Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

Main reason for these politicians to see 'multiculturalism' as a failure

  • Populistic - to win votes and stay in power

    Votes: 62 50.0%
  • Personal ideological - they believe they're right without any objective evidence

    Votes: 16 12.9%
  • Economical - Cost analysis shows the cost-benefit doesn't/won't add up for their nation

    Votes: 6 4.8%
  • Future threat - A future demographic/political/ideological/religious threat

    Votes: 28 22.6%
  • Other - explain, please

    Votes: 12 9.7%

  • Total voters
    124
Maybe they will succeed to integrate in a few hundreds generation, but still today we can arguably say that some groups had much more difficoult time to integrate themselves and there is no visibility on when and how to do so.

For some people in this thread, and according to the words of ministers in several Europeans countries, multiculturalism has failed in terms of seamless integration between local people/economy/culture and several groups of immigrants.
Considerable percentages of immigrants (not only 1st generation) was not able to integrate themselves into their hosting country.
All policies in Europe have failed to a different degree, even if they adopted very different strategies.
Even countries like Sweden that adopted the most liberal approach and devoted very large resources to the issues, failed to integrate some groups.

wolfigor said:
Do you mind to explain your point of view a bit more?

If you can't generalise about failures (it's also pretty problematic to group certain peoples as belonging to certain cultures in such an essentialising way - are all individuals in such and such cultural groups the same?), then it makes no sense to conclude that multiculturalism has failed. I mean, do you really need to be taught how to reason here?

wolfigor said:
What we can see is that some goups/cultures are easier to integrate than others, and the main fallacy of "muticulturalism" (or at least the way many people see it) was that it would be possible to integrate any group at the same time.

I think this is an example of the way in which the discourse against multiculturalism is completely removed from the real world. What do you mean at the same time? Is there even any theoretical, much less practical, mileage to the idea that you should "integrate" one group of immigrants at a time? How does that work? This year you accept Turkish immigrants, next year Bangladeshi?

And of course it's possible to "integrate" any group, in a sense, because no group is homogenous. Why don't you look at extremely orthodox Jews and talk about how difficult it is to "integrate" Jews as a group into liberal societies? Aside from fears of being accused of anti-Semitism, I'm sure you don't because there's enough sense in you to see that this is not a good line of argument. I wonder why the same logic is not applied universally.
 
I think this is an example of the way in which the discourse against multiculturalism is completely removed from the real world. What do you mean at the same time? Is there even any theoretical, much less practical, mileage to the idea that you should "integrate" one group of immigrants at a time? How does that work? This year you accept Turkish immigrants, next year Bangladeshi?
What is wrong with having a state selecting the people that want to immigrate?
First you open immigration from those countries are easier to integrate, and little by little you move up on the complexity scale.
At every step you have new challenges but you also learned from previous experience.
It would be a very practical approach, that will provide organically growth for infrastructures and mentality as well.
The mentality in the host country will change constantly to become more flexible and readier to accept diversity.
It will work better than open all borders and hope for the best. :)

Clearly I am more used to deal with computer systems and not really with people systems, so I may see the issue from a very different point of view.

If you can't generalise about failures (it's also pretty problematic to group certain peoples as belonging to certain cultures in such an essentialising way - are all individuals in such and such cultural groups the same?), then it makes no sense to conclude that multiculturalism has failed. I mean, do you really need to be taught how to reason here?.
If you read carefully what I wrote, I stated that the implementation of "multiculturalism" in Europe has failed to various degrees.
Obviously I have to generalise talking about "groups": how can anything fail or succeed for every single person in a country?

To summarise, various implementation of multiculturalism have failed while the main idea may still well alive.
To what level has failed (or succeed) is open to debate and vary country by country.

By te way, when you accuse me of over-generalization, don't you think you are generalizing a bit too?
 
I would make the assertion that people in 18th century America believed that multiculturalism failed because of the Italian's and Irish's inability to integrate into American society, yet 100 years later they're as much a part of American culture as tacos and beer.

I think the problem is the peoples perceived failure of multiculturalism is really just peoples impatience. First generation immigrants always have the toughest times integrating. Second generation will integrate better and every subsequent generation will integrate even better. With Europe, you've only begun to see the large immigrations of first generation immigrants yet already given up without letting the second generation grow into its own.

And by generation, I mean the whole, not just the few outliers that do retain their parents culture strictly. And not just the old people either, I mean old and young who just moved.
 
