Immigration Shibboleths

Minority religions in India. Over 50 million potential immigrants.

Poland is catching flak for turning down immigrants from Muslim lands, while opening its doors to immigrants from the Ukraine.

But Poland’s policy here is entirely sensible, and ought to be a model for others.

In an overreaction to racism, we have for years pretended that all immigrants are equally desirable, regardless of their prior culture.

This is false, and relies on a pernicious false equivalency of culture with race.

We in Canada have long understood, and accepted, that immigrants who are already fluent in French or English are preferable, because they will most readily fit in and be able to contribute. Surely this is a no-brainer. Language is not based on race. Anyone can learn any language.

Language is a part of culture. The same is true of other parts of culture.

Poland and the Ukraine being Slavic Christian neighbours, with a largely shared history, a huge proportion of the culture will be shared, making Ukrainian integration easy.

Perhaps most valuable, in this regard, is shared religion. This matters for immigration for the same reason it matters in a marriage. If both partners have the same goals in life, they are going to find it easier to work together and support one another. If each is trying to accomplish different and possibly incompatible things, conflict is almost inevitable. Shared religion gives people a shared purpose, shared assumptions and authorities to appeal to in cases of disagreement, and is the traditional glue for social cohesion in all cultures and societies throughout history.

This traditional consideration is amended somewhat for post-enlightenment Europe and North America. In effect, our shared religion, guaranteeing social cohesion, has become liberalism, using that term in the proper sense—human equality and human rights. This makes members of minority religions ideal immigrants in our case. In the lands from whence they came, they will have been second-class citizens. Liberalism now allows them to be fully equal. And they can when they arrive have no presuppositions or expectations of theocracy on the basis of their own creed in their new home.

A rational immigration policy for Canada or the US would give priority to Christian immigrants, since Christianity is overwhelmingly the majority belief in Canada or the US now; ensuring social cohesion on that basis, and ensuring that when they arrive they have a support system in place to help them integrate, just as would an immigrant who already has other family members in the country. And there will be no conflict with their neighbours on essential values.

Along with Christians, priority ought to be given to members of religious minorities who are minorities wherever they live: Yazidis, Bahai, and so forth. Logically, they will not only appreciate the religious freedom Canada offers, but will have less lingering commitment to some alternate homeland. They will be more likely to see Canada as their home, and contribute accordingly. Exactly this, I think, has been the Canadian experience, with the Jews, the Sikhs, and other such religious minority groups. They have contributed to the culture and the economy beyond their numbers. At the same time, we are doing a great humanitarian service, in many cases, in saving people at risk of persecution elsewhere, while reducing social tensions in their countries of origin.

Beyond this, priority should be given to immigrants coming from functioning democracies and from areas that follow the British common law tradition. They will be far more likely to understand how things work and what is expected of them when they arrive. More likely to be able to participate, and less likely to break the laws.

Will all this tend to favour people with while skin? On the whole, perhaps, but only coincidentally. For example, Filipinos should score very high on most of these factors: functioning democracy, common law tradition, speak English, Christian. Parsees should as well: functioning democracy, common law tradition, speak English, minority religion everywhere. There are over a billion people in Indian who follow the British common law tradition, and many of them are religious minorities. The world hosts almost 100 million Filipinos. There is no reason to suppose this set of immigration standards will produce a paler populace, if that matters.

On these grounds, it must be frankly admitted, Muslims in general make for bad immigrants. It is not just that they are in most cases accustomed to being the majority religion. It is also that, unlike in Christianity, there is no initial concept of separation of church and state in Islam. Separating church and state is, to Islam, in principle, an abomination. It means an immoral government. Accordingly, in immigrating, they will see the current government and laws of Canada as illegitimate. This does not make for easy integration.

Some, you will argue, are “liberal,” “enlightened,” and will happily accept the concepts of liberal democracy. Indeed, some will. But, in so doing, they are also turning their back on their own religious and ethical tradition. Put in simplest terms, these are bad Muslims. They have made a deal with the devil. They are liable to be immoral in other matters as well.

To a lesser extent, Chinese immigration poses the same problems. Confucianism is a comprehensive rival ethical and social system to liberalism. There is a reason why Chinese immigrants tend to huddle in “Chinatowns,” ghettos, and are slow to integrate. By comparison, Japanese immigrants, although otherwise culturally similar, tend to soon intermarry and integrate. As do Filipinos.

We are foolish not to see the difference, and it is dangerous not to.