>>Flags/National Symbols of Europe<<
About the EHL/The Staff/Contact Us
Submit Articles & Content
Online Language Translation
Join our Mailing List
Donate to the EHL
Bookmark the EHL to Favourites!   

         
Click a Flag to Translate

• History of Christianization of Europe
• Soviet Union, Communist influence
• Map of European ethnic groups
• Map of Fascism in Europe (1922-75)
• History of Islamic conquest in Europe
• Religions & ethnic groups in Russia
• Detailed map of French colonization
• Detailed map of British colonization
• Napoleon's conquests & legacy

--MORE & NON-ENGLISH--

• Muhammad cartoon crisis in pictures
• Stalin's private summer home
• Ravenna: capital of Gothic empire
• Czar Nicholas II's Ukrainian palace
• European traditional costumes/dress
• Inside the Vatican, house of all wealth

--MORE & NON-ENGLISH--

• Islamic Mujahidin vs. Spain & El Cid
• Poland-Lithuania vs. Teutonic Order
• Nevskiy's Russia vs. German Crusaders
• Mussolini vs. Libyan Islamic fighters
• Qadafi: Europe will soon be Islamic
• Ivan the Terrible vs. Muslim Tatars 

--MORE & NON-ENGLISH--

• The Gypsies in history and today, Europe's public enemy
• History of Jihad in Chechnya
& Caucasus vs. Russians
• History of the Muslim Tatars in Russia
• Ethnic & religious history of Serbs, Croats, & Bosnians
• Breakaway states and independence movements in Europe
• The ancient Germanic Runic alphabet and Runestones
• Inside Bulgaria, 1st Slavic nation,
land of Thracian masters of gold
• Visual history of Yugoslavia
• 4,000-year-old white mummies of China, bringers of Buddhism 

--MORE & NON-ENGLISH--

Is immigration to Europe useful, and when?
by Vuk Vukovic (Director, European Heritage Library)

Print this Article    •    About the Author    •    Bibliography/Sources

This article approaches the difficult issue of how immigration is functioning and should function in Europe, and the resultant controversial question of how or if assimilation of cultures and religions should occur in Europe and elsewhere. The article tries to show what is required of immigrants in order for them to fully enjoy the fruits of one society, and the host society to remain stable and notbe in any way hindered by immigration from foreign cultures and identities. It is a political science approach to the intercultural conflict which is tearing Europe apart today.

Immigration refers to a movement of a people from one country to another. There are two types of immigration: voluntary and forced. In the voluntary type, people either move in a search for a better life or to evade persecution, or they move because of a sympathy for a country and its culture, nature, and people. However, immigrants who voluntarily migrate are often forced to do so in order to save their own lives, or find a better place to live. It is voluntary in the means that no authority, or any factor of power has directly ordered immigrants to leave. Forced immigration includes an expulsion of an ethnic group, social group, or any group that is minority in a society. Here, I will put an emphasis on the first case of voluntary immigration, for that is the case that is much more present, than the other two. Forced immigration will not be discussed because of its rareness and extremity.

Immigrants usually come from countries that are poor, war-torn, totalitarian, or simply countries with a lower standard of living. They move to countries that are opposite that the previously described. Today, most of immigrants come from Third World countries, less often from Second World countries, while immigration between the most developed nations is very rare, and if it happens, it is usually the second case of voluntary immigration, which will not, as previously stated, be discussed here. These developed countries are often eager to accept immigrants and help them become a normal and equal part of a society. In this article, I will take Europe as a "playground" for immigration.

Immigrants mostly differ from their hosts in religion, customs and set of values. Clashes are inevitable if immigrants come from a culture that is very different from the culture of the host society. In order to prevent these clashes which only result in destabilization of a society, two possible solutions have been put forward: the assimilation of immigrants and the melting pot theory.

Assimilation

Assimilation refers to a minority or ethnic group adopting various spheres of views of a larger, dominant group. They become "absorbed" and lose many of their traits. As with immigration, assimilation can also be either forced or "voluntary". There is no voluntary assimilation in essence. Nobody will give away their traits and what makes them different voluntarily. The change, whether welcomed or resented, will occur eventually. The difference is in the time span. It may seem that there is no difference between the two: however, forced assimilation is, as well as forced immigration, imposed upon a group by authority or any factor of power. Often times, the majority in a society is the factor of power. Authority that practices this usually puts emphasis on homogeneous nation identity or, sometimes, it can even be a defense mechanism; especially if the "potential assimilates" are historical foes.

