Do you agree with multiculturalism?

[SW VandeCarr]

Is criticizing a particular provision within the Constitution the same as "belittling"?

I think you'd need to be a European to see how patriotic, and enmeshed in national pride most USAns actually are (or, at least, seem to be from a European perpective)..

Perhaps, but go to any number of American universities, and it's the native students who are "enmeshed in national pride" that are ostracized. By the way, I'm a little confused about your position which I thought was that national cultures should be preserved.

 

[arildno]

Perhaps, but go to any number of American universities, and it's the native students who are "enmeshed in national pride" that are ostracized. By the way, I'm a little confused about your position which I thought was that national cultures should be preserved.

Yes it is.
It is a healthy sign in a society if oikophobics become ostracized.
In moderate measure, that is, for example by a sharp rebuttal or ridicule.

 

[Ken Natton]

What on earth…? Well it is probably pointless now. There was a serious worthwhile discussion here. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the colonial era, the notion that the historical events of European colonisation of the Americas bears any relation to the issue of multiculturalism in early 21st century Europe and the USA is patently ridiculous. For the record, the examples of insular and isolationist nations that I was thinking of were Albania and North Korea. And in contrast, I would forward modern day Britain, for all our difficulties and failings, as a fine example of the positive possibilities of cultural cross fertilisation.

And I have to make an expression of frustration at what I can only see as inconsistent moderation. The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question that warranted a serious response. How the nonsense that followed bears any more relation to social science than it does to politics and world affairs is beyond me.

 

[arildno]

Yes, Anjem Choudry is SUCH a cultural enrichment for Great Britain, isn't he?

 

[Evo]

My two cents, in modern society, the immigrants need to fit in with the predominat existing culture. That is the way it is in successful countries. You fit in the public culture, then you can practise your religious/unusual practices in private in your home, or wrongly protected religious establishment.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is the general consensus then that Canada is doing a poor job of multiculturalism?

Surely it is possible to have a country where all religions and ethnicities have equal status regardless of something as unimportant as their sheer number.

This is not to say it is problem-free in practice, but surely it works in principle.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What on earth…? Well it is probably pointless now. There was a serious worthwhile discussion here. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the colonial era, the notion that the historical events of European colonisation of the Americas bears any relation to the issue of multiculturalism in early 21st century Europe and the USA is patently ridiculous. For the record, the examples of insular and isolationist nations that I was thinking of were Albania and North Korea. And in contrast, I would forward modern day Britain, for all our difficulties and failings, as a fine example of the positive possibilities of cultural cross fertilisation.

And I have to make an expression of frustration at what I can only see as inconsistent moderation. The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question that warranted a serious response. How the nonsense that followed bears any more relation to social science than it does to politics and world affairs is beyond me.

I believe you are referring, at least in part, to my post 24 although you didn't observe the courtesy to quote it. Just what exactly do consider "ridiculous" or "nonsense" ?

In post 24 I was attempting to be clear about the term "multiculturalism". It can mean countries that have been historically bi/multicultural like Belgium, Canada or Switzerland. This is contrasted to countries like the USA which have been historically been monocultural but which are open to immigration. By the way, there is no compulsion for any nation to be open to immigration under International Law except perhaps in a limited sense for humane reasons.

I suggested that if a country chooses to be open to immigration, it has a right preserve its culture as it chooses. You may be of a different opinion, but that does not permit you to assign opinions (or facts) epithets such as "ridiculous" or "nonsense" because you don't agree with them. This is a violation of PF rules as I read them. If you want to quote specifics and offer a reasoned critique, then do so. Otherwise keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[lisab]

Is the general consensus then that Canada is doing a poor job of multiculturalism?

Surely it is possible to have a country where all religions and ethnicities have equal status regardless of something as unimportant as their sheer number.

This is not to say it is problem-free in practice, but surely it works in principle.

I think Canada does a good job with multiculturalism, myself. But face it, the Anglo-Canadian culture (is that the correct term?) and Quebecois culture aren't radically different.

What if the immigrant and host cultures diverge on things like women's rights? Like, having multiple wives, or allowing a woman to choose her husband. Kind of tough to find middle ground on some issues. I think on most sticky issues like this, the immigrant culture must be the one to bend to match the host culture.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Is the general consensus then that Canada is doing a poor job of multiculturalism?

