"Successful Assimilation of Immigrants"

There is a belief that some groups of immigrants do not assimilate as easily as other groups, and hence, it is argued, they threaten to undermine "the very fabric of our societies." This paper uses one of the latest examples of this fear, Muslims in Britain (the particular group changes over time and across countries), to argue that this belief is not supported by the evidence:

Successful assimilation of immigrants, by Esther Duflo, Vox EU: Immigration stirs up strong enough fears to justify questionable measures of protection against it – from arrests at the doors of French schools to the border wall that separates the USA from Mexico.

Economic research suggests that the intensity of these reactions seems completely disproportionate to immigration’s real economic impact on the local population. David Card has shown that even massive waves of immigration (like the arrival of Cuban boat people on the coasts of Florida) don’t result in lower salaries or fewer jobs for local people in the US.[1] In a recent survey article, he concluded that the “new immigration” assimilates just as well as previous waves had, and that the wages and employment prospects of natives are not any lower in cities that received more migrants[2]. Furthermore, Patricia Cortes also showed that an increase in the number of immigrants causes a price-drop in the sectors where they’re concentrated (i.e., the service and food industries, and child care); this benefits the local population.[3]

Economic reasons don’t seem to provide a sufficient explanation for the persistent distrust of immigrants among the native population. It seems that in part, this distrust can be attributed to the feeling that each new wave of immigrants is unique and cannot assimilate, and that the very fabric of our societies is threatened by the presence of these strangers. Just as 19th century Italian immigrants angered the French proletariat with their outward display of religion (they were disparagingly nicknamed “the christos” by the French working class), today many predict that the new wave of Latino-American immigration is essentially unable to assimilate, because it is too distant from “traditional” American values (i.e., Anglo-Saxon and Protestant values). According to Samuel Huntington, one of the most prominent political scientists in the US, this fundamental incapacity to adapt exemplifies the “shock of civilizations”: the great conflicts of the twenty first century will take place along religious lines, amongst eight great “religions” of the world.[4]

In Europe, Muslim immigration is today’s prime example of this “shock of cultures”. Every suburban riot and every bus burned is taken as an example that children of Muslim immigrants don’t consider themselves British or French. If the French played cricket, Muslim youth would certainly fail Tebbit’s “cricket test” (the British minister infamously asked which side Britain’s Asian immigrants would support in a Pakistani-English match).

Even in England, where the attitude towards immigration and assimilation is more relaxed than in France, the terrorist attacks of recent years gave rise to alarming observations that children of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families weren’t able to adapt to British society. This was made particularly salient by the video message of one of the July 7 London bombers (British-born but whose parents were from Pakistan), which said “your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people and your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters”, clearly contrasting “we” and “you”.[5]

But aside from a few anecdotes and these dramatic, but isolated examples, it has never been shown that young Muslims stay foreign to the culture of their adopted country more than any other immigrants. On the contrary, a recent study from Alan Manning and Sanchari Roy, of the London School of Economics,[6] suggests that there’s no real difference in the pace of assimilation between Muslim immigrants (essentially Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Somalians and Indians) and other immigrants. Manning and Roy study the response to the question asked in an annual survey which asked about what nationality the respondent associate with. The specific question is “What do you consider your national identity to be? Please choose as many or as few as apply?” There were six possible responses: British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Other. The author grouped British, English, Scottish and Welsh together under the heading “British”, and take the answer “British” to this question a sign of assimilation. Among those who were born in England, 94% of persons asked consider themselves British; whereas those in Northern Ireland are 24% less likely to identify as British (they consider themselves as Irish). Second-generation children of immigrants identify less often as British, but not to a large extent (from 2% to 5% depending on the country), and it is similar across countries – in other words, children of Pakistani immigrants identify as British at least as often as the children of Italian or Chinese immigrants.

Religion doesn’t have any impact on the answer to this question. Moreover, this variable doesn’t seem to change over time; the youngest group of immigrant children aren’t less English than other, older immigrant children. Even events like September 11th, the war in Iraq or July 7th, had no effect on young Muslims’ feeling of being English. Furthermore, from the third generation, the difference (in response to this question) between the offspring of immigrants and that of native British people completely disappear, for all nationalities.

These results strongly suggest that there is no erosion of British identity amongst the children of immigrants. However, they could still feel British, but have different values. To explore this question, Manning and Roy turned to a survey of “values”, conducted on 15,000 people, 5000 of whom were children of immigrants. The survey focuses on the “rights and obligations” of those surveyed (example of rights are freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, freedom of religion, right to be treated fairly and equally, right to free education etc….; examples of responsibility include “to help and protect your family; to educate children properly, to obey and respect law. Etc..”. Once again, there is no difference between Muslims and others on the number of rights and responsibility that they think they should have; and this is born out by looking at specific rights individually.