Obviously I have to generalise talking about "groups": how can anything fail or succeed for every single person in a country?
That logic would make the statement: immigration for this group has failed as true as the statement immigration for this group has succeeded.

And that's why it's counter-productive to generalize about groups. And it's spectacularly counter-productive to group all groups and immigration policies together and claim they have failed. And again I see this strange empty qualifier "to various degrees". Would you say Capitalism has failed because it has failed to "various degrees" in many circumstances? Can you name a single economic, social or political policy which hasn't failed to a certain degree?
 
And it's spectacularly counter-productive to group all groups and immigration policies together and claim they have failed.
A country can accept a significant number of immigrants from different cultural backgrounds every year and still not subscribe to a policy of "multiculturalism".
 
This article is probably of interest to the debate:

Guardian said:
German finance minister says too many Gastarbeiter were allowed in

Wolfgang Schäuble enters multiculturalism row, saying problems of integrating Turkish guest workers have grown with third generation


* Larry Elliott and Julia Kollewe in Berlin
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 March 2011 19.24 GMT

Germany's finance minister has waded into the country's simmering row over multiculturalism, saying it had been a mistake to bring in so many Gastarbeiter, or guest workers, from Turkey during the economic boom years of the 1960s.

In an interview with the Guardian, Wolfgang Schäuble said Germany had expected its 3.5 million Turkish minority to integrate better in the decades that followed the wave of immigration.

"We made a mistake in the early 60s when we decided to look for workers, not qualified workers but cheap workers from abroad, Turkey," said Schäuble. Some people of Turkish origin had lived in Germany for decades and did not speak German, he said.

"When we decided 50 years ago to invite workers from Turkey, we expected that their children would integrate automatically. But the problems have increased with the third generation, not diminished, therefore we have to change the policy," Schäuble said.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's plain-speaking finance minister was adding to comments she made last year, claiming multiculturalism had been a disaster for Germany. More recently her new interior minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, stoked the debate by saying that Islam did not belong in Germany. The foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, has also spelled out the new, tougher message from Berlin, declaring that children of immigrants should learn German before the language of their parents and grandparents.

Immigration leapt to the forefront of political debate in 2010 after Central Bank board member Thilo Sarrazin published a bestselling book that argued German culture was at risk from Muslims who, he said, were a drain on state coffers.

Schäuble said Germany's past experience was no obstacle for further immigrants, but the country was now mainly looking for highly skilled people. Germany has one of the lowest birthrates in Europe and relies on steady immigration to maintain a workforce large enough to pay for its rising numbers of pensioners. Its labour force of 41 million is expected to decline by 5 million over the next 15 years.

Schäuble is the elder statesman of Merkel's government, the most traditional of politicians, albeit with a dry sense of humour. Born in Freiburg in the Black Forest 68 years ago, he embodies the Protestant work ethic, being notoriously tough on himself as well as his staff. He joined the right -of-centre Christian Democratic Union in 1965 and spent much of his career working for Helmut Kohl, the chancellor who engineered reunification in 1990.

It was in that year that Schäuble was the victim of an assassination attempt that left him in a wheelchair. Heir apparent to Kohl in the late 1990s, Schäuble's hopes of becoming chancellor were thwarted when the CDU lost the 1998 general election to Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats and their Green party allies. He was replaced as the CDU's leader by Merkel in 2000 and was taken aback when he was offered the key job of finance minister after the CDU shrugged off the impact of Germany's most serious postwar downturn to win re-election in 2009.

"I was surprised when Angela Merkel asked me to take this portfolio but I'm self-confident enough to say it was the right decision. I told her: 'You know what you're doing. I am loyal but I'm not cosy.' She got what she wanted and the result is not bad."

Others agree with this assessment. Schäuble was voted finance minister of the year by the Financial Times in 2010 and presided over Germany's fastest year of growth since the immediate aftermath of reunification.

He had plenty of advice for his UK counterpart, George Osborne: stick to your austerity plan, pay more attention to manufacturing, join other European countries in slapping a transaction tax on big finance – and think seriously about joining the euro.

Schäuble's view of the UK economy is simple: it has too big a financial sector and too small a role for manufacturing. "What Osborne is doing he's doing remarkably well and he's very impressive," he said.