Surely it is possible to have a country where all religions and ethnicities have equal status regardless of something as unimportant as their sheer number.

This is not to say it is problem-free in practice, but surely it works in principle.

It is certainly possible as far as immigration goes and there are a number of countries where it works reasonably well, including afaik, Canada. However, Canada has two official languages of equal status nationally. This is the historic bicultural divide that, you must admit, has caused problems in the recent past. Are you fluent in French? If you aren't, can you spend more than a few days in Montreal without being severely inconvenienced?

Among the three historically bi/multilingual countries that I mentioned, Switzerland seems to doing the best, while Canada has had some difficulties and may have more in the future. Belgium is essentially three countries now (including the small German Community) each of which has its own language, government, TV/radio stations, and institutions and where there is increasing resistance for members of one community to learn the others' language.

As far as immigration goes, which language do most new immigrants learn first in Canada?

 

[Ken Natton]

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. What I will definitely not do is involve myself in a pointless, sniping exchange. With a heavy heart, I feel that I must defend myself, at least as far as attempting to correct mis-readings of what I meant. In apparent response to my claim that history indicates the problems of insularity and isolationism and suggests the advantages of openness to the broader outside world, there were those who cited European colonisation of the Americas as a historical event that contradicted that idea, and they did so in ironic tones. That appears to me to have been the trigger for the thread to have gone off in a direction that does not seem to me to be in the OP’s question. I stand by my assertion that such a notion is ridiculous. The first key difference is that at the time that Europeans began colonising the Americas, the world’s population was about 500 million. Now we are fast approaching 7 billion and although some suggest that the rate of growth is slowing, we still seem to be a long way from reaching the peak, and that has to be a cause of concern to all of us. It certainly imposes realities on all of us that we may like or not, but that we are stuck with, and the idea that you can avoid the problem by attempting to turn your back on it does not seem to be particularly constructive to me.

When I referred to a section of this thread as nonsense, I was not thinking about the actual content of the posts as such, but about the self-indulgent, sniping nature of them and what appeared to me to be their lack of regard for what I had taken to be the OP’s intention. The moving of the thread from Politics and World Affairs to Social Science I had taken, perhaps wrongly, to be in response to the turn the thread had taken, and that did not seem to me to serve the OP either.

If I have breached any PF rules than I apologise unreservedly for that, that was never my intention. Believe me I fully understand that the high quality of these forums is very difficult to maintain – goodness knows I have seen how so many forums degenerate into something that is of no use to anyone – and that PF’s success depends heavily on the way it vigorously defends the scientific integrity of its scientific threads and the broader intellectual integrity of all of its threads. An important part of that approach, it seemed to me, is the vigorous defence of the OP’s intentions on all threads and it did not seem to me that events on this thread had met that normal standard. That’s all.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

In apparent response to my claim that history indicates the problems of insularity and isolationism and suggests the advantages of openness to the broader outside world, there were those who cited European colonisation of the Americas as a historical event that contradicted that idea, and they did so in ironic tones. That appears to me to have been the trigger for the thread to have gone off in a direction that does not seem to me to be in the OP’s question. I stand by my assertion that such a notion is ridiculous. The first key difference is that at the time that Europeans began colonising the Americas, the world’s population was about 500 million. Now we are fast approaching 7 billion and although some suggest that the rate of growth is slowing, we still seem to be a long way from reaching the peak, and that has to be a cause of concern to all of us. It certainly imposes realities on all of us that we may like or not, but that we are stuck with, and the idea that you can avoid the problem by attempting to turn your back on it does not seem to be particularly constructive to me.

Do you know how to use the quote feature? If you are going to criticize, do it openly and quote the item that bothers you.

In post 24 I referred to the fact that the USA was founded by Anglo-Saxon protestants and this remains the predominant culture. By opening itself to immigration and adopting a constitution that encouraged a pluralistic society, the USA has integrated many diverse elements into a national culture with one national language and one set of core beliefs about individual rights and responsibilities in a democratic society. This may or may not be your idea of multiculturalism. Nevertheless it is a fact. There is broad latitude to express one's culture freely in the USA provided one keeps to its core values. You cannot have four wives or stone a woman to death because she was raped, but can't provide the four male witnesses to prove it.

