The Chimera of “Integration”
8th September 2012
Back in the old days, immigrants to the United States were expected to assimilate into American society and culture. This meant that after a generation or so they would be indistinguishable from other Americans, except for whatever physical characteristics came with their genetic heritage. They might retain some of the customs of the “old country” within their families, but to all outward appearances they became Americans. They spoke American English as their first language, at home and elsewhere.
Yeah, well, that was then — this is now.
But what is “integration”?
The word has an amorphous meaning when used by the trans-national bureaucrats of the European Union, who seem to prefer that it remain without precise definition.
As far as I can ascertain, an immigrant to Europe is integrated if he:
1. Learns the local language well enough to converse at work or in places of business, and to fill out social welfare forms.
2. Refrains from committing as much crime, particularly violent crime, as he might otherwise be inclined to commit. No one expects him to meet traditional European standards of law-abiding behavior, but he should at least keep the larceny and mayhem down to a manageable level.
3. Beats his wife or daughters only behind closed doors, and without leaving any publicly visible bruises.And that’s about it. When European politicians lament the “failure to integrate”, they mean that culture-enrichers are not even meeting the above minimal standards.