Manning and Roy rightly conclude that, on the basis of available evidence, Huntington’s pessimism - that Muslim immigrants will prove “indigestible” to non-Muslim societies, seems unjustified indeed. If anything, the constant reminders of “native” Europeans that there is “us” and “them”, the new, scary, Muslim immigrants and their offspring may do substantially more to create a rift than any religious or cultural feeling these immigrants have brought with them and transferred to their children.

References

1 David Card has written extensively about immigration. The famous piece on the massive Cuban immigration to Miami can be found at: "The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43 (January 1990). Other
2 David Card (2005) “Is the new Immigration Really so bad” Economic Journal 115 (November 2005)
3 Patricia Cortes (2006) “The Effect of low skilled immigration on US Prices” Working paper, university of Chicago Graduate School of Business.
4 Samuel Huntington “The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order” New York: free Press (2002)
5 Cited in Manning and Roy (2007), see reference below.
6 Alan Manning and Sanchari Roy “Culture Clash or Culture Club” Working Paper, Center for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

Comments

[Patricia Shannon]

the wages and employment prospects of natives are not any lower in cities that received more migrants[2]. Furthermore, Patricia Cortes also showed that an increase in the number of immigrants causes a price-drop in the sectors where they’re concentrated (i.e., the service and food industries, and child care); this benefits the local population.

The juxtaposition of these two statements is from the origianl. Unless we are to believe that an increase in the number of immigrants causes employers to become more willing to pay higher wages, these statements are contradictory.

[anne]

Love that Esther.

[ken melvin]

I couldn't get past, "David Card has shown that even massive waves of immigration (like the arrival of Cuban boat people on the coasts of Florida) don’t result in lower salaries or fewer jobs for local people in the US.". Maybe I'll take another run at it later.

[dissent]

from A survey of british muslims, link http://tinyurl.com/379wl8:

A bleak picture of a generation of young British Muslims radicalised by anti-Western views and misplaced multicultural policies is shown in a survey published today.

The study found disturbing evidence of young Muslims adopting more fundamentalist beliefs on key social and political issues than their parents or grandparents.

Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.

In some countries, people found guilty under sharia law face penalties such as beheading, stoning, the severing of a hand or being lashed.

The study, by the Right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange, also found a significant minority who expressed backing for Islamic terrorism.

One in eight young Muslims said they admired groups such as al-Qa'eda that "are prepared to fight the West".

Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death." Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.

Three out of four young Muslims would prefer Muslim women to "choose to wear the veil or hijab," compared to only a quarter of over-55s.

[dissent]

More from the source (british Muslims):

Public opinion in Britain is mostly favourable towards Muslims, but the feeling is not requited by British Muslims, who are among the most embittered in the western world, according to a global poll published yesterday.

The poll, by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project, asked Muslims and non-Muslims about each other in 13 countries. In most, it found suspicion and contempt to be mostly mutual, but uncovered a significant mismatch in Britain.

The poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent. While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims.

link http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1804078,00.html

[Icarus]

Perhaps our paradigm is wrong. Perhaps the western nations who enacted colonial rule, and hence have a long history of migration, must assimilate towards the migrants.

Is it the responsibility of migrants to assimilate necessarily? In a purportedly democratic state, people have the right to live with ideas and practices they choose.

[BJ Feng]

Are you kidding Icarus? It's the obligation of the visitor or guest to adopt and adapt to the values of their host. When I go to someone else's home, I will refrain from smoking a cigar in their living room if they request it even though I smoke in my own living room. I also take off my shoes in my home, but won't if my host doesn't share this custom.

Plus there are countries with superior value systems and social structures. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive. If a bunch of Saudis immigrated to the United States, there is absolutely no way that we should acquire that practice, and they should be socially condemned for continuing that practice if they choose. Yes they have the freedom to live as they want, but that does not include freedom from criticism.

People immigrate to the United States because they believe it has a superior system, otherwise they would stay in their own countries. I see very few people trying to immigrate to Cuba or from the United States to Mexico. Again, it would be insane for us to copy or tolerate the customs and practices that made their country poor and unlivable in the first place.

That doesn't mean we have to reject everything, we will choose and decide what to accept, and in the manner we choose. So Cinco De Mayo and St. Patrick's Day have become American holidays and transformed utterly from their original meanings. The California Roll is the most popular type of sushi in the United States, and every time you eat Chinese food, you get a fortune cookie.

[James Killus]

Patricia,

The statements are not contradictory if there is a strong price ceiling on the wages of child care and food service workers. If that is the case, in the absence of cheap immigrant labor, those services basically are not supplied, i.e., there are fewer restaurants and child care facilities. This doesn't seem impossible, though it might not be factually correct. There may be other explanations, as well, but nothing springs to mind at this hour.

[Ami Ganguli]

It's the obligation of the visitor or guest to adopt and adapt to the values of their host

Nonsense. Tourists are guests. Immigrants are roommates (or live-in girlfriends, if you like). They are no longer guests, they're residents just like you.

