Not so long ago we were discussing integration of refugees, or rather the non-integration. I was told rather forcefully that I should get over it because given time the Islamic extremists will assimilate. Now, I wasn't referring to ordinary Muslims. I was referring to the dyed in the wool extremists who have no intention of peacefully integrating. The following video highlights my concerns. This guy shouldn't have even been in the country, exploits a legal loophole, lives on welfare for 19 years then plots to set off bombs in a sports stadium containing 100,000 sports fans.
For the sake of political correctness I believe the clip was never actually put to air.
How would you handle a case like this? :asian:
I can't view the clip at the moment, but I get the idea, I think. Still probably can't comment since we're talking about Australia and I know nothing about Australia's immigration laws.
But I can comment on immigration and assimilation and such things in more general terms, at least as it is in the USA.
First, it's important to understand the concept of freedom of speech. As practiced in the USA, all forms of speech are not just tolerated but protected, including that speech which espouses hatred of one's own government. With certain exceptions, especially regarding in this case incitement to riot, or actual threats, or planning actual insurrection, one may say what one wishes about the government.
Clearly, a person who enjoys the freedom to criticize our government whilst living under the freedoms it defends is ironic at the least, and ungrateful in the extreme. It's distasteful to think of a person immigrating to the USA, especially as a refugee, and then making public statements condemning that very government or calling for overthrow. However, it's legal; for a citizen, for an immigrant, even for a visitor. It's protected speech in general terms.
Second, the concept of immigration in general. Once a person is accepted for permanent residence in the USA, that person is subject to certain restrictions that citizens do not have, and that person can be expelled to their country of origin in certain circumstances. But generally, that immigrant is as free to express their opinions - no matter how hateful or distasteful - as any citizen.
Third, the concept of public assistance. I realize it's very different in the USA than in other places, but in very general terms, assistance is based on need and not on immigration or citizenship status (other than the requirement that they be legal), and it's not based upon their political viewpoints.
"Do you hate the hand that feeds you?" "Yes, I do." "OK, then, no Welfare for you!"
Taking the three together, it's easy to see how ugly it is when an immigrant, especially a refugee, takes a public position of hatred for the government that has extended the helping hand to him.
But let's consider just two elements. For example, a citizen by birth who receives public assistance and hates the government as well. What to do with them? Well, nothing, basically. So it would seem that what we're saying is that it is the fact of their immigrant/refugee status, rather than their receipt of public assistance and simultaneous hatred of the government, which we find odious.
What if the immigrant/refugee hates the government but does NOT receive public assistance? Is that OK? It's less ironic, of course, but would we then consider they would be free to make such statements? If so, then it is the fact that they receive public assistance whilst complaining about the government that provides it that we seem to dislike.
What if the immigrant/refugee receives public assistance but does not hate the government that provides it? Do we have a problem with that person? In this case, one has to question whether a need-based system is what the person who dislikes it really wants; it might seem they want a system based on where a person is from, rather than what their actual needs are.
Given all of this, I find that there is much to dislike about a person who claims refugee status to obtain legal immigrant status, takes public assistance, and makes public statements about their hatred of the very government that provides their daily bread and keeps a roof over their heads. It's rude, it's ugly, it's disgusting. However, when asked what is to be done about it, my answer would be nothing at all. In a free society, if they're here legally, and they qualify for public assistance, they have the same right to hate our government as I do. Let 'em rant. I don't like it, but sometimes freedom means things I don't like happen anyway.
That does not mean that I think they should be able to make plots to blow things up or hurt people. That's not 'free speech' and such a person would be correctly arrested and prosecuted - but that's the same whether the person is an immigrant or a citizen, on public assistance or independently wealthy. It's the act which is criminal and should be prosecuted, not the fact of their immigration status or receipt of public assistance.
Moving on to assimilation, I doubt that such people can or will assimilate. One might also add that there are many groups in the USA which have never assimilated and perhaps never will, although they do peacefully co-exist within our system to the largest extent. From cultural enclaves such as we have in Detroit (Mexicantown, Corktown, Greek Town, and the various areas known for ethnic groups such as Hamtramck and the places where Albanians, Chaldeans, and other groups live) to more isolated groups such as the Amish and various ultra-orthodox Jewish groups, we have many small groups that never have assimilated, or which have assimilated to minor degrees only.
So one must ask if 'assimilation' is the issue, or if hatred and/or actions against one's government arising from those who have not assimilated is the issue.
In other words, do we really care if a given group 'assimilates' with us, so long as they are in fact peaceful and obey our laws? Do we in the USA have a problem with the Amish? After all, they truly do not assimilate. They don't pay into Social Security (fact). They don't have health insurance, and even under the new Obamacare rules, they don't have to buy health insurance, even though the rest of us do. They speak heavily-accented English and have their own language, which they refuse to give up even after many generations in the USA. They file taxes, they register for the draft, they vote. They have the right to voice their opinions of the USA as they wish; as much as any of us do. However, the Amish don't have a problem with the USA, and they don't foment rebellion or hatred or violence.
So it would seem that non-assimilation isn't the issue. The issue appears to be hatred, violence, and other 'abuses' of rights that offend our sensibilities which come from non-assimilated or culturally-isolated groups of immigrants or citizens.
I have an opinion regarding assimilation, and that is that assimilation occurs naturally over generations in most cases. Amish, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and other groups resist assimilation because they wish to maintain their identity and their own ways, but it is hard for their children to resist the siren call of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Levi's Blue Jeans, and MTV. We sell them assimilation, basically. Our 'Western' cultural values (such as they are) are so compelling that they are banned in many repressive nations; they're the most destructive forms of propaganda we could field! No national intelligence agency could devise a more compelling argument for Democracy and Free Enterprise than rock-and-roll and tight jeans do.
The second part of assimilation that comes along with such commercialization of Western culture is the culture of consumerism. People who have mortgages to pay and car payments to make and kids in soccer practice and so on do not have a lot of interest in violent revolution, generally speaking. They may bemoan the loss of their traditional culture, but if they want to keep the kids happy by paying for their summer camp and braces and the newest style jeans and school stuff, they have to keep working, keep saving, and keep paying those bills.
So to me, the way we assimilate immigrants is to sell them stuff and then make them pay for it. Just like we do citizens. Turn them into consumers of popular crap and they'll be too busy paying for it to think about distributing leaflets and standing on street corners talking about Jihad. And if we don't get them, we'll get their kids.