EDIT: You keep referring to the OP and how this thread is somehow going off topic. The OP asked if we agree with "multiculturalism" without defining exactly what is meant by the word. He/she expressed some reservations about the concept and the inability of some immigrants to integrate into a democratic pluralistic society with certain core values. Posters are expressing their thoughts. How is this thread going off topic? Please quote the relevant posts to support your claim.

 

[Ken Natton]

My central difficulty, SW VandeCarr, is that though being ‘off-topic’ is very definitely not the criticism I was levelling, for me to engage in this personal exchange with you is a case of me engaging in precisely the kind of thing I was criticising. So clearly, my contributions are not serving the OP either and no-one is interested in what I have to say. I shall back out of this thread all together and say no more. Does that satisfy you?

 

[DaveC426913]

...the Anglo-Canadian culture (is that the correct term?) and Quebecois culture aren't radically different...

However, Canada has two official languages of equal status nationally.

I was referring more to the diversity of cultures living together - Asian, S. Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I was referring more to the diversity of cultures living together - Asian, S. Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc.

I'm still not clear on what people are talking about when they use the term "multiculturalism". To allow free expression of cultural norms that are consistent with the law does not seem to be, in itself, a problem for most people in countries with a liberal tradition of immigration. I think the problem arises when religious law is allowed to be substituted for secular law. This happened in the province of Ontario when, in 1991, religious courts were allowed to settle certain matters, mostly in family law. They were supposed to operate within secular law and appeal to secular courts was to be always available. Apparently it didn't always work out this way. In fact immigrant Muslims were among the most prominent protesters. Many of them came to Canada to get away from Shariah Law. These courts have subsequently been shut down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm an American of Russian Jewish descent with a Chinese wife. The problem with the war on multiculturalism is that there is too much fraternization with the enemy.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm an American of Russian Jewish descent with a Chinese wife. The problem with the war on multiculturalism is that there is too much fraternization with the enemy.

Yes, of which you and your wife are most guilty. This seems to be more an example of "transculturalism" or the "melting pot" idea. People of many backgrounds come together, intermarry and after a few generations we have just "regular Americans" or whatever. Nothing wrong with that either IMO. In a true democracy, who you marry is your choice, not that of the family or a religious court.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm still not clear on what people are talking about when they use the term "multiculturalism". To allow free expression of cultural norms that are consistent with the law does not seem to be, in itself, a problem for most people in countries with a liberal tradition of immigration. I think the problem arises when religious law is allowed to be substituted for secular law. This happened in the province of Ontario when, in 1991, religious courts were allowed to settle certain matters, mostly in family law. They were supposed to operate within secular law and appeal to secular courts was to be always available. Apparently it didn't always work out this way. In fact immigrant Muslims were among the most prominent protesters. Many of them came to Canada to get away from Shariah Law. These courts have subsequently been shut down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

i don't think we've got anything approaching that yet. the closest you might get are some insular religious communities like some fundamentalist mormon sects, or a couple of the ultraorthodox jewish communities on the east coast. if sharia gains traction in the US, i suspect it would be along the lines of these pre-existing models. leaders cut followers ties to the outside world, and what you end up with are people that don't even know what their rights and options are. this is the sort of thing i mean when i say a multi-monoculturalism. it leads to a separation of peoples and less national cohesiveness. we just don't notice it so much because it's such a small fraction of american society.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

this is the sort of thing i mean when i say a multi-monoculturalism. it leads to a separation of peoples and less national cohesiveness. we just don't notice it so much because it's such a small fraction of american society.

I agree, when you define multiculturalism that way. If you try to enforce this across generations by restricting marriage choices and otherwise trying to limit choices, it becomes repressive and antidemocratic. I'm not sure what people like Richard Fidler (see above link) are thinking. Do they want maintain distinct communities in their country by government policy? The view of many academics on this issue is that multiculturalism is opposed to assimilation. To me neither should be an issue of government policy, but a result of a free choice.

The US has been an example of assimilation since it's founding and has not embraced multiculturalism in the isolating sense. Allowed free choice, assimilation seems to occur naturally after 2 or 3 generations. However, there are exceptions and these should be tolerated (in the best sense of the word) provided the free choice of adults (18+) is not abridged. Frankly, I don't see any alternative in a democratic society which is open to immigration. The state should not delegate its public functions to non government entities where individual rights and freedoms are concerned.