When you get a new roommate, both of you have to adapt. Indeed, if you make everything one-sided and expect the newcomer to change while you do everything as you always have, then resentment builds up and you end up fighting.

Note that immigrants didn't steal the land (as Europeans did from native North Americans, for example). They pay for it just like everybody else. If you don't want them there, then you're free not to sell (don't let immigrants in). But once you've let them in, you have to deal with the fact that they have just as much right to live as they wish as you do.

[bakho]

What Ami said. It comes down to cultural changes. Locals live in fear that the immigrants are going to change the cultural status quo. Look at the Catholic/Protestant tensions in the US and the rise of nativism in the 1800s.

Cultures are promoted by their own success. Making changes to cultures that have a record of success can make them less successful. There is a social cost (and therefore an economic cost) to making changes in the culture. When immigrants become a large enough fraction of the population to cause changes in the cultural status quo, resistance will increase. Locals begin to fear that they will have to adapt to the culture of the immigrants instead of the immigrants adapting to the local culture.

[hari]

Look! Do in Rome like the Roams do!

Otherwise the intelligence service might like to know
what the hell are you doing with all your ciphers....etc!
Beware of the immigrants! They're vulchers out to suck the
social system which we build up with sweat and blood!

So goes the thinking...even now in France!

[William Smith]

I think Turkish laborers in Germany have shown that assimilation takes time and willingness by the host to let people assimilate, but it can be done. Also, that same example shows that there is a critical tipping point, where, after a certain point, immigrants being deported or otherwise returning would have to re-assimilate.

[RichC]

The convoluted arguments presented in this paper are bending over backwards to present something that just isn't there. Setting aside the obvious point that Muslims are the main perpetrators of terrorist attacks in the UK, if you look at household incomes in the UK, it's glaringly obvious that being a Muslim significantly impacts how well immigrants assimilate.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=274

What's interesting is that non-Muslim Indians have household incomes from wages that are actually higher than white British households, yet Muslim Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have significantly lower incomes from working than both whites and Indians.

[eh]

I think Turkish laborers in Germany have shown that assimilation takes time and willingness by the host to let people assimilate, but it can be done.

Two thirds of muslims in Berlin, a sizable majority of whom are Turkish, live at or below the poverty line. Their children overwhelmingly do poorly in school, failing to get an Abitur in anything close to comparable proportions; for those who can read German, some sorry details are here.

I have no idea what you personally think of as "assimilation", but I live in Germany and the Turks who are here form an obvious ethnic 'other', and are, more than anything else, a disproportionately poor and criminal underclass. This is almost the very definition of social pathology. My glib formulation of the problem goes like this: Do the number crunching, and you'll find that the average young Turkish male is more likely to have been in jail than visited a library in the last year.

[eh]

...it's glaringly obvious that being a Muslim significantly impacts how well immigrants assimilate.

I recall an article last year (sorry, no link at the moment) which reported that one third of muslim families in the UK with dependent children had no working adult in the household.

[anne]

"Do the number crunching, and you'll find that the average young ------- ---- is more likely to have been in jail than visited a library in the last year."

Let us see all the number cruching; I'm all twittery waiting for the precise references and numbers. Till then, however, I will assume this is the rubbish of prejudice.

[anne]

"I have no idea what you personally think of as 'assimilation', but I live in Germany and the ----- who are here form an obvious ethnic 'other', and are, more than anything else, a disproportionately poor and criminal underclass."

Waiting!

[eh]

@Anne:

I said it was my own glib formulation -- meaning more for illustrative purposes, i.e. to show the qualitative nature of the problem, more than its quantitative extent. But having visited libraries here, as well as reading the newspapers with their reports about crime and educational attainment, I give it a better than 50/50 chance of being true, assuming the data were available, which it obviously isn't, e.g. regarding library visits.

Here are a few more facts: if you follow this link (PDF), and go to page 85, you will find this paragraph:

Die Tatverdächtigenbelastungszahl deutscher Heranwachsender (18- bis unter 21-Jährige) stieg von 9.200 um 0,3% auf 9.227, die nichtdeutscher hier wohnhafter Heranwachsender von 20.927 um 0,6% auf 21.060 an; sie lag somit um 11.833 oder 128,2 % (Vorjahr 127,5%) über der Tatverdächtigenbelastungszahl für deutsche Heranwachsende.

Since I assume you do not read German, I will translate the essence of this for you: latest official figures from the police in Berlin show that among the 18-21 year age group, "nichtdeutscher", i.e. people who are not ethnic Germans, committed more than twice as many crimes as Germans (128.2%). In Berlin, I believe that overall ethnic Germans outnumber "nichtdeutscher" by at least 4 to 1; we can use this as an approximation, anyway. This means (with a few not all that unreasonable assumptions) that, in this age group, a "nichtdeutscher" is about nine times as likely as a German to have committed a crime.

