Immigration - US vs Europe

[welsh]

Ok, so who handles immigrants better?

Minority reports

Nov 10th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America

AFTER Hurricane Katrina, Europeans rushed to congratulate themselves on avoiding the misery they saw on the faces of survivors. Such isolation and deprivation, they said, could never happen here. After two weeks of rioting in France, Americans are mockingly retorting that isolation and failure occur everywhere—and not only, some might add, in France. Britain saw immigrant riots in 2001. The Netherlands has radical Islamists who commit political murders.

FRANCE. IS.UNIQUE.

Ah... but it's good to see that race and poverty are not uniquely American problems.

Whether Europe or America really has the better record on accommodating ethnic minorities is an issue that may be debated ad infinitum. But the riots in France point to one particular area in which Europe has been unusually bad: integrating immigrant families from the second and third generations.

In America, the education levels, English-language skills and intermarriage rates of immigrant groups rise over time. So do income, home-ownership and political representation. This is the natural course of assimilation. But it does not seem to work in Europe. Some European countries (including France) do not collect ethnic-based statistics, so hard evidence is tricky to come by. But most indicators of second- and third-generation assimilation in Europe are disquieting. There are few North African or Turkish representatives in French or German politics.

Yet these are sizeable minorities.... Strange.

Most young men arrested after the French riots have been sons or grandsons of immigrants from the 1950s or 1960s. The murderer of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, was described by the chairman of a parliamentary commission as “an average second-generation immigrant”. Europe, it seems, has done less than America to assimilate the children and grandchildren of newcomers. Why?

The answer depends on another question: what makes immigrants adapt? Some people stress the role of the host country, and argue that European policy has been worse than America's. Certainly, European policy has been all over the place. In France, anybody can be a citizen, and there are no recognised group identities. The ban on the Muslim headscarf in state schools exemplified this assimilationist tradition. Germany, until 2000, was the opposite: nobody could become a citizen if they were not of German extraction, even if they met the usual conditions (such as being born in the country of parents also born there). Britain and (until recently) the Netherlands were different again: they have sponsored a tolerant multiculturalism, in which minority groups are encouraged to celebrate their distinctiveness, so long as they accept that others can do the same.

After the events of the past two weeks, some Europeans are arguing that the British approach is the better one. Yet Islamic extremism exists in both integrationist France and multicultural Britain. Neither France nor Britain has avoided segregation in immigrant areas, although Germany has. America is moving away from multiculturalism, which dominated in the 1980s, to greater assimilation (some states ban Spanish as a language of instruction, for example). The correct conclusion is not that one model is best, but that policy may not be what makes the difference.

Hey Europe, don't feel bad.
We've got hate groups here too.

Perhaps it is culture that counts. Maybe Muslims are unusually retentive of their original culture. Certainly, they are the targets of increasingly radical propaganda, demanding that they separate themselves from the decadent society around them. And many Muslims discourage their sons and (especially) daughters from marrying outside their faith or ethnic group. Since intermarriage influences how quickly second- and third-generation immigrants assimilate, this cultural preference may make it harder for Europe to integrate, say, North Africans than it is for America to integrate Hispanics.

But do not make too much of the difference. Hispanic intermarriage rates in America, though rising, are lower than mixed marriages in many multicultural parts of Britain. Americans worry about the different culture of Latinos just as much as Europeans do about North Africans. So even if immigrants in Europe raise cultural barriers to assimilation, this is hardly unique. What matters are the forces that work to overcome those barriers. Two stand out: work and home-ownership.

The work advantage
Work is the archetypal social activity. It provides friends and contacts beyond your family or ethnic group. If you start your own company, it pulls you further into the society around you. And here is a striking difference between Europe and America. Unemployment in France is almost 10%. Among immigrants or the children of immigrants, it is at least twice and sometimes four times as high. In contrast, unemployment among legal immigrants in America is negligible, and business ownership is off the scale compared with Europe.

Opportunity matters. So why do Europeans bar opportunities to minorities?

The second big motor of integration is home-ownership, especially important in the second and third generations. This gives people a stake in society, something they can lose. Thanks to cheap mortgages and an advanced banking system, half of Latinos in America own their own homes. Britain, after its council-house sales and property booms, also encourages house ownership. In contrast, most of the blocks in the French banlieues are publicly owned.

Between them, a job and a house help to create not only more integration but also greater social mobility. Latinos supported America's turn towards assimilation because they feared the trap of Spanish-language ghettos. But the banlieues are full of people who have grown up without jobs, or any hope of getting a better income or a better place to live. For them, integration is a deceit, not a promise.

This is true. In fact a lot of immigrant families want their kids to speak English first.