 

[seeeker]

Response to the OP's question:

Re: "Mass immigration to USA damages the countries that receive the immigrants."

Agree that Europeans have damaged American culture. As a 'full-blooded' Native American, I must mention that the correct name for America is Turtle Island and the culture that has been nearly destroyed is indigenous culture on Turtle Island.

Re: "Many immigrants can't integrate in our society and can't assimilate our culture."

Strongly disagree with the "our" society and "our" culture part. Your society is in Europe. Your culture is in Europe. What you Europeans have destroyed is indigenous cultures. The true local culture is indigenous culture which Europeans have nearly destroyed, although there are still 566 sovereign nations within the United States, like the Navajo Nation, the Lakota Nation, etc and many more tribes that are federally not "recognized."

Re: "Can there be a successful multiculturalist society?"
Have you looked at India? It was a very successful multiculturalist society in terms of assimilation, living together peacefully and other cultural parameters until the 500-year British rule destroyed everything with their divide and conquer policies.

I won't be debating anyone any further or even clarifying any misconceptions about Native Americans in this thread.
Thank you.

 

[Evo]

Seeeker, European countries were constantly invaded, inhabitants killed, run off, or taken into slavery, for all history until relatively recently.

For the purpose of this thread, we will assume that we are referring to modern day countries and modern day immigration and cultures.

 

[Astronuc]

Seeeker, European countries were constantly invaded, inhabitants killed, run off, or taken into slavery, for all history until relatively recently.

For the purpose of this thread, we will assume that we are referring to modern day countries and modern day immigration and cultures.

Adding to Evo's comment, I enjoy different cultures. As for history, one will find the indian tribes in the Americas engaged in inter-tribal conflict, as much as European, Asian and African tribes engaged in conflicts/war. Those peoples with advanced technological development tended to take their militance further.

I recommend Susan Wise Bauer's The History of the Medieval World.

As for present, I enjoy traveling to different countries, learn some of the language, enjoy the indigenous food, and share interesting experiences with various peoples.

I think I'm a nomad at heart, but I'm rather settled because of my family.

I don't particularly fit into anyone culture, and I don't particularly care for 'pop' culture in any nation.

 

[Proton Soup]

I agree, when you define multiculturalism that way. If you try to enforce this across generations by restricting marriage choices and otherwise trying to limit choices, it becomes repressive and antidemocratic. I'm not sure what people like Richard Fidler (see above link) are thinking. Do they want maintain distinct communities in their country by government policy? The view of many academics on this issue is that multiculturalism is opposed to assimilation. To me neither should be an issue of government policy, but a result of a free choice.

The US has been an example of assimilation since it's founding and has not embraced multiculturalism in the isolating sense. Allowed free choice, assimilation seems to occur naturally after 2 or 3 generations. However, there are exceptions and these should be tolerated (in the best sense of the word) provided the free choice of adults (18+) is not abridged. Frankly, I don't see any alternative in a democratic society which is open to immigration. The state should not delegate its public functions to non government entities where individual rights and freedoms are concerned.

well, it's one kind of multiculturalism, tho the minority in the USA, i think. and probably the kind that those academics are thinking about that opposes assimilation.

the majority, in the USA, is the multi-biculturalism. it is the less isolationist type, and i think it is primarily driven by the public education system. it's central tenet is tolerance, and it has always been used as a vehicle to push http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I" as the second culture immigrants are expected to adopt. how free this choice is is somewhat debatable, i think. if school vouchers were to become the norm, you'd see less of this type of multiculturalism, and more of the former.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

well, it's one kind of multiculturalism, tho the minority in the USA, i think. and probably the kind that those academics are thinking about that opposes assimilation.

the majority, in the USA, is the multi-biculturalism. it is the less isolationist type, and i think it is primarily driven by the public education system. it's central tenet is tolerance, and it has always been used as a vehicle to push http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I" as the second culture immigrants are expected to adopt. how free this choice is is somewhat debatable, i think. if school vouchers were to become the norm, you'd see less of this type of multiculturalism, and more of the former.

When you talk about "multi-biculturalism" I assume you mean intermarriage among diverse groups. This is, of course, a big part of the process of assimilation. I would suppose that the academics who oppose assimilation would logically oppose intermarriage, but then my experience with left wing academics is that their thinking has little to do with logic.

