Clashes of Civilization/s
I used to be of the mind, like many others of my generation and my fellow citizens, although by no means all, that open immigration could only be a good thing. For one's country, for the future of mankind. It would give all of us the opportunity to become exposed to other cultures, and in so doing we would become more open, come to the realization and the understanding that we are basically alike, that we share universal emotions and longings, that we can aspire to be a population of assorted beliefs and experiences with our own cultural influences, but that together we would strengthen society by our willingness to live together in peace, amicably, tolerantly.It has taken a few short years for such a longstanding belief to turn itself around. Canada, like the United States and Europe, has had a long and honourable tradition of welcoming immigrants. Oops, that rather grandiose statement should be amended for the sake of veracity. Although Canada and the United States were both born of an influx of immigrants, in the 19th century and first half of the 20th, it was a very selective type of immigration policy which had the ascendancy. Visible minorites suffered disgraceful discrimination, and those who were, however reluctantly admitted, suffered greatly as a result.
Let us then now address the current situation, where for the past half-century at least, both countries have administered a far more open, fair and welcoming immigration policy welcoming people from all countries of the world in their mass and individual migrations, whether through refugee programmes, or those of economic migration. We have practised a more inclusive, nuanced, compassionate type of welcome for new immigrants, assisting them to integrate into the new country they have chosen; offering assistance in education, job-seeking, accommodation, family adjustment.
Traditionally, people emigrating from their countries of origin were seeking a better future for themselves, for their families, whether it was to escape discrimination, poverty, military and governmental persecution or simply better overall economic conditions. These people were not met with state-sponsored assistance of the type we see now, but had to make their own way, often with help from self-help groups set up by those former compatriots who had preceded them. They managed to survive the turmoil of relocation and the difficulties which adjusting to a totally new and different environment exposed them to. In the end they prospered, and they enriched the communities they entered and ultimately became part of.
That was then. This is now. And now has become most unpleasant. Formerly emigrants seemed inclined to become residents of a new country with which there was some shared tradition. And in that near distant past immigrants seemed far more willing to accept that to become citizens of their adopted countries they also had to adopt many of the values and certitudes of that new country, while still adhering to the tenets of the culture, the ethnic background, the religion left behind. They became a valued, practising and accepting element within the larger population, grateful for the opportunity to be granted all of the benefits as well becoming cognizant of their obligations of that society.
This appears, more and more, no longer to be the case. Most particularly with the arrival in various countries of the world of large groups of practising religious Muslims. This is a complex issue, complicated by intolerance, growing lack of opportunity, and a religious divide which has become difficult to reconcile. Yet it cannot be denied that when an immigrant leaves his or her country of origin it must be to escape a situation which has become intolerable, whether because of poverty or repression or regional conflict. All the more reason upon arrival in the new country of choice that immigrants learn to accept that their adopted country has its own values laws and mores, which must be accepted by all of its citizens.
New citizens of any country cannot choose to reside there with a view to changing the culture, the values of the new country and replacing them with those which they have brought with them, even if they consider their own culture and ethnic identity to be superior to those which greet them in their new country. If there are elements of the accepted social convention which they find personally injurious to their sense of values because they go against the grain of their religion or the cultural values instilled in them in their country of origin, this is a problem which they personally must come to terms with. They cannot and should not expect the host country to alter its way of life and embrace the alien culture which they bring.
What's really at the heart of things here is that a relatively tight group of non-accepting immigrants have created situations of tense suspicion between themselves and their host countries. At times these situations are not entirely of their making, but the reactions have been of a type and intensity not normally tolerated by any part of a population, bringing critical attention to themselves, and making life far more complicated for that much larger group of immigrants from similar backgrounds who have themselves had far fewer problems in integration.
That growing realization of unsuitability for integration into another country has been the cause of some interesting and realistic changes whereby some countries are now considering exposing would-be immigrants to suitability tests. These are oral or written examinations which weigh whether an immigrant's views are compatible with the values expressed in a host country's constitution. Questions range from evaluations of basic principles like acceptance of democratic values, religious sensitivities, the rights of minorities, female emancipation, acceptance of a system of justice administered by the state, gender equality and general acceptance of the ethical precepts of the country of admission.
Sad, sad to say.
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, February 12, 2006
<< Home