Week 10: Accomodating diversity Flashcards
Kymlicka’s View of multinationalism
In Canada, there is a higher rate of participation of immigrants in the work force, politics, etc. Political parties actually target these members to be in the party and once they are member of parlaiment they show are not signs of discrimination.
According to a recent OECD study, the children of immigrants and minorities have better educational outcomes in Canada than in any other Western democracy. In terms of acquiring employment, immigrants in all Western societies suffer from an “ethnic penalty” in translating their skills into jobs.
This high level of mutual identification is also reflected in the fact that whereas ethnic diversity has been shown to erode social capital or trust in other countries, there appears to be a “Canadian exceptionalism” in this regard
multiculturalism provides a locus for the high level of mutual identification among native-born citizens and immigrants in Canada. In many countries, native-born citizens with a strong sense of national identity or national pride tend to be more distrusting of immigrants and minorities, who are seen as a threat to their cherished national identity
Kymlicka’s rationale for his arguments
So there is growing social science evidence that, at least in the Canadian case, MCPs are not only consistent with core liberal-democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity, but actually enhance them.
Adoption of a multicultural policy has shown produce more political participation, educational attainment, equal opportunity in the marketplace and mutual respect of immigrant populations
2 broad approaches to legal immigration: Fukuyama
Assimilation: is non-recognition of any kind of minority rights. Accommodations are not part of the policy expectations. They are to adopt the majorities values and lifestyle. They have all the same rights and entitlements of other citizens. Educational system, encouragement, etc. Need common language.
Stronger assimilation: like the ones France has in place. They actively try to stamp out or discourage visible differences in the public sphere.
Multiculturalist approach: seek to accommodate the differences of new comers. Dutch policy of liarization: they had different societal groups organized around religion and granted certain rights and freedoms. When Holland started taking in migrants from turkey to reconstruct themselves, the idea was that Muslims became the forth pillar. Minimal expectation of integration. You can have your own schools, media, ect. You can use your own language, but the idea is that they are temporary workers. Canada: more integrationist form of multiculturalism. Policies of accommodation, such as affirmative action in places like the police force, religious holidays etc. They need to integrate them if society is to be successful.
How do we know integration is successful
Social cohesion, solidarity, National identity, lack of public display of different cultures. Elimination of their own cultural values. Depends on types of immigrants and their visible differences. Jobs measurements: Minority representation. Visible discrimination higher positions inn proportion to the minority groups. People participating in citizenship. Intermarriage. Integration of dispersal in living locations, not a segregation of a group.
Democratic tendencies in accommodating
Tyranny of the majority, which limits the rights of minority rights, making it a more illiberal form of democracy.
Erodes checks and balances and gives bureaucracy more power, which can be problematic.
Influences that influence the success or failure of integration?
Economic state Social presumption. Historic accommodation. Eg French and Canadian. Once white always white. Pre-existing tensions/conflict Media Security Geography Outsiders differences Presents of terrorism. Rate of immigration Available resources
How to make integration successful
Points system. Immigrants must feel like they are part of this new place, they have loyalty and solidarity. Seeing that they are productive and becoming citizens living next to us, rather than in segregated neighbourhoods. Promoting dialogue amongst the minority groups. Hate speech regulation.
Issues with accommodation
The majority may feel it’s a preferential treatment (affirmative action) and people get pissed. The majority sees themselves as a shrinking majority. They feel they don’t deserve preferential treatment. College admissions. Violation of meritocracy arguments either way. A threat to identity.