The other major part of assimilation is education. Here we get into a "sticky wicket". On one hand, the state should not interfere (IMO) with child raising except when civil or criminal law is involved (abuse, deprivation, custody,etc). In many democratic countries both public or private educational opportunities, which meet legal requirements, are available. In the US, home schooling is also allowed in many states (subject to state regulation and requirements). Obviously children can be indoctrinated according the wishes of their parents (or legal guardians) both in the home environment and by the choice of educational programs. That choice is not usually made by the children themselves. So this will tend to promote either assimilation or self sustaining cultural communities depending on the choices made. However, given the rebellious nature children tend to exhibit as they grow older, such attempts at "enculturalization" probably backfire as often as they succeed.

 

[Evo]

Minorities now officially out number non-minority Americans.

The title of the article shows the ignorance of the writer because *hispanics* are white. Hispanic is an ethnic group, not a race. So, minorities are now the majority? This is so twisted. Do Polish immigrants register as a minority and demand concessions? How about the French, Italian, German, Norwegian, and on and on and on? How has this utter nonsense come about? If I refuse to blend into the American culture I am due extra benefits? Because the ethnic groups that do conform don't get perks.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-census-estimates-show-minority-babies-now-outnumber-062345954.html

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Minorities now officially out number non-minority Americans.

The title of the article shows the ignorance of the writer because *hispanics* are white. Hispanic is an ethnic group, not a race.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-census-estimates-show-minority-babies-now-outnumber-062345954.html

There are several overlapping definitions of "Hispanic". Different US government agencies have different definitions. For example, some include Portuguese ancestry, others don't. Some exclude Spanish (from Spain) ancestry. In general, the term includes people with Latin American ancestry regardless of race.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hispanic

In the past, public schools were engines of assimilation for the children of immigrants to the US. Today, in many states, Hispanics predominate in urban public schools. Children grow up in Spanish speaking neighborhoods, speak Spanish among themselves in school and in many cases are taught in Spanish in the lower grades. There is no doubt that Spanish is the de facto second language in the US and the number of speakers whose first language is Spanish is growing.

To the extent that Hispanics represent isolating cultural communities in the US, it represents a problem. It's as much of a problem for the members the communities themselves as it is for the country as a whole. Hispanics have been here well before the nation was founded and expanded to include Hispanics. Most have assimilated and still maintained their cultural identity. However, I do believe the current wave of mostly illegal immigration is creating a new situation. It exists because it benefits many non-Hispanic interests. It is deemed essential to the nation's vast agricultural industry and is a source of cheap labor for other industries such as food processing. Clearly, the immigrants themselves are exploited and deprived of rights they would enjoy if they were in the country legally.

If the grand plan of multiculturalism is to establish and maintain isolating cultural communities, how does that benefit anyone? If the grand plan of multiculturalism to is integrate diverse elements of the population into a working society where everyone is free to express their own culture within the legal and economic framework of the host country, how is that different from assimilation?

EDIT: One of the mainstays of assimilating into the legal and economic framework of democratic host nations is tolerance. So in promoting multiculturalism as opposing assimilation, logically one is opposing tolerance. But again, logic is not the strong suite of the academic left, unless of course they do oppose tolerance.

 

[Proton Soup]

When you talk about "multi-biculturalism" I assume you mean intermarriage among diverse groups. This is, of course, a big part of the process of assimilation. I would suppose that the academics who oppose assimilation would logically oppose intermarriage, but then my experience with left wing academics is that their thinking has little to do with logic.

no, i do not mean intermarriage. tho, it may/will lead to that. the typical immigrant gets his one culture from his country of origin. and assuming he doesn't get cloistered away on some commune in the dessert, a second culture of "americanism". this culture comes at him through the television, newspapers, public education, etc. one aspect of americanism is that it is teaching "multiculturalism" in the form of tolerance. and tolerance is absolutely necessary if you expect people to live in close proximity without fighting. but the other thing about close proximity is that you are now unable to shield children, or even the adult members of your group, from ideas that pollute your original culture.

