Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiNoKen
Part of the problem of immigration and minorities in Europe and Asia is the perceived correlation between immigration and crime/social problems. Some of that perceived correlation are indeed real. Such problems become manipulated and played around with "traditional nationalistic" feeling with the public through the media and politicians.
While such problems also exist in the US, the ethnic minorities and recent immigrants had strong political and economic influence (like Barack Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Soros, and Jerry Yang), and are able to counter that "traditional nationalistic" (aka 3rd or 4th+ generation American white immigrants) force. I am not sure that I know any ethnic minority able to reach the top tier of European politics and economy. Please correct me if I am wrong. Without hard power (political or $$$), it is hard to press changes for tolerance.
|
Depends on the country. Sarkozy president of France had a hungarian father and French/Greek-Jewish Mother. Ireland, on the other hand, is Irish through and through in the political sphere. But we have only people moving here recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf
Ah, but you've unwittingly pointed out what you think should be a "shared identity": a Constitution (or Common Law, in the case of Britain) that all people in the state can agree with and have a stake in. And I suspect this is what Vexx means by separating the "secular" from everything else.
That's the first step. Depending on the society and the enclave we're trying to integrate, how ever tightly or loosely, we then have to discuss the laws that we would like to share. And this, in particular, causes Muslim communities some distress, because of syriah family laws.
How we've dealt with this issue here in South-east Asia (or in Malaysia and Singapore at the very least) is to have, in effect, parallel family laws. One set for Muslims, another set for everyone else. We can live with it, because that's the way it has always been in the first place. It's part of the socio-cultural, geographic reality that has always defined us who live in this region.
But, in places like Europe or the United States, I can well understand why such a system would be anathema. In which case, well, a lot more dialogue is obviously necessary. What do you wish to share? What defines you who make up the state? |
Indeed so, we need a set of common laws. I think such laws should be very minimalist though. Basically doesn't dictate the lifestyles of the citizenry, their religion etc. Western Governments do well in this regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiNoKen
The laws are passed by an elected (flawed) democracy - just like the rants we have any anime forums about Ishihara laws. It is a combination of voters vote stupid, and the minorities (or Japanese otakus haha) are unable to project their power up and force the law makers to listen to them (the law makers listen to their doubleplusungood stupid voters).
One does not project your power up by living poor, as disorganized social group, or being perceived as troublemakers. When those folks band together with a few open strong voice (I hate to be Machiavellian, but I have to say it: backed with $$$), those laws will never get passed. Power talks, period.
|
The people vote for their laws, if they happen to vote for bad ones, they bear the consequences. I see no huge problems with democracy. In fact I see the inability of most governments to do much of any significance as much as a plus as a minus. Look at the
kind of harm decisive governments can cause.
.