"When I had my first meeting with George Osborne after he became chancellor of the exchequer, I told him, if you were to ask me for advice, I would say any economy needs a balanced mix of services and industrial production."

Like Osborne, he sees no contradiction between cutting the budget deficit and maintaining economic growth.

"I had discussions with the American secretary of state, Tim Geithner, last year and told him: 'I don't know what's right for the US but, in Germany, if you want to encourage more internal demand, you have to regain the confidence of the public by reducing deficits.'"

Schäuble said he wanted to see Britain more closely involved at the heart of Europe. "We need not just leadership by Germany and France but by the UK as well. We'd like the UK to be in the euro; of course we'd be very interested."

Asked whether that was ever likely to happen, Schäuble smiled and said: "Not this week and not next week but definitely before the end of the world."

Like France, Germany wants tighter controls on the financial sector, including hedge funds and the shadow banking system. "We need regulation for all innovative products, derivatives and so on and we need regulation for all participants. For every product, there have to be rules to prevent them destroying themselves."

The most controversial proposal is for a financial transaction tax, first proposed by the US economist James Tobin in the 1970s. Tobin envisaged a small tax on currencies, but Schäuble said he wanted to tax all financial transactions across the European Union, for three reasons.

"The financial sector has to contribute to the costs of the last crisis," he said. "It's not only a question of the economy and the budget but of democratic legitimacy.

"Second, it raises money and it does so in a fair way. And third, it would limit a little the room for manoeuvre of financial markets. We must prevent the markets from destroying themselves."

These views are likely to be seen as dangerously radical by the City of London. But Schäuble estimates he could raise €2bn (£1.75bn) a year for Germany from the tax, which he would be prepared to spend on international aid or fighting climate change as proposed by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

"I'd prefer to have it in my budget but it's better to have it for climate change or development aid than to have nothing. I'm ready to make compromises."

Schäuble said he hoped to persuade the UK to back the FTT but had a fallback position should that not happen.

"I would prefer a European solution but if this doesn't happen right away, I would be willing to go ahead with the eurozone. But we would work to convince the UK to join. It's in the real interest of the UK to be in the game rather than out.

"In the short term maybe we will lose some business to London. I believe in the framework of European legislation but I don't want to wait for decades."

He seems to be kicking a bit in every direction, which is impressive for a man bound to a wheelchair.
 
What is wrong with having a state selecting the people that want to immigrate?
First you open immigration from those countries are easier to integrate, and little by little you move up on the complexity scale.
At every step you have new challenges but you also learned from previous experience.
It would be a very practical approach, that will provide organically growth for infrastructures and mentality as well.
The mentality in the host country will change constantly to become more flexible and readier to accept diversity.
It will work better than open all borders and hope for the best. :)

Clearly I am more used to deal with computer systems and not really with people systems, so I may see the issue from a very different point of view.

Yes, how do you propose that Western countries effectively ban immigration from certain countries? Surely you can see how that idea just would not fly.

wolfigor said:
If you read carefully what I wrote, I stated that the implementation of "multiculturalism" in Europe has failed to various degrees.
Obviously I have to generalise talking about "groups": how can anything fail or succeed for every single person in a country?

To summarise, various implementation of multiculturalism have failed while the main idea may still well alive.
To what level has failed (or succeed) is open to debate and vary country by country.

By te way, when you accuse me of over-generalization, don't you think you are generalizing a bit too?

So if you get 90 marks out of 100 it means you failed by an extent of 10 marks, and if you get 80 you have failed by an extent of 20 marks, and so on?

That totally puts your meaning of failure into perspective.

PS: What the heck am I generalising about?
 
I'll try to answer even if I have very little time for it. :(

Yes, how do you propose that Western countries effectively ban immigration from certain countries? Surely you can see how that idea just would not fly.
No permanent visa to people coming from specific countries.
Cannot have job or rent house or any other legal contract without a valid visa.
Being in the country without a valid visa, lead to mandatory deportation (this is really the weakest point).

Maybe in US and UK they don't have that much in terms of documents, making all the effort very complicated, but remember that other countries do have the means to archive it if really wanted.

However the implementation, I see that countries have the right to select who immigrates.
At the same time I see that it will be a smart idea to prioritise those immigrants that are easier to integrate and can bring a better return of investment for the country.


So if you get 90 marks out of 100 it means you failed by an extent of 10 marks, and if you get 80 you have failed by an extent of 20 marks, and so on?

