I think the word "multicultural" is part of the problem. The notion of difference as being something to support. I prefer the old US notion of "melting pot." The former suggests preserving difference, the latter suggests integration. It's not just semantics, it does set an expectation, IMO.
People are more the same than different. Concentrating on difference—particularly in the realm of public policy—is a huge mistake, IMHO. No special rules to make the "different" able to fit in, or keep their difference. Integration is the only thing that matters. That means the new, "other" in the society needs to change to match the society—in return the society also changes a little, but the "mass" of society is bigger, it's like putting a liter of boiling water into the ocean, the ocean's temp rises very little indeed, and the liter of boiling water ends up effectively the same temp as the ocean. The onus is on the immigrant, not society. If you don't wish to become "german," don't move to Germany. Ditto immigration to the USA or anywhere else.
This means a rational immigration policy would try to sort for those willing to adapt. This doesn't mean abandoning their religion—though bumping atheists, or other apostates immigrating from the Islamic world to the front of the line makes perfect sense to me as they are far more likely to adapt to the secular west. It does mean that society should not bend over backwards to facilitate their religion. As I have said before, at least in the US where it is codified in the Constitution, strict separation of church and state is your friend. No special schools, nothing at all from the state that makes the immigrants "special" or otherwise unmixed into society. Integration, integration, integration. Western culture needs to be unescapable except by leaving.
|