A job and a house will not solve everything. The father of one of the July 7th London bombers owned two shops, two houses and a Mercedes. But if you want to know why second- and third-generation immigrants integrate more in some countries than others, jobs and houses are a good place to start.

But as mentioned elsewhere - terrorists are traditionally middle to upper class and educated.

 

[Wooz]

All European nations do not have a common policy regarding immigrants. Serbia's policy on immigration has nothing to do with, say, Finland's.

 

[John Uskglass]

All European nations do not have a common policy regarding immigrants. Serbia's policy on immigration has nothing to do with, say, Finland's.

Not really.

Serbia: SHOOT MUSLIMS
Finland: SHOOT RUSSIANS

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Serbia's policy on immigration has nothing to do with, say, Finland's.

Serbia has a policy on immigration? Nah...

 

[Anack]

Quick guide to immigrating.
America vs Europe

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

Serbia: SHOOT MUSLIMS
Finland: SHOOT RUSSIANS

No, not really, the Finnish don't even shoot, when a Russian military plain,is flying on their(Finnish) air zone. Thought they could.

 

[John Uskglass]

Quick guide to immigrating.
America vs Europe

That makes no sense whatsoever. Here in America, we make our own fatasses here, in God's country.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Damn people, it's not like McDonalds is suffering for lack of customers in other countries as well. You laugh at it, but apparently they are making some pretty fine money exporting it to countries like France and such, with no lack of people willing to buy the swill. That picture hardly makes sense...

 

[Roshambo]

Because it IS cheap and quick to get, compared to more conventional fare. Euros also don't eat fast food 3x5 times a week like many Americans do. They also eat a hell of a lot better in terms of a balanced diet elsewise, surprisingly enough many Americans don't have a clue how to cook their own food. No, unpackaging the TV dinner or squeezing the cheese sauce over microwaved noodles does not count as cooking food. Or even as food. That is what amazes me, truly.

There is also a common point between Euros and the Japanese. While the Japanese and Euros do eat fast food on occasion, they also exercise fairly regularly so the metabolism of the body is sparked to actually use the excess fuel. Whereas many Americans believe that you only have to skimp out on what you eat (making the body think it is starving so it puts on more fat), and that omitting something from your diet or that taking a pill (that doesn't work) is just as good as getting off of your fat ass.

 

[Brother None]

All European nations do not have a common policy regarding immigrants. Serbia's policy on immigration has nothing to do with, say, Finland's.

I've tried pointing this out before, Wooz. It seems hopeless. The fairly easy concept that there can easily be as much difference between two European nations as there is between the US and Canada or even the US and Mexico constantly fails to penetrate the US skull.

Like I said before, with that kind of an ineptitude or unwillingness to understand the situation, it's a good thing they're not in charge here.

Considering the tone of this thread, methinks there's no purpose in commenting further.

 

[Mikey]

Wait, if all the Euro countries are the same, does that mean _the_ Queen rules you all?

And as for McDonalds, it makes me sad when the English go to France and eat there. So much good food around and the eat that.

 

[Roshambo]

And as for McDonalds, it makes me sad when the English go to France and eat there. So much good food around and the eat that.

Even more proof that British food sucks. Worse food than McDonald's, and only slightly lower than MRE.

 

[Elissar]

Whoa Whoa Whoa there rosh, Whats wrong with MRE's?

I happen to like them.... especially the newest ones... come with milkshakes and cappucino's in em... I do miss the old dehydrated fruit squares though...

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

It's Europeans, not Euros, or
Europeons, thought that is what it should be, cause _the_ Queen rules all

And is not, the McDonalds wrong doing that is making the American people so fat, it's their own fault, they eat too much sugar or have they ever really thought who much they really should eat it per day. http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309085373/gifmid/265.gif read it and weep. The tablet says that you should eat less than 300g sugar or any other kinds of carbohydrates/day, but thats easily exited when you take one large coca cola, there are 89g of carbohydrates, and if you eat one Chocolate Triple Thick® Shake (32 fl oz cup), it has 203g of carb... So just two products and the whole carbohydrate need of the bay is met, and you still haven't eaten anything :!:
If you eat this at the breakfast what the hell are you going to eat the rest of the day. Nothing and you will starving.
The only reasonable thing at that point is, you can do is to eat butter, as much as you can, it stops your hunger and there is no sugar in it. And you might feel sick, that's a good thing.

 

[Anack]

It's Europeans, not Euros, or
Europeons, thought that is what it should be, cause _the_ Queen rules all

And is not, the McDonalds wrong doing that is making the American people so fat, it's their own fault, they eat too much sugar or have they ever really thought who much they really should eat it per day.

