Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still, London doesn't have the stark racial segregation that New York has.
Yeah, one of the conflicting debates I often hear is whether the UK or US integrates its immigrants more quickly, without segregation or treating them as "outsiders". On the one hand, the United States is practically the archetype of the "immigrant nation", where almost everyone who isn't indigenous is an immigrant and thus easier to fit in to without strife than Old World nations like the UK. However, I hear the flip side that there is actually more racial segregation in the US than in the UK, as you mention for those two cities, and that would seemingly contradict the idea that people are well integrated.
Even though the UK has newer immigrant communities, it seems to have some (eg. Indian-British or Afro-Caribbean-British) that either integrate or are treated as integrating better than certain American communities (African-Americans or Hispanics) that have been ghettoized and treated as segregated for a long time, even while for other groups it's the reverse (British-Pakistanis vs. Pakistani-Americans).
Another thing that I notice is that in the US, there are these very rigid identities that people seem to like to either adhere to, or impose on others: "black", "white", "Hispanic" or "Asian" (never mind the fact that these are often incoherent categories as they stand). These seem to be stock categories that you see everywhere and are bombarded with all the time on forms people have to fill in and in the media (whether conservative or liberal), and people seem very fixated on them. New immigrants can seem to be really self-conscious of fitting or not fitting one of these identities (eg. Nigerian-Americans get lumped together with black American cultures that are very different from them) which actually seems to make it harder to integrate. There seems an obsessive idea that people identify with others that "look like them" and that is actually counter-productive for integration.
In certain ways, I notice British media is less hung up on ethnicity or race than American media. Black British, even if they are first generation immigrants, don't seem to have hang-ups over what it means to "act black" or "act white" which Americans seem to do.
Integration should be about newcomers feeling comfortable without having prejudiced or hung up with identity, whether that comes from physical appearance, culture, language or whatnot, and also locals being cool with them too.
As a second generation American with close second generation Canadian family members I say........America. My cousins live in PQ and a majority of them would NEVER consider themselves Quebecois. They consider themselves Canadian through and through. As opposed to me and my family in the US. All of us born here consider ourselves good ole Yankees/Bostonians. Of course of few of them did intergrate and consider themselves Quebecois, but we don't really talk(They ONLY SPEAK FRENCH). So yeah, by my own personal experience I say America. I love this country and I'd be sorely disappointed if my descendants left for any other place on Earth(Mars would be cool though).
US has a long tradition of political polarization and social segregation, while Canada may not be able to generate enough jobs to match the educational level of its population, I give these 2 my vote as the best nations to immigrate to.
Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean were 1st generation Canadians of immigrant stock, refugees at that, who rose to the position of Governor General of the Canuck nation.
Of course the US likewise made history by voting for the mulatto son of a Kenyan Muslim immigrant, who went for time to an Indonesian madrassa in his Muslim step father's country.
As a second generation American with close second generation Canadian family members I say........America. My cousins live in PQ and a majority of them would NEVER consider themselves Quebecois. They consider themselves Canadian through and through. As opposed to me and my family in the US. All of us born here consider ourselves good ole Yankees/Bostonians. Of course of few of them did intergrate and consider themselves Quebecois, but we don't really talk(They ONLY SPEAK FRENCH). So yeah, by my own personal experience I say America. I love this country and I'd be sorely disappointed if my descendants left for any other place on Earth(Mars would be cool though).
There are linguistic cleavages in Montreal and Quebec that have impacts on identity which you do not have in the States (or in other parts of Canada really). The languages you know or don't know, and use most often often determine which polity you identify with, and multiple or exclusive identities are commonplace in this part of the world as well.
A few posters here are confusing integration with assimilation.
Integration indicates being able to take advantage of the rights the country offers. Getting employment, education, housing, etc. by the same avenues as the native population.
If someone moves to a country and their welfare system is their only recourse for survival, the country does not integrate newcomers.
Assimilation indicates the reduction of cultural traits from the former country in exchance for the cultural traits of the new country.