The other major part of assimilation is education. Here we get into a "sticky wicket". On one hand, the state should not interfere (IMO) with child raising except when civil or criminal law is involved (abuse, deprivation, custody,etc). In many democratic countries both public or private educational opportunities, which meet legal requirements, are available. In the US, home schooling is also allowed in many states (subject to state regulation and requirements). Obviously children can be indoctrinated according the wishes of their parents (or legal guardians) both in the home environment and by the choice of educational programs. That choice is not usually made by the children themselves. So this will tend to promote either assimilation or self sustaining cultural communities depending on the choices made. However, given the rebellious nature children tend to exhibit as they grow older, such attempts at "enculturalization" probably backfire as often as they succeed.

yes, homeschooling is heading in the multi-monoculturism direction. it's a way for parents to shield children from a dilution of their culture. as for backfires, i think it has a lot to do with how overbearing the parenting is. some, like the amish, can be rather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa" . and others, like a presby pastor i knew, will do crazy thing like trying to enforce curfews on their children away at college.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

yes, homeschooling is heading in the multi-monoculturism direction. it's a way for parents to shield children from a dilution of their culture. as for backfires, i think it has a lot to do with how overbearing the parenting is. some, like the amish, can be rather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa" . and others, like a presby pastor i knew, will do crazy thing like trying to enforce curfews on their children away at college.

Well in many Amish communities, people who leave are shunned and can only return if they re-affirm Amish cultural isolation. Rumspringa is not universal and in any case, the youth are expected to marry and return to the traditional Amish life after they've sown their "wild oats'.

This article presents an interesting point of view. In this view, assimilation is the most tolerant of five categories of human inter-group relations which the author defines. It seems to me that in this view, the multiculturalist who opposes assimilation logically would oppose integration at all levels, from sharing certain common core beliefs and cooperating across cultural differences to intermarriage. Obviously, if intermarriage is the essence of tolerance, then the multiculturalist who opposes assimilation must oppose this since it inevitably leads to the dilution of cultural differences.

Again, I'm not against maintaining cultural distinctions (within the law) as long as it's a matter of the free choice of adults. But then we get into the issue of whether the choices made are really free of coercive influences and whether some of these influences are abetted by governmental or institutional policies.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8345700_five-patterns-intergroup-relations.html

 

[imiyakawa]

Mass immigration from third-world countries to Europe and USA, in my opinion, damages the countries that receive the immigrants.

Can you please define what you mean by this damage that you perceive is occurring. Further, can you provide any evidence that this damage is actually happening and provide any evidence as to the extent of this damage. You did mention an inability to assimilate, so perhaps this is what you meant by immigrants damaging their host countries.

My personal experience with immigration into Sydney, Australia, is mixed. On the one hand we have the Lebanese and Vietnamese immigrant populations who have over 2% of their adult male population in prison, in stark opposition to the white Australian population (source; Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime). On the other hand many of the hardest workers I know are Asian immigrants, many being 2nd generation immigrants. You go to an investment bank assessment centre where many of the best performing graduates end up... 90% Asian ethnicity.

Anyways I'm keen on hearing what exactly you mean by damage.

 

[Constantinos]

My thoughts on this:

First, a description of http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics" .

I believe these rights should be universal to human beings. Its a level of values that every nation should try to implement.

Above these rights, I believe that all cultures are welcomed to blend, so I support multiculturalism. As long as they respect these values, how are they doing any harm? On the contrary, it is a good thing for many cultures to blend together because through this cross-fertilization of ideas, new ideas are born which would never be born in an environment with only one culture. There are many ways a human can live his life.

But not all cultures respect these universal human rights unfortunately. Those that don't should not be allowed to blend in, if we are to maintain this basic framework. For example, if someone who practices Islam refuses to accept the freedom of someone to draw Mohamed, he shouldn't be allowed to live in a multicultural society as I have described it because he does not respect its basic framework. But what would be the problem if the cultures of, for example, Irish and Japanese would blend together? Don't both cultures respect human rights? Yes, so what would be the problem with that?

As for EU, I believe that all the citizens of Europe would benefit if the cultures of the member states blend together because all of them respect the human rights. And I too believe that illegal immigration is one of the worst problems for Europe right now. Although most of these people just want a better tomorrow, sometimes its just impossible to provide for everyone, or there won't be anything left to provide to anyone. There is a certain capacity of immigrants each country can support and it should be respected.