Not just that, many people sit all day in front of TV and don't get out to exercise. They are too lazy to get off their fat asses and do something for their health. Another reason is above mentioned junk food. It's small amount of food, but it has a lot of fat inside, and that means a lot of calories. And because it's small, you will have to eat a lot to satisfy your hunger. And if you eat too many junk food ( hamburgers for example ) and in the same time you don't exercise, your body wont burn all calories, and it will go strait in to your fat supplies. And more weight you have, you have to eat more to satisfy your hunger. And there you are, in a fat circle.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

But the fat or the cals isn't the problem, it's the sugar, as Albert Einstein sayid, it all relative, there is as much energy in a pound of uranium, as in a pound of oil, or a bound of salad, but the difference is that in order to get that energy, you have to brake the atomical construction(mass) into nothingness, or you can't get it all. And then it comes to the human metabolical system, the sugar(carbohydrates) you eat becomes fat, that's how bears survive in the winter periods in my country, by sleeping and consuming their fat from the summer periods. And most of the fat you eat isn't being used cause you can't brake them down, cause they weren't made by you.

The biggest problem for every one is, when you eat sugar, at first the hunger goes away for a little while, but it comes back, that's who the human was build(by evolution), it comes back when the sugar is broken up to be finally stored into the fat tissues, to be ready for use when needed, now this take 1-2(-3) hours of time, and the hunger returns when your blood sugar goes down, the only flashing light in the great darkness of hunger is dimmed, when you eat sugar, but if you eat meat or something else... the great darkness is shed light by the diodes of fat and proteins, which take more time to be dimmed.

And sorry for every one that I keep on sliding form the real thread subject.

 

[Roshambo]

Whoa Whoa Whoa there rosh, Whats wrong with MRE's?

Not much, but on the grand scale of things, they are low on the cuisine list. They take a...selective palate to enjoy them.

I happen to like them.... especially the newest ones... come with milkshakes and cappucino's in em..

Ew, I think that's one good reason. The coffee was meant to wake you up in just one pack as it tried to jheri curl your hair via turning your face inside out. You should also feel lucky you get an apple or grape jelly or something like that to spread on your hard tack, though a spare pack of the peanut butter is invaluable in case you spring a leak on the trail, if you get my meaning.

Emergency Soldier Caulking, Rapid Runway Repair Kit, all those fun little names we came up with.

The cheese was always scary, as nobody I have ever talked to can place the taste of it to any kind of cheese known to man. We have concluded it is naturally a shade of chalk white/grey, since we got a pack without any of the coloring. The taste, still, was unlike anything...ugh...even roqueforte has a defined taste, this stuff changed, especially if you warmed it up a bit first.

I do miss the old dehydrated fruit squares though...

How about the long-range canned packs? Those were some of my favorites.

 

[Urizen]

I'm actually a DaC'er, so I'll just spam NMA a bit, if that's alright with you guys: You CAN compare european and american immigration policy. It's like comparing something that exists with something that does'nt. Europe does'nt accept immigrants, and haven't done so for thirty years. We do, however, accept refugees. The US, on the other hand, accept both refugees and immigrants (through the green card deal).

I don't know, but maybe that makes american new countrymen into a less homogenous group, thereby helping the integration process.

 

[Brother None]

I'm actually a DaC'er

This information is of no use to anyone, but welcome.

You CAN compare european and american immigration policy. It's like comparing something that exists with something that does'nt. Europe does'nt accept immigrants, and haven't done so for thirty years. We do, however, accept refugees. The US, on the other hand, accept both refugees and immigrants (through the green card deal).

Huh?

1. Norway is a part of Europe, so I'm not sure why you're talking about "we" and "Europe" as seperate entities.
2. Again, I repeat, every European country is different, so saying "European doesn't accept immigrants" is retarded at best.
3. An immigrant is anyone who settles permanently into another country. Considering the Schengen-deal opened up most borders, it is *impossible* that the European Schengen-countries do not accept immigrants, since anyone who moves over a Schengen-border is an immigrant.
4. Outside Schengen but inside the EU immigration has increased since the expansion to the EU-25. England, noticeably, has had thousands of Eastern European immigrants (not refugees)
5. No EU country officially refuses refugees. It has become harder to get accepted as a refugee/immigrant since the end of the 90's, but not impossible.

In other words, I know not of what you speak.

 

[Urizen]

Thank you, but I don't think I'll stay for long.

1. I don't. I used "we" as in "we europeans".
2, 3, 4, 5. I'm talking about the general immigration stop of the 70's, which to a large extent closed europe's borders for anyone outside europe (except refugees, which is why I differentiate the two groups). since the topic was problems caused by islamic immigration, I did not concern myself with immigration from eastern europe.