the fact that the ethnic groups in Europe, which you say are problematic and ghettoey, are generally smaller than populations than in Canada and Australia (countries which invented the concept of explicit multiculturalism as official policy and spent resources to support it) which aren't? Are the migrants different, the government policies different, or the majority population's attitudes different?

Our immigration minister just gave a good speech, belatedly but effectively reaffirming the value and importance of multiculturalism, it may be worth a read.

I particularly like his take on the European experience:

That's a very good and much needed counterpoint by your minister. And quite bold in places as well A breath of fresh air compared to the John Howard administration.

The whole situation is different from what I can see. The source of when the immigration started, how entrenched the differences between the cultures in question are and the fact that there's a comparatively small distance between the host and guest nations. Nevermind the fact that Europe is in a unique situation, like I said in my previous post I would say that within Europe you have an extreme different situation from one country to another. Both based upon the applied policy throughout the last half a century and more and the origins of the various cultures. I keep seeing various posters claim that "I live in country X and have Y, Z and so forth culture livving happily within our borders." That's fine and all, but it's a false comparison between totally different cases. As and example 4-5 million Turks in Germany is completely different than 180.000 vietnameese in Australia.

 

[Tee Kay]

As and example 4-5 million Turks in Germany is completely different than 180.000 vietnameese in Australia.

The proportion of Germans and White Australians are about the same (90%) in Germany and Australia respectively. People of European descent comprises a higher percentage of the population in Germany than in Australia, and 25% of our population are born overseas.

 

[Singularity]

The proportion of Germans and White Australians are about the same (90%) in Germany and Australia respectively. People of European descent comprises a higher percentage of the population in Germany than in Australia, and 25% of our population are born overseas.

I'm not talking about the color of a persons skin. I'm talking about homogenous cultures living within a larger host culture. What are their origins, size and under what timeframe and conditions did they settle within the hosts culture. It's unique for each and every nation. Some younger nations that used to be colonies a few centuries ago has even a weak minority that has cultural heritage and historic ownership to the lands you call your own by fairly recent political and economical machinations far beyond their control. How you solved the challenges and problems in building a functional multicultural society is interesting, but only as far as how it worked for you. I propose that very few of those lessons would be of any value to another nationstate.

Wihtout having read the whole thread I have not seen a big debate between welcoming and making a traumatized political refugee a part of a multicultural society compared to a guest worker who decides to settle for good. This is a more universal challenge that I think you could easily compare from one host nation to another anywhere in the world. And here I think you could find more solid statistics in failure and success from one nation to another. There's a clear seperation IMO between work immigration and political refugees, sadly I don't have any statistics on this to throw out. But I speculate that a lot of the multicultural areas that sees problems in Europe right now is as a result of work immigration and not political refugees, so you can't really start to say "It worked for us, why didn't it work for you?".

 

[Arwon]

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that, had Australia treated its Italian and Greek migrants (who were sought and granted entry on economic grounds in the decades after WW2) the way Germany has treated Turks there, the two situations might look quite similar today.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that, had Australia treated its Italian and Greek migrants (who were sought and granted entry on economic grounds in the decades after WW2) the way Germany has treated Turks there, the two situations might look quite similar today.

That's a pretty big assumption on your part. Culture-wise Greeks and Italians were probably closer to Australians than Turks are to Germans, which kind of is the point of the other side's argumentation. Those who don't integrate well in Sweden - in what way weren't they supported? In what way does Australia support their immigrants more than Sweden?

 

[Dachs]

That's a pretty big assumption on your part. Culture-wise Greeks and Italians were probably closer to Australians than Turks are to Germans, which kind of is the point of the other side's argumentation. Those who don't integrate well in Sweden - in what way weren't they supported? In what way does Australia support their immigrants more than Sweden?

I dunno, dude. Greeks and Turks aren't functionally all that different.

 

[Kruelgor]

Multiculturalism works fine when everyone is making money. It's when there is no money is when it turns into a mess.