Views: Integration; immigration
Aug. 27th, 2017 10:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mtbcFollowing the elections in recent times I thought it a good time to summarize my own politics. I do not pretend that everything is thought-through and defensible; I freely admit that what follows includes much instinctive leaning. I thus do not suggest that others should think as I. Expressing my opinions here explicitly leaves them usefully open to constructive disagreement (or helping you decide not to read after all).
On the topic of disagreement, there is so much of it that many of us must be very wrong for at least some of the time. Especially, when referencing kinds of people in political judgments I think it important to engage with them: it is far better to mix with people than to make confident assertions about those one does not even know. Exposure to sincerely held contrary views also helps to hone one's critical thinking skills.
Encouraging engagement with others has policy implications. I do not know how to make people less inclined to live near the like-minded to prevent them from self-organizing into homogeneous neighborhoods but, for example, I am in favor of helping people to learn English and I have reservations about faith-based schools. Teaching about various religions is fine but I do not want education to be religiously defined.
Integration neatly segues to immigration. Whether via a points-based system or otherwise I generally think the immigration of skilled workers worth encouraging and my impression is that the bar does not have to be set very high for them to be of overall benefit to the national economy even given usage of local public services. Encouraging outreach on all sides helps the diversity to be culturally enriching. I have welcomed that in the two workplaces in which I have worked for the longest in the UK most of my colleagues were born outside the UK; similarly my closer friends at work in Boston were born outside the US. Of course I enjoyed friendships with locals too, they just happened to be in the minority in those cases and that felt okay.
On the other hand, while I favor permissive immigration rules, my welcome quickly wanes when those rules are violated. When people illegally enter or overstay after legal entry and settle their children who subsequently face deportation then I am angry with them for knowingly making their family liable for such. Also, I am curious about what the UK will negotiate with the EU regarding the Dublin Regulation post-exit. While immigration law may be much wanting, it is what it is: it thus irritates me when people predicate their life-changing decisions on a woeful ignorance of the rules then behave as if anybody else bears responsibility for the distress arising when their lazy assumptions catch up with them. Both local and national news amply provide cautionary tales: consequences may be severe but that is why one works doubly hard to avoid triggering them.
As for people being able to follow their own culture and religion, I largely do not care what they do in private or within view of others but I am somewhere in the middle when it comes to more materially imposing on others. For example, with software engineers I would think that it is typically possible to accommodate needs for prayer, restricted diet, etc. but when publicly funded medical staff refuse to participate in routine treatments to which they object then I think they accepted the wrong job offer in the first place: they remind me of these irksome taxi drivers who grumble to me as a passenger about when I wanted to go where. That is, we should try to be accommodating but there is no right to have the rest of the world bend itself around one's own sincerely held beliefs: finding one's place in society involves compromise on both sides.
I recognize that there is some tension between my respect of citizenship and immigration boundaries and my generally welcoming foreign people and cultures. This is likely to come up again when I summarize my thoughts on other topics and may reveal inconsistent thinking. However, the above is already quite enough for one journal entry.
On the topic of disagreement, there is so much of it that many of us must be very wrong for at least some of the time. Especially, when referencing kinds of people in political judgments I think it important to engage with them: it is far better to mix with people than to make confident assertions about those one does not even know. Exposure to sincerely held contrary views also helps to hone one's critical thinking skills.
Encouraging engagement with others has policy implications. I do not know how to make people less inclined to live near the like-minded to prevent them from self-organizing into homogeneous neighborhoods but, for example, I am in favor of helping people to learn English and I have reservations about faith-based schools. Teaching about various religions is fine but I do not want education to be religiously defined.
Integration neatly segues to immigration. Whether via a points-based system or otherwise I generally think the immigration of skilled workers worth encouraging and my impression is that the bar does not have to be set very high for them to be of overall benefit to the national economy even given usage of local public services. Encouraging outreach on all sides helps the diversity to be culturally enriching. I have welcomed that in the two workplaces in which I have worked for the longest in the UK most of my colleagues were born outside the UK; similarly my closer friends at work in Boston were born outside the US. Of course I enjoyed friendships with locals too, they just happened to be in the minority in those cases and that felt okay.
On the other hand, while I favor permissive immigration rules, my welcome quickly wanes when those rules are violated. When people illegally enter or overstay after legal entry and settle their children who subsequently face deportation then I am angry with them for knowingly making their family liable for such. Also, I am curious about what the UK will negotiate with the EU regarding the Dublin Regulation post-exit. While immigration law may be much wanting, it is what it is: it thus irritates me when people predicate their life-changing decisions on a woeful ignorance of the rules then behave as if anybody else bears responsibility for the distress arising when their lazy assumptions catch up with them. Both local and national news amply provide cautionary tales: consequences may be severe but that is why one works doubly hard to avoid triggering them.
As for people being able to follow their own culture and religion, I largely do not care what they do in private or within view of others but I am somewhere in the middle when it comes to more materially imposing on others. For example, with software engineers I would think that it is typically possible to accommodate needs for prayer, restricted diet, etc. but when publicly funded medical staff refuse to participate in routine treatments to which they object then I think they accepted the wrong job offer in the first place: they remind me of these irksome taxi drivers who grumble to me as a passenger about when I wanted to go where. That is, we should try to be accommodating but there is no right to have the rest of the world bend itself around one's own sincerely held beliefs: finding one's place in society involves compromise on both sides.
I recognize that there is some tension between my respect of citizenship and immigration boundaries and my generally welcoming foreign people and cultures. This is likely to come up again when I summarize my thoughts on other topics and may reveal inconsistent thinking. However, the above is already quite enough for one journal entry.