That totally puts your meaning of failure into perspective.

PS: What the heck am I generalising about?
So, you deal only in absolutes, only black&white.
Don't you think that integration in country may have worked for some groups while failed for others?

At the same time some countries in Europe have been more successful than others, but still failing to archive a complete "multicultural" society.
For example Sweden is one of the best examples in Europe for integration, much better than France or Italy, but still failed with a few groups (e.g. Somali).

So, please, try to open your mind to a different position and make an effort to understand it without dismissing it before really looking at it.
 
No permanent visa to people coming from specific countries.

Which countries? Do you also want to close off immigration to the liberal-minded skilled educated people in those countries? Why do you hate freedom?

Cannot have job or rent house or any other legal contract without a valid visa.

This should already be the case. :confused:
 
It's pretty easy to dodge in this country if you're white and speak English though. All those visa-overstaying English/Irish/etc.
 
It's pretty easy to dodge in this country if you're white and speak English though. All those visa-overstaying English/Irish/etc.
Aren't they more transparent than the average Australian?
 
Hahaha, it's not that they literally hide.
 
I'll try to answer even if I have very little time for it. :(

No permanent visa to people coming from specific countries.
Cannot have job or rent house or any other legal contract without a valid visa.
Being in the country without a valid visa, lead to mandatory deportation (this is really the weakest point).

Maybe in US and UK they don't have that much in terms of documents, making all the effort very complicated, but remember that other countries do have the means to archive it if really wanted.

However the implementation, I see that countries have the right to select who immigrates.
At the same time I see that it will be a smart idea to prioritise those immigrants that are easier to integrate and can bring a better return of investment for the country.

Dude, this is the same as effectively banning immigration from some countries. I mean, aside from the fact that this is indeed a stupidly totalising way of looking at people by grouping under their respective nationalities (What does nationality mean anyway? How does it determine how individuals think and act?), it would open your country up to all sorts of accusations of practicing discrimination. What other reaction are you expecting from the world except outrage?

You'd be right that countries have the right to select who immigrates in any way they like, except that this view predates modern globalisation trends. What next, that each country has the right to keep out foreign ideas?

Obviously, you should stick to talking about computer systems. You seem to have hardly any clue about how anything human works.

wolfigor said:
So, you deal only in absolutes, only black&white.
Don't you think that integration in country may have worked for some groups while failed for others?

What on earth is this supposed to mean? The last time I checked, I'm not the one who is keen on making sweeping statements about the failure of multiculturalism. And I'm the one being accused of thinking in absolutes? :lol:

I guess this is what I can expect when I question shaky reasoning. You aren't willing to admit that your reasoning is bad, so it must be my fault. I ask you again: How does the failure to get along with some groups translate to a failure of multiculturalism? Multiculturalism has to do with a lot more than your relations with a few perceived groups that you don't really like. And you can't really say multiculturalism has failed in such and such instances, because this makes as much sense as saying that you fail to be a rational being when you fail in some instances to think rationally. You're still a rational being - you just fail to apply reason in those instances. In a similar way, it's not multiculturalism that has failed - it's people who fail to live up it to it. In both cases, it's the agent and not the general idea that is at fault. You have to critique the idea of multiculturalism on its own merits, especially when the failures of implementation are not so pervasive.

wolfigor said:
At the same time some countries in Europe have been more successful than others, but still failing to archive a complete "multicultural" society.
For example Sweden is one of the best examples in Europe for integration, much better than France or Italy, but still failed with a few groups (e.g. Somali).

So, please, try to open your mind to a different position and make an effort to understand it without dismissing it before really looking at it.

As I've said many times, I don't see any compelling argument to accept what people like you are saying. I mean, can you blame me if your reasoning is laughably bad? Since when does keeping an open mind translate to having to accept anything you say. I thought you aren't big on multiculturalism in the sense that you make of it! :lol:
 
We tried this. It was called the White Australia policy.
 
aelf said:
it would open your country up to all sorts of accusations of practicing discrimination.

Lest we discriminate against the Taliban, or else we might as well just ally ourselves with them. Or some kind of base rate logic like that...
 
I think I just dislocated my eyes from rolling them too hard.
 
Lest we discriminate against the Taliban, or else we might as well just ally ourselves with them. Or some kind of base rate logic like that...

What?
 
Multiculturalism apparently means you have to allow terrorists and armed militias a free pass?
 
Top Bottom