Of course the debate is difficult and given strong xenophobic tendencies in many countries, it is necessary to proceed carefully. However, judging from a lot of the comments on the article there is a strong resistance among many people to any degree of nuance or recognition of complexity in discussing immigration.
Immigration can be a big positive but can also bring problems if not properly managed. Daniel Patrick Moynihan rightly said that the liberal project in the US "began to lose when it began to lie". Similarly, those who favour a liberal approach to immigration will lose the public if they insist that immigration is always positive and never poses any difficulties in any circumstances.
A sustainable liberal approach requires acknowledgement of the complex reality that immigration can be positive but can also provoke difficulties. Insisting that anyone who tries to have a realistic discussion, that takes account of the possible difficulties that immigration can bring is simply a racist, will cause immigration and its advocates to lose support of the general population whose lived experience of immigration will inevitably be more complex than pleasing PC slogans.
The article is available at this link for the next week or so:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0616/1224298999951.html
The text is as follows:
OPINION: It is not xenophobic or racist to have immigration laws that seek to give preference to migrants who are committed to tolerance, writes RONAN McCREA
CONTRARY TO the suggestion of the editorial of June 13th (“Citoyens”), moves to require immigrants to sign up to liberal and egalitarian values are not a French particularity, but have been seen in the immigration law of a range of European countries.
In 2006 Tony Blair stated that those who could not accept tolerance should not come to the UK. Britain now requires applicants for citizenship to pass a “life in the UK test”, requiring applicants to indicate, among other things, an awareness that gender equality is the law.
In Germany, the citizenship process in many Länder includes questions on gender equality and same-sex partnerships as part of a process designed to verify that applicants accept the “values of the constitution”. Austria imposes an “integration contract” on immigrants, while Dutch immigration authorities now require potential immigrants to indicate an awareness of gender equality and to watch an informational DVD about the Netherlands that includes footage of a same-sex couple.
Although the recent French decision to refuse citizenship to a man who refuses to let his wife speak or leave home without his permission has been challenged in court, this appeal is unlikely to succeed. The French supreme administrative court made clear in the 2008 Madame M case that those who choose to immigrate to France can legitimately be required to accept the fundamental values of the republic, including gender equality.
As your editorial points out, these tests are, to a significant degree, motivated by xenophobia, prejudice and anti-immigrant sentiment. In particular, elements of the Dutch and German approaches have been applied selectively, targeting immigrants from mainly Muslim countries while exempting others.
While the relevant French law applies to all, it is true that many of those who supported it have been motivated by hostility towards Muslims. This is especially true of politicians like National Front leader Marine le Pen, whose party has never been keen on the gender equality it now so vigorously defends.
However, it is simplistic to conclude, as your editorial does, that such laws and policies are solely attributable to hysteria or prejudice. Many who are neither racist nor anti-immigration are legitimately concerned at the possible impact on hard-won freedoms of a failure to ensure migrants respect principles such as gender equality and gay rights.
A 2004 survey of religion and politics worldwide by Harvard and Michigan professors Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart showed western European approaches to gender equality and sexual liberalism deviate strongly from approaches in many other areas of the world, particularly areas with Muslim majorities.
It is inevitable that migration from areas where matters of gender and sexuality are still largely patriarchal and conservative will raise complicated issues. In the Netherlands, for example, major increases in attacks on gay couples by individuals from cultural backgrounds that are traditionally intolerant of homosexuality have been recorded.
Similarly, controversies relating to the book The Satanic Verses and Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, showed deep differences between elements of immigrant communities and mainstream western views of the acceptability of lampooning religion.
Immigration laws in all countries regularly favour those with certain traits. The young, the highly skilled, the healthy, those who speak the national language or with ancestral connections to the country are often favoured. Is it not equally legitimate for states to give preference to those who are committed to pluralism, tolerance and gender equality?
Furthermore, it appears that, particularly under multicultural arrangements, time is not bridging the gap in values and the children of immigrants are not moving any closer to liberal values than their parents. A 2009 Gallup survey of European Muslims found zero per cent of British Muslims agreed that homosexuality was “acceptable”, a figure strikingly lower than that of Muslims in non-multicultural France (35 per cent). The Pew Research organisation has also found French Muslims to be far likelier than those in the UK to say their primary identity was “French” than British Muslims were to choose “British”.
Europe should remain open to immigration. European cultures will surely benefit from the immigrants’ contributions. A confident and open approach to the cultural change this will bring is in the interests of immigrants and the host society.
Individualistic western European societies can learn much from Muslim approaches to community and charity. However, there are also certain kinds of change a society is entitled to reject. A country can remain open to immigration while making it clear it does not intend to compromise on hard-won values such as liberalism, tolerance and respect for equality.
The process of working out a society’s “non-negotiables” will be complicated and difficult. Moreover, such a process of negotiation should always remain sensitive to the difficulties that migrants face and Europe’s long and shameful history of racism.
Nonetheless, there are significant differences between predominant western European approaches to issues such as gender equality, sexual liberalism and criticism of religion, and approaches in much of the world, including many Muslim-majority countries. As Irish society becomes more diverse, it is highly likely these differences will produce here the kind of difficult issues in relation to tolerance of intolerance that we have seen in our European partners.
Other countries, such as the Netherlands and the UK have run into trouble by assuming that such problems would not arise and subsequently causing resentment by abruptly turning their back on multicultural policies. Ireland has the advantage of coming late to the immigration game and can learn from these mistakes by making it clear early on what we expect of immigrants and what values we require future citizens to sign up to.
Ronan McCrea, a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, lectures in law in University College London. He is one of the contributors to Quand la Burqa Passe à l’Ouest (The Burka in the West) , which will be published by the Presses Universitaires de Rennes later this year
No comments:
Post a Comment