"Cultural mosaic"

Opposing the assimilation, or, in the US, melting pot, this theory, gaining its name out of Canadian practice, stands for:
Each group must not lose its characteristics, and a society that comprises many different, yet "pure" cultures, will be successful. These cultures do not merge into one, homogeneous group, they remain distinct. The country changes and becomes richer with every wave of immigrants and, yet, preserves each culture.

Deciding for a theory

The best and, in the same time, the easiest way to show which theory is more practical and will succeed is to use examples and hypothetical situations. In the latter half of 20th century, in Europe, developed, Western countries adopted a policy of open borders, accepting immigrants from poor and troubled countries, but not without any care. In more recent times, riots and streetfights have occured between immigrants and the government. With this happening in the same time with Islam rising to a position of a major religion, and most of most recent riots involving Moslems, it is likely that a preemptive conclusion will be drawn. However, it is not only riots that are causing problems: general discussion, legislatures, debates, issues etc. are also being in the spotlight. Problems occur when immigrants with a different set of values choose not to abide by the values of the dominant society. I will now put myself into a position of an immigrant with a different set of values. I will also not dicuss other issues of assimilation, such as loss of distinct dressing etc. If I come to live in a society, I am automatically and, as a moral imperative, accepting its laws, whatever they may be. I was aware of them - and by mere joining it, I must accept its laws. A society functions if laws are followed - I will not discuss the case of unjust laws, that is a broder topic - my choice is: join a society and accept its laws, or stay out of it and abide by my own laws, or the laws of a society I originally came from. If there is a law I perceive as not compatible with my beliefs, but compatible with the beliefs of the majority, I'm required not to break it or disrespect it. But say that I refuse to do so. It will lead to me being punished, and, unfortunately, because of the systems of prejudice that consciously or not influence our thoughts, my group may be viewed as completely extreme or other. If I break a law of a society, and infringe punishment upon myself, I have done nothing, actually more the opposite, for a better life in the new society. [u]Logic requires us to respect laws of a society.[/u] If I'm not doing so, then what am I looking for in a society that I perceive as unjust or decadent, or generally against my beliefs? But, say that I am ready to alter my attitudes and opinions if I come to live to a "decadent" society. By doing that, I am proving that I am not bothered by those laws or customs so much that I will cause unrest or similar actions. Also, immigrants must contribute to the society if they expect to reap some profits. As it was said a long time ago, justice is giving something and getting the same amount back. So, if I am to expect help or acceptance from a dominant group or society, I must contribute. However, our main question is: what theory will work. I stand in a strong advocacy of the theory of assimilation, and will show why. I will take the example of radical Islam. Radical Islam views every non-Islam government as non-legitimate and therefore, one has no obligation to respect such government. Also, radical Muslims are appalled by many customs and freedoms that Westerns enjoy (such as women clothing, freedom of speech, absence of religion in many aspects of life etc.) and are likely to scorn the society for being such. Then, one wonders, why are they there? They need to fully intergrate into a society; however, this doesn't mean that they must give up their religion (freedom of religion is a right), it doesn't mean that they have to give up their mindset and set of values. The only requirement is to respect the right of majority to rule and to respect the laws and rights, as I have stated above. I am not targeting Muslims; their issue is relevant and much dicussed. Therefore, many persons will be properly informed and will easily understand the issue on such an example. No group can impose its views and beliefs on a single person against his/her will, let alone a majority. Justice and morals are subjestive; as much as I seem to be right, that much I could be wrong. In conclusion, I will ask the question "Is immigration useful and when?" again. I believe it is, but only when immigrants decide to join the society, work together and strive towards a higher goal and common good, and respect the rights of others to a different view, even if it clashes with their own. If one is trying to turn country A into country B against the will of the majority, it is not righteous.

________________________________________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Vuk Vukovic is the Director and #2 leader of the European Heritage Library. He is a Serbian national of proud Serbian Slavic heritage, with a special interest in history and the cultural, social, and political situation in the former Yugoslavia, including the Serb-Albanian struggle in Kosovo.

BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES USED:

no sources neccessary.