But of course you may believe anything you like.

[anne]

"Do the number crunching, and you'll find that the average young ------- ---- is more likely to have been in jail than visited a library in the last year."

"I have no idea what you personally think of as 'assimilation', but I live in Germany and the ----- who are here form an obvious ethnic 'other', and are, more than anything else, a disproportionately poor and criminal underclass."

This are the statements, and the statements were ethnically specific, I find no reason to believe the statements in any way so from the general statistic presented. Nor is there any attempt at explanation only a personal expression that I still find no reason to accept.

Where is are data and explanation?

[anne]

Sorry about the editing, but expression of personal belief, has nothing to do with validity. I find the comments simple prejudice.

[anne]

Does not ethnic German, by the way, mean Canadian? French? Italian? What about a Canadian born in Germany? How long does it take to be ethnically German? What of a young woman born in Germany, but having a single Canadian grandparent? What if the young woman has a German mother and (shudder) a Japanese father?

My parents are Irish; what am I?

[dissent]

Re: Turkey. The German govt estimates that half of the young German men of Turkish descent have gotten wives from Turkey (often arranged marriages) who are young, lack higher education, and don't speak German. This has tended to perpetrate the separation of the Turkish community from Germany. Cultural segregation is preferred, partly because young women of Turkish descent who were born and raised in Germany are seen as having 'loose' westernized morals. (Rather sad if you ask me, that this group is rejected by their own, aside from all the other issues.)

This means the children, born in Germany, don't even speak German well.

"The kids are born here, yet they cannot speak German," he complains. "And their Turkish is miserable. When they come here, they cannot name the primary colours in Turkish or German. They sit for 10 hours in front of the TV, they have never drawn, painted or played with anything other than electronic toys."

"Turks are at the lower end of the achievement scale," says Eren Unsal, an educationalist and spokeswoman of Berlin's Turkish Association. Ms Unsal, 30, is the kind of Turk most Germans would approve of. She is articulate, stylishly dressed and has a German boyfriend. "I am second generation," she says. "I have no problem with the German language. But the generation after me does."

Her organisation and the Turkish Parents' Federation agree with Mr Busack that the children are struggling because they learn no German at home. About half the Turkish men in Berlin bring their wives from the old country, especially from rural areas. The women's education is rudimentary. Children often hear no word of German until their first day at school. (link http://tinyurl.com/3drbq5)

It's important to note what these German Turkish preferences are communicating: assimilation is not desired. Becoming German is not desired. My father has an old friend in Germany whose daughter married a Turkish man (professional, assimilated, etc). The Turkish grandmother has refused to even meet the daughter in law and her own German grandchildren, for decades now.

Anyway, Germany addressed this problem with a new requirement: any non-EU spouse immigrating to Germany must speak German. It will be interesting to see what effect this has.

[anne]

"People who are not ethnic Germans...."

People like me? Do young women with Irish parents who are born in Germany become German? What of the children of the young woman in question? How many generations might it take to become German? Can a 4 generation Nigerian-German child be an ethnic German? Oh dear.

[anne]

"Anyway, Germany addressed this problem with a new requirement: any non-EU spouse immigrating to Germany must speak German."

Say what? I am doomed, doomed, doomed never to be able to be German. Oh dearie me. Duh.

[dissent]

A comment to anne: Immigration on economic grounds is a giant experiment, justified by economists on a market basis but it is an experiment just the same. I think being open to the facts on the ground is the reality-based approach to this issue. I don't detect such openness in your comments.

The issues that arises are complex and thorny. America is a nation of immigrants, and I think it is part of the American charter to have substantial immigration and to assimilate the new comers. (Though perhaps we are overdoing it.) Other countries, not so much.

[btgraff]

Regarding wages and immigration, I want to comment on the Torotno experience.

Toronto gets a massive amount of immigration - about 100,000 per year, roughly 40% of all immgrants coming into Canada. Canada takes in double the number of (legal) immgrants per capita as the US or Australia.

Recent statistics show that poverty rates have been increasing in Toronto, and wages have not increased as much as the rest of the country, which has been doing very well. And unemployment rates in Toronto, and Ontario as a whole are above the national average, whereas they used to be well below the average.

http://www.thestar.com/article/279839
ttp://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/whoWeHelp/reports/losingGround.php

and housing prices here have climbed rapidly - though not as much as boom-town calgary, or Vancouver (which also has high immigration but even less room for expansion, given the geography)

Not all of the increase in poverty is due to immgration - cuts in social programs, downloading of costs, and the fact that governments treat Toronto (and Ontario) as a cash cow have also had an impact. In the 1970s, Toronto was "the City that works" - liveable and a contrast to the US inner cities which had slums and poverty and high crime rates. Ironically, US cities have improved - while toronto has stagnated and had little new infratructure built - our waterfront is a disappointment and little new transit has been built compared to the 50s and 60s.

