MELTING POT: immigrants; A very hot topic right now
Many will have read the recent reports concerning ”national value” and integration of foreigners. While not a new debate, this last two weeks has seen this debate get really hot. But just how much of this debate makes reasonable sense?
The government in France insists upon the good ”French Values” as a necessary thing for foreigners to uphold if they want to live in France. In the UK the ”Citizenship tests” are equally debated in the light of more and more British people wanting to leave the UK because they no longer recognise the UK as they once knew it. For many people born in the UK they report a sense of no longer feeling at home. This is often made worse in public conversations because so many people working in, for example, London services, do not speak the English language. There is, as many write, a new search for identity going on and this is not just in the UK as the EU generally seems to feel a loss of traditional identity.
The French minister for immigration insists that we must find again that pride in being French. Sarkozy uses the two words ”values” and ”morality” as having a certain Frenchness about them.
In Switzerland there is also a similar perceived conflict as found in France with Muslim traditions being too different from European traditions. In fact this coming weekend there will be a vote concerning this matter as related to Muslim places for Muslims only.
In Germany the Chief of Immigration, Maria Boehmer, states quite clearly that ”a values contract” should be signed up to by all foreigners that want to stay or remain in Germany. The ”German values” must be agreed to via this contract. This should be a compulsory contract too. Together with this the German language should be learnt by all foreigners living in Germany. This report comes alongside the continuing reports that often concern Turkish people residing in Germany. According to most reports Turks fail to agree to ”German Values” and also refuse to learn the German language.
In Finland and Sweden similar reports are popuar and topical. In Finland we read about certain areas of Helsinki and Turku as being turned into a kind of non-Finnish place to live as more and more foreign residents take up their homes there. Local Finnish people are on record as saying that ” they no longer feel part of a community” and that they no longer wish to live there. They no longer recognise their place of their birth. At the same time debates turn to the high percentage of women from Somalia that are single-parents in Finland. Along with this debate there comes talk about a Somali family being 15 or more members. It does not take too much intelligence to see that this is a conflict in the making. Finnish taxes and the Finns that pay for all this ”special housing” are not going to sustain such differences for very long.
The general picture in much of Europe is simple enough to see as far as these reports go. Things on the migration, immigration and emigration scene are getting out of control and getting a little bit confused and muddled. The clear signs from many political groups and various local residents of different lands is that something needs to be done. In other words we can expect this ”foreigner” issue to be one future hot politics.
These debates and reports seem to fit into four categories. First the typical political propaganda. Second the genuine and practical concern for an integrated society. Third a somewhat confused debate concerning the place of ”national values” and the official types of ”contract”. Finally there is a complex issue behind much of this and this involves the terms ”community” and ”citizenship” and ”responsibility attached to personal freedom.
Political propaganda is always with us. Nothing new there. But it is interesting to use our memories and knowledge here to avoid such lazy talk. We surely remember Germany needed and wanted foreign labour as ”guest workers”. We surely remember that Europe, in general and for many years, treated its immigrants in an appalling way and rarely giving a helpful education to them. Sweden was one exception. Finland has only recently begun to help in the practical education of foreigners. The UK has loved to have so much cheap labour under a ”Labour government” (no joke intended but a big joke that surely is). France has been, for years, making kinds of ghettos for foreign people in France and if we need to look deeper just let us look at the Algerian-French connection as Sarkozy wants to pay national respect to Albert camus the french-Algerian writer.
I have neither the time nor the energy to say more about this pathetic propaganda. Better to discuss the other points.
The second point seems to be more practical and such calls for integration seem sensible. The language issue here is one example. It does seem, that for most, it is best to learn well the language of the country that is lived-in. Both practical and reasonable for all. I can see no reason to doubt the main idea here. It is usually quite correct to say that a foreign person living here in Finland is best when the Finnish language is known. That Finland was very very late to realise this basic point is no longer a major issue because today a foreigner has better chances to learn the language. But we must remember here that I talk now only of a practical sense of integration.
A person may well learn the language of a country and then be a spy or a terrorist. A Finn may well speak good Finnish but yet remain a terrible citizen. Language is a good practical tool but it may have nothing to do with any national identity, value or moral code of conduct.
The third point is, I think, more difficult as it is more interesting. The so called national values are tricky (and always have been, even in Classical Greece which can claim some identity with ”ethics”, civics” and ”belonging”). Germany may claim to have a national value of equality for women and other EU countries may claim the same so long as they compare these values with places like Somalia or Thialand. European ethics here are only black and white when made relative to this or that ”other” country.
There is not yet any equality between the genders in Europe and we all know that. National value is always something in need of critique and continuous re-appraisal. It is all too often the case that a ”national value” is mere nostalgia for a past that may or may not have existed, in fact.
However it seems to be that this national value is making sense to many EU countries when compared with Islam. We can see that often this is the main point in fact. We see this in France and even with the new EU president who comes from Belgium. Islam and Turkey are too foreign. So this idea of national value seems to work best when another (an enemy?) is brought into the equation. But ”national value” standing by itself and alone is easily ridiculed. The end comment on this one is complexity. There can be no simple political answers.
What is also apparent is that Europe itself struggles to know its own identity. In the EU we find that the seperate Nation States remain mainly for themselves although a sense of European Union is popular talk. So in many ways this foreigner conflict is also a deep conflict for the traditions of Europe itself and for EU citizens. In this we suspect that something bigger than a ”foreigner issue” is really at stake here. Globalisation?
The fourth point is even more complex although we can, I think, begin to throw away many of the mistaken arguments. For example we seriously doubt that any examination can show a ”sense of community and citizenship”. To be a member of a civic moral community of this kind is as much an emotional attachment as it is a measureable rationality. Morals and values are forged through social activity rather than through well planned courses of instruction. Usually we can say that the moral senses of value are as much Non-Rational as they are Rational.
With all this in mind the best that I can come up with today is this. We all need to practice what we preach. Integration and a moral community that works well together will come through these deep practices that we show and do ourselves. We are all examples. Moral civic communities are not made or manufactured through any official factory system. Moral communities are a ”happening”.
It is best, I think, to continue to seek ways that we may promote these social structures as a possible ”happening”. We are a part of that each one of us everyday of the year.
We cannot teach people in official programmes to be moral citizens. Moral ”value” cannot be found or created through any formal ”contract”. The contract is far too mechanical and business-like for that.
But there is one very significant debate today in all this. This debate calls into question the place of ”Human Rights”. The debate is moving more and more into ”Human Responsibilities”. In this context, this may turn out to be a very good thing indeed. Any foreigner has a certain responsibility if they are living in a country that is not their country of origin. (This does not release the welcoming country from its responsibility for human being).
In the end I sense some difficult times ahead. To forge a moral community in such difficulties will be an adventure. This adventure will take as much practical wisdom as we can find if we are to do what we do do well.
Steve Bowles