If someone moves to a country and does not learn the language (whether assistance is offered or not) and does not understand or behave according to the values and mores of the new country, then they are not assimilating.
In answer to the question, I think generally Anglo countries and in particular North American ones. Since Americas 'race woes' are picked at and held under a microscope, many may disagree.
A few posters here are confusing integration with assimilation.
Integration indicates being able to take advantage of the rights the country offers. Getting employment, education, housing, etc. by the same avenues as the native population.
If someone moves to a country and their welfare system is their only recourse for survival, the country does not integrate newcomers.
Assimilation indicates the reduction of cultural traits from the former country in exchance for the cultural traits of the new country.
If someone moves to a country and does not learn the language (whether assistance is offered or not) and does not understand or behave according to the values and mores of the new country, then they are not assimilating.
In answer to the question, I think generally Anglo countries and in particular North American ones. Since Americas 'race woes' are picked at and held under a microscope, many may disagree.
America's race woes aren't really an immigration-related issue anyway.
I see a lot of mentioning of Canada, but I found that the immigrants often take longer to integrate and this is celebrated by some Canadians. Hence the notion of the "multicultural mosaic". For example, the Asians who have gone to Seattle tend to be "American" than the Asians who've gone to Vancouver are "Canadian". I have met Asians from Vancouver who are born and raised in Vancouver, but speak English with a Chinese accent - I've never encountered an American born-and-raised Asian who spoke English with a foreign accent.
I see a lot of mentioning of Canada, but I found that the immigrants often take longer to integrate and this is celebrated by some Canadians. Hence the notion of the "multicultural mosaic". For example, the Asians who have gone to Seattle tend to be "American" than the Asians who've gone to Vancouver are "Canadian". I have met Asians from Vancouver who are born and raised in Vancouver, but speak English with a Chinese accent - I've never encountered an American born-and-raised Asian who spoke English with a foreign accent.
My friends of Chinese decent who were born in Vancouver or elsewhere in Canada don't speak with an accent.
Our police chief was born in Shanghai and grew up in Vancouver and I don't think he has an accent.
I should add that a friend of Chinese descent born and raised in Vancouver moved to L.A. many years ago to attend acting class. He was told to get rid of his Canadian accent so he could get more work. Although that is a particular field, it does, I think, speak to the American melting pot conformity idea.
The Palestinians that you are speaking about are not Israeli citizens and also are not immigrants in the area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruzhany
First of all Israeli Arabs have the same rights as any other Israeli citizens. Secondly Palestinians living in Gaza, Judea & Samaria are not Israeli citizens nor do they want to be. Thus they are not immigrants.
There are Israeli Arabs whose families have lived in the area but non of them are immigrants. There are no Arab immigrants to Israel from other countries. The majority of legal immigrants to Israel are Jewish and they integrate well into the Israeli society as the Israeli Government gives them many benefits to help them settle into their new life in Israel.
America's race woes aren't really an immigration-related issue anyway.
Well, it might not necessarily have been "caused" by immigration originally (at least not voluntary immigration, that is), the fact that it still unfortunately continues to affect US society means that it still is a factor in integrating immigrants into mainstream society, which is what my question is about.
If a first generation African-American from Nigeria or first generation Asian-American from Cambodia ends up influenced by the legacy of "race" (whether it be geographical segregation or media representation or societal attitudes that affect hiring or legal issues like debates over affirmative action) and already existing racial strife that makes them have a hard time integrating, who's to say that's not a part of the difficult immigrant experience for them? Those aspects are a part of American society that they integrate into, unfortunately, even if they want to be seen as "just American".
Saying that American race woes don't influence immigration and immigrants' issues is like saying European religion woes (like debates over secularism and religious accommodation in say, France) or Canadian language woes aren't an immigration-related issue because these issues too predate large-scale international immigration. Yet, if all these issues influence what a modern immigrant faces if they want to be seen as "just American", or "just Canadian", "just British" or "just (insert nationality)" rather than an outsider or other, then they are immigrant issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