[anne]

Agreed completely; the issue of immigration is complex and difficult, and has been so for generations. But, asking what we really understand even about the distant history of immigration is important and the answers likely to be surprisingly varied. So, we can at least question stereotypical answers.

[hari]

Anne - let me jump in here as an "assimilated" EU citizen!
And also speaking a few languages to boot...

* There's been a paradigm shift with immigration on the continent (compared to UK) since 1980's.

* During my time, there was no problem what-so-ever: because our lot were invariably coming with jobs and/or recruited by local agencies for jobs like medical doctors, etc.

* During last two decades or more, a lot has changed and society-at-large has more or less reacted against mainly Moroccans, Turkish, and other Arab immigrants. Why?

* My observation is rather critical: Dutch govt made a very serious error of judgment allowing immigrants who could neither read or write! Simply because they needed surplus labour, they took them all at once! Same happened in Belgium, I recall in early 1980s.

* In (W)Germany you've so-called guest workers mainly from Turkey - who're allowed to bring their wifes once they got job and security. These Turks, good hardworking people, didn't learn German. Today you've third generation Turks living in ghettos (environment Berlin) with youngsters who are starting to learn German - but very few do indeed!

*In Germany you also have a large enclave of Iranian doctors, who have lived there, I suppose, since 1960s, and completely integrated into society.

* The same appllies to doctors and medical technicians from India. I recall an Indian (doctor) being elected to City Council and Major post in Germany!

What does this short story tell us?

Immigration is a serious matter and policy framework must be fully in place when they're taken into the country.

I personally think that if you migrate to a foreign country, you must not only learn the language of your host country but more importantly assimilate some of its relevant tradition - like how to eat a bratwurst!

[Icarus]

BJ Feng, and Ami...

Your analogy of the 'host' and 'visitor', I agree with. If I 'own' a home, and 'invite' someone, I expect them to live within my rules.

But, I don' think this applies to immigration. No one asked Europeans to emmigrate our of Europe. 1492 is a year which initiates a sad era of horrible violence upon many...starting with Natives in the North American continent, and continuing with colonization in other continents.

Europeans violently migrated towards the equator (the rates of skin cancer amongst caucasian australians should alert us to the 'un-naturalness' of this migration).
In this violent migration, they used war as a method of acquiring land, or, accepted the colonization of land by others, and made purchases (louisianna purchase).

Why should others respect that? Why should a mexican or costa rican care about the paper laws of a violent regime? The US has consistently proven that it will abandon any notion of international law when it sees fit (look at the long history of US-Israeli relations to see how brash disobeying international law can be).
Why should migrants, looking for work, care about the puported 'laws' of the US, laws which don't make much sense to them, and laws which privilege a caucasion population?

Now, having said that...with migration, comes risks. Some will die in the desert, some will not get proper medical care in their new land, some will work in fields till their backs give way. This is the sad, but real sociology of low wage migration.

I say repeal the component of the 14th amendment which allows anchor babies, privitize social welfare, and let people go where they find work.

[Detlef]

Anne,

"People like me? Do young women with Irish parents who are born in Germany become German? What of the children of the young woman in question? How many generations might it take to become German? Can a 4 generation Nigerian-German child be an ethnic German? Oh dear."

Just to give you a quick answer.
a) Irish citizens are EU citizens and don´t need German citizenship to stay permanently in Germany if they so desire. However any child born in Germany - assuming the parents are here legally - gets the option to become a German citizen.
b) A Nigerian-German child assumes that one parent is a German citizen, right? So of course the child would get German citizenship too.
Sorry to disappoint you but 4 generations aren´t needed. :)

[btgraff]

Despite my earlier comments, immigration to Canada, and Toronto, has not lead to the same problems as Europe... part of this is cultural - in germany, france etc., there is a clear sense of a dominant and once pure cutlure/race/ethnic group, whereas Canada, like the US and Australia, is a country founded on immgration and lacking that sense of a single absolute identity (in Canada, Quebec is a bit of an exception to this)... but also, Canada has taken in a wide diversity of immgrants over the years...

in the 50s and 60s, german, italian, greek , portuguese,
and jamaican, and then to a lesser extent, phillipino, indian, chinese, vietnamese
and more recently, iranian, somali, ethiopian.

there isn't that clear line between canadian and "otherness"

there is a big difference between conquest/colonisation, and immigration. but there is also a point in between - call it something else - where a dominant group gradually finds itself cofronted with change and a coountry no longer seems like "home" because the country has become a hybrid.... like you are living in epcot instead of a real place with its own clear identity and history.

[Winston]

Countries adapt to immigrant populations just as immigrants adapt to their new host countries. From the point of view a current British Citizen, is it a good thing that in a generation immigrants will feel British but that a significant proportion of the British population will support imposition of Sharia law?

[anne]

There is no conceivable possibility that because of immigration Britain would entertain discriminatory aspects of religious law; the idea is completely ridiculous.

