assimilation vs. integration

Post Reply New Topic

Søren Pind: Time course of integration
09. March 2011 2.18 Politics
The newly appointed Minister for Integration, Søren Pind (V), believes that the time is over for inclusion.
From now on it - thinks Pind - should be clear that Denmark makes room for foreigners who adopts and respects Danish values, norms and traditions. All others may as well stay away.
- My approach is that when one chooses to live in Denmark, then you choose so because you want to be Danish, "says Søren Pind to Jyllands-Posten.
He suggests that a misguided integration, where Danish values as female emancipation and the right to marry the person you want, have been bent in an attempt to accommodate foreigners.
But it doesnt hold up anymore, because the policy threatens Denmark as a nation.
- In my view, multiculturalism, and the track it draws after it, is getting it all to crack - and I will fight everything I can, he says, and declares itself ready to tighten immigration laws.
Danish People's Party received the announcement from Søren Pind with joy, while SF is shaken.


original link (in danish, i translated the text with google translate)

i found this frame of mind very frightening especially since our prime minister gave him his support on this issue!
needless to say he received quite a bit aof flak for this statement and it has opened quite the debate, i thought some input here could be nice.

he literally said in one interview that assimilation was preferred to integration,
resistance is futile it seems

Multiculturalism is a flawed doctrine, but it's a fine line between expecting people to adapt to the countries customs, and downright oppression of difference.

its true that multiculturalism is a paradox in itself but with some civilityand compromise it is possible to an extent, the issue in denmark right now is that it is the core values they want to "imprint" on immigrants.
what they mean by this is completely lost to me it could be so many things.

If lobotomy were reintroduced, and I had one, and went to live in a Middle Eastern or African country, I would have to assimilate to their cultural vaules. Why not those who come from these regions, who move to our Western Democracies for our freedoms? Our cultural value is freedom for the individual, no matter their race, gender or sexual persuasion. Why should they come here for that and then contravene that by retaining the very oppressions they fled in coming here, especially in their attitude toward the emancipation of women and the Christian Tradition that all Western countries are founded upon?

If they don't like the way we live, they can go somewhere where they do enjoy living. Since that wasn't the country of their birth, and is not the country of their choice, I ask you, where do they live when they want the freedom TO oppress and flee the oppression their countries of birth impose upon them?

Husband beating his wife is a crime no matter the religion or immigration status. Immigrants should be given the opportunity to learn the language and the nation's customs, but they shouldn't be forced into assimilation. Part of the value of immigration is their bringing their different culture and ideas to the new home country.

Integration should(read in my opinion should) be strictly limited to making sure foreigners(and races, and other groups) are allowed access to programs that will allow them to adapt to society at large. Society shouldn't be adapting to foreigners they came her of their own will it should be assumed that they intend too adapt, after they have their citizenship they should be able to campaign for change but we shouldn't be doing it for them.

Within 50 years the native people of EVERY Western country will be the minority.

I.e. There will be fewer white Americans than there will be Hispanics.

There will be fewer white Australians than there are Orientals.

There will be more Muslims in Holland, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany etc. than the native population.

But Japan will still be 100% Japanese.
China will still be 100% Chinese.

Why? Because they aren't stupid enough to commit racial suicide by falling for this "multicultural" BS.

@ruveyn

There is a difference between a nation and a state. There are very few actual nation-states and very few nations 'own' states.

We live in citizen-states and the present trend western liberal democracies is an increase in citizen relativism in relation to civic duties and the social contract in general. How can we expect people to relate to a social contract that is so riddled in relativism that not even a states own citizens are aware or dedicated to their duties? At present, there really is nothing to assimilate into. We live in a great melting pot of cultures and this has its advantages but in a citizen-state the concept of civic responsibility is highly important and defining it through a national identity is perhaps not the best way to develop common identity in the sort of states we live in. We need to reinforce our civic institutions; respect for constitutional values, community; military service and law enforcement; for example.

In General

As to China and Japan; they are nation-states (more-so Japan than China). There are advantages to being a total nation-state but there are serious disadvantages also. For example, China has little capacity to integrate a culture without the loss of the other culture's identity and Japan cannot use migration to stem the tide of their imminent aging population crisis (a similar crisis is brewing in China as well). As Settler Colonial states, we are not really in a position to forge identity in the same manner. Pluralism does however have significant advantages of its own (Chinese food.... for example ).