[Bernard Yomtov]

However any child born in Germany - assuming the parents are here legally - gets the option to become a German citizen.

This is a recent change in the law and applies only prospectively, is it not? How does, or has, lack of citizenship affected Turkish immigrants to Germany? What sorts of non-discrimination laws are in place?

These are actual questions I have. Perhaps detlef or someone else familiar with the topic would be kind enough to answer them.

[anne]

BTGraff:

"Despite my earlier comments, immigration to Canada, and Toronto, has not lead to the same problems as Europe... part of this is cultural - in Germany, France etc., there is a clear sense of a dominant and once pure cutlure/race/ethnic group...."

Interesting comment, but I would go further and argue that any sense of cultural purity in France or Germany or Ireland has long been, possibly always was, an illusion and even a dangerous illusion. Remember the strange sense that France might colonize the Middle East or Africa did not leave France in any way pure. Napoleon's army was the least pure of possible armies, as Tolstoy so well noticed.

[anne]

Bernard Yomtov:

"How does, or has, lack of citizenship affected Turkish immigrants to Germany?"

A critical question, and showing off how arbitrary an illusionary integration can be when integration is legally simpler for a Russian who would live in Germany than for a Turk who has lived there many years.

Who is more Irish, a native Catholic or Protestant or Jew of Dublin? African Americans found comfort in Paris for decades when there was no comfort here. Were African Americans neither French then nor part of Franch culture?

[Detlef]

Anne,

"This are the statements, and the statements were ethnically specific, I find no reason to believe the statements in any way so from the general statistic presented. Nor is there any attempt at explanation only a personal expression that I still find no reason to accept.

Where is are data and explanation?"

Unfortunately the data do support the statement that non-German citizens are over-represented in the criminal statistics. At least for violent crimes.

German federal crime statistics 2006 (in German):

Homicides 2006 (completed crimes and attempts):
Cases: 818 (completed 334)
Suspects: 934
Non-German arrested suspects: 25.2%
Of these: Turkish citizens: 35.3%

So roughly 8-9% of all attempted or completed homicides resulted in Turkish suspects arrested. Given the fact that Turkish citizens are roughly 2-3% of the population in Germany...

Nonnegligent manslaughter:
Cases: 1.650 (completed 393)
Suspects: 1.897
Non-German arrested suspects: 29.4%
Of these: Turkish citizens: 30.6%

That´s roughly 10% of all (completed and attempted) cases.

Just to mention it, the list of foreign suspects starts with Turkish citizens, followed by Serbians, Polish citizens, Italians, Russians, Iraqis, Vietnamese and Greek citizens. With Greeks at 2.6% of the 25.2% homicide cases (1.6% of the 29.4 % nonnegligent manslaughter cases).
US citizens, Irish or Canadians aren´t even mentioned here. :)

I readily admit that Germany made a huge mistake starting in the 1950/1960s? By not admitting that "guest workers"/immigrants might want to stay in Germany. And granting them citizenship back then. And maybe helping them more to integrate.
Until just a few years ago, Germany didn´t see itself as an immigration country.

Now we might have a slight problem. :)
That "marrying a bride" from rural Anatolia is a real problem. Turkey is just a few hours away anywhere in Germany. You´ve got Turkish TV, Turkish newspapers, Turkish businesses in Germany. Some of them even subsidized by the Turkish government. 3th generation kids "Turkish" kids are growing up in Germany without hearing/learning German until they enter school. The result is that they will probably fail school and won´t get a job.

If I were already disadvantaged by not speaking German that well, maybe I could find pride in my Turkish heritage?

[Patricia Shannon]

James Killus says...
Patricia,

The statements are not contradictory if there is a strong price ceiling on the wages of child care and food service workers. If that is the case, in the absence of cheap immigrant labor, those services basically are not supplied, i.e., there are fewer restaurants and child care facilities. This doesn't seem impossible, though it might not be factually correct. There may be other explanations, as well, but nothing springs to mind at this hour.

James, I don't understand what you are saying.

the wages and employment prospects of natives are not any lower in cities that received more migrants[2]. Furthermore, Patricia Cortes also showed that an increase in the number of immigrants causes a price-drop in the sectors where they’re concentrated (i.e., the service and food industries, and child care); this benefits the local population.

So where does the price drop come from? The only ways I can see that there could be a price-drop are:
1) lower wages
2) lower profit margins. Due to kind-hearted employers, no doubt.
3) lower costs of "production".
But property costs, including taxation, will probably be higher with an influx of people, whether or not from other countries.

The argument is not that these services are more available (which may well be the case), but that they are cheaper. If the price drop does not come from lower wages, where does it come from?
cheaper.

[Detlef]

Bernard,

"This is a recent change in the law and applies only prospectively, is it not? How does, or has, lack of citizenship affected Turkish immigrants to Germany? What sorts of non-discrimination laws are in place?"

You´re right, the law was changed in the early 2000s during the Schroeder government. And it only applies to children born after that date.

Before that you either
a) had to be married to a German citizen or
b) be a child of a German citizen or
c) had to live in Germany for x years (don´t know the exact numbers) to become a German citizen.
(Mind you, even under the old laws, lots of Turkish immigrants would have been able to get German citizenship.)

For decades before that, the official position of the German government was that Turkish "guest workers" were just "guests". Working here for some years and then going back to Turkey. They just denied the reality.

However I should mention two other things.
One bad, one good. :)
a) Any "guest worker" in Germany after working here for x years got a permanent residence and worker permit. Meaning that he/she can stay here indefinitely and can get his or her spouse here once he/she marries.
Bad in my opinion, because that gives you residence and working rights without citizenship rights.
b) Unions are still influential in Germany.
You get a job in a union negotiated sector of the economy, you´ll get the same pay as any other worker in Germany.
Good in my opinion, because the unions don´t care about your passport. It could be said that unions did more about integration than any German government.

Concerning discrimination.

It is a fact that German governments (in the past) didn´t do enough to help foreign immigrants kids in school.

However, it should also be mentioned that (at least) past Turkish governments didn´t help either. Some time ago, I did read in German newspapers that Turkey did / do have laws restricting heritage? As in only Turkish citizens could inherit (some) houses and lands in Turkey. Become a German citizen and your grandparents will might be invalid in a Turkish court.

That might explain why a lot of young Turkish males in German still obey the draft in Turkey for example. If you don´t, you´ll be punishable under Turkish law.

[anne]

Detlef and Eh, thank you both for being precise enough to show there is a specific problem. That was just the indication that I asked for. Now comes the look for explanations and the need for resolution. Please suggest any appropriate reading in English or French on the issue.

Given the option for the German born to become citizens, what I do not quite understand is who are the non-ethnic Germans?

[anne]

Detlef, the comments are most helpful and the argument helps clarify what I am after, thank you much.

[Detlef]

Anne,

"How does, or has, lack of citizenship affected Turkish immigrants to Germany?"

A critical question, and showing off how arbitrary an illusionary integration can be when integration is legally simpler for a Russian who would live in Germany than for a Turk who has lived there many years.

Uhh, your statement doesn´t make sense.
(Not to mention that "integration" and "citizenship" are two different things.)

There are just two reasons why a Russian citizen might get faster citizenship in Germany. And I might add that both of them were restricted some years ago.
1) Russian Jews got a lot of visas (and residency and working permits) in the 1990s. For obvious historical reasons! I should add that these were restricted after the Jewish communities in Germany complained that a lot of the documents proving Jewish origin were forgeries.
2) Russian citizens with German origins.
Once again, a result of WW2. As in, the German region in the Soviet Union before WW2. Stalin didn´t treat them kindly after Hitler. :)
So, they were given preferential treatment until the forgeries became dominant.

And I might also add that even before the change in our citizenship laws, a lot of Turkish citizens in Germany already fulfilled the requirements of German law to become German citizens. So their decision not to become German citizens might have involved other reasons, maybe. :)

[Detlef]

Anne,

Given the option for the German born to become citizens, what I do not quite understand is who are the non-ethnic Germans?

Hmm.
Maybe I´ve got a problem with English but I don´t understand your question?
What does "non-ethnic German" mean here?

You either decide you want to be a German citizen or you don´t (if born in Germany to non-German citizens).

To use soccer players in Germany. :)
David Odonkor and Gerald Asamoah are clearly not "ethnic" Germans (much too tanned :) ) but they are German citizens and playing in the German National team.
While some players in the Turkish national soccer team were born and raised in Germany. And still living in Germany. But decided in play for Turkey. And so Turkish citizens.

Likewise we´ve got politicians in Germany of British or Turkish origin for example. But to be eligible in state or federal elections, they need to have German citizenship.

[Bernard Yomtov]

detlef,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

[anne]

Ah, you are explaining well. The Russians who were immigrating to Germany for a time were then treated as "refugees" and allowed preferred status. Some Russians were Germans, some were Jewish. I understand. I will find more on German immigration or migration patterns in coming days. I am friends with a Rabbi who knows much of Germany, and I will ask for some readings.

[zero]

Anne "There is no conceivable possibility that because of immigration Britain would entertain discriminatory aspects of religious law; the idea is completely ridiculous."

Get out of Harvard a bit more Annie. Ontario almost passed a ruling allowing Sharia Law. YEah - that Sharia law. Thankfully the moron premier came to his senses.

Anne - quit lying.

[zero]

Anne - you should travel a bit. Toronto has more problems with certain ethnic groups and gubs its almost like your Boston

[anne]

The confusion over terms I used was all mine in trying to understand even how to approach the subject of cultural integration from a German perspective. I do not quite know how to properly approach the subject from such a perspective.

[anne]

"Ontario almost passed a ruling allowing Sharia Law."

Document this. The idea of Canada becoming a partially religious state seems absurd. Where is the precise reference?

This once, I will excuse the condescending mean-spirited idiocy. This once.

[anne]

"There is no conceivable possibility that because of immigration Britain would entertain discriminatory aspects of religious law; the idea is completely ridiculous."

Similarly for Canada, or any other secular democracy.

[anne]

Also, speaking of difficulty in social-cultural integration is quite different than making disparaging remarks about a specific ethnic group. The later is prejudice, and prejudice needs to be fought in Europe or Canada or here.

[eh]

One in three Muslim homes have dependent children but no working adults.

[Ami Ganguli]

Ontario was considering allowing Sharia law in certain limited cases, where all parties agreed. I didn't follow the details of the proposals, but it wouldn't have involved cutting off hands or anything like that. Simply an alternative court system that's potentially more relevant to the people involved in the dispute.

The proposal failed, and I'm not sure myself what side I would have taken on the issue if I still lived in Toronto (haven't lived there for 7 years now). There is precedent for this, as Jews are allowed to use Rabbinical courts, again for very specific cases, and only when all parties agree.

The idea of allowing communities to use alternative courts has some merit. Punishment by the offender's own community can be a lot more emotionally powerful than punishment by "outsiders". Thus the deterrent effect is greater, and nobody can claim that they're being oppressed by a country that doesn't understand them.

Imagine a petty-thief who has the choice of being punished by his own friends and family, perhaps doing a whole lot of community service, vs. being punished by the court system. Being punished by the community provides a better chance for rehabilitation. You have to face them every day, and they actually care about what happens to you. Being punished by the court system might just turn the petty thief into a hardened criminal.

That being said, obviously there was some concern specifically about Sharia courts in the Canadian context. Whether that concern was justified, or just an over-reaction by ignorant people, I have no idea. Depends on the specifics of the proposal.

[Ami Ganguli]

Apparently the proposal was even more limited than I thought, applying only to divorce settlements and other aspects of family law:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html

[anne]

Thank you for the importance reference Eh, and as well Ami Ganguli.

That secular law will reflect religious precepts is sure, but the idea of religious courts in a secular democracy is intolerable. There are all sorts of religious prescripts that may affect a person on a divorce, but the last thing that is tolerable is to have to proceed through a religious court to resolve a divorce. There is no chance any secular democracy will move that way from here.

[soviet canuckistan]

I think that the main problem with immigration in Canada is the disjuncture between the weighting put on professional credentials in the immigration application process and the lack of recognition for the same credentials when it comes to joining a professional association here in Canada, i.e. medicine, engineering, law.

thankfully there is some progress being made:
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=364909&categoryid=16

I support opening up the professions to foreign-trained workers. Dean Baker had an interesting piece on opening up the professions to international wage arbitrage in the Guardian a couple of days ago. I'm not sure if anyone posted this yet, but here it is:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dean_baker/2007/12/free_trade_for_wall_street.html

[hari]

The principal of "by blood" and "by soil" are two age old principals defining nationality rules - under customary international law.

In case of Germany, anyone born of German parents has a right to immigration to "faterland" - Russian of German origins have done - close to 2m, I guess. It's said they can't really speak German. Yet they've legal rights to claim immigration entry rights to settle in Germany.

Brazil, in this case, also used to apply "blood" principal especially after WWII when a lot of immigration from Europe took place.

Argentina is a classical case of Italian (fascists) who found home there during the end of WWII; also Germans.

You've to keep the principal of "jus soli" and "jus sanguinus" in mind when trying to analyse govts immigration policies.

[dissent]

My partner is getting citizenship in a country in Europe via the "jus sanguinus". I know lots of people who are covering their bets and getting it in a variety of countries because of bad leadership in the USA.

[Winston]

anne,

If you look at demographic projections, Britain will be majority Muslim around 2050. And since part of being a good Muslim is trying to impose Sharia law in your country, I'd say that there's a very good chance of Sharia replacing sane and humane codes of justice in Britain.

[hari]

Winston - you and I know how Liberal the brits are?

And, if they go on, surely their native population will be replaced. That's simple demographics....

[anne]

"And since part of being a good Muslim is trying to impose Sharia law in your country, I'd say that there's a very good chance of Sharia replacing sane and humane codes of justice in Britain."

Complete prejudiced rubbish.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Mark . . .

We need not turn to England or Europe for evidence that immigration is good for society and the economy; although I appreciate that people understand this anywhere.

Recently, I read an essay on the subject of migration to America. I felt the treatise was derogatory. It was written by a Progressive. The author seemed to believe the newer immigrants bring the country down; yet, she professed to empathize with their plight. I was haunted for days after the read. I spoke of the topic with an eighty-nine year young relative, and then penned my thoughts.

I invite your review and reflections . . .
Immigration In America. The Past; Grass Is Always Greener

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org