Muslims in Dutch Cabinet
Aboutaleb and Albayrak
When I write about immigration / integration some Americans argue that Europe is and I am (just about) ‘racist’. Fine. My point always is, when I talk so harshly about immigrants / immigration, that they are welcome here, as long as they integrate. The problem is: so many immigrants refuse to integrate.
However, individuals who are willing to integrate are more than welcome. When they integrate and are dedicated to be the best they can be, when they respect our customs, our culture, our liberal democracy… then I’m happy that they’re here.
Two examples of that are Ahmed Aboutaleb and Nebahat Albayrak. That is why I am very happy that both will become cabinet members:
As a city councilman, Ahmed Aboutaleb, the son of a Moroccan clergyman, helped immigrants find jobs, put their toddlers in school to learn Dutch, and doled out some stern advice: integrate or leave.
On Thursday, Aboutaleb was to be sworn in as a state secretary, or junior minister, in the new Dutch Cabinet. So was Nebahat Albayrak, a Turkish-born lawyer and member of parliament from the age of 30. They are the first Muslims to reach the inner core of political power in the Netherlands, and among only a handful of immigrants to rise to these second-rung Cabinet positions anywhere in Western Europe.
[...]
She joined the Labor Party in university, earned a degree in international law and was elected in 1998 to parliament, where she focused on women’s issues. For last November’s elections, she was placed second on the list of candidates after party leader Wouter Bos.Aboutaleb, 45, left his home in Morocco’s Rif mountains at age 15 with his mother and brothers to join his father, who had come to the Netherlands several years earlier. He studied telecommunications and worked as a news broadcaster, but his ambition always was politics.
Now these two are an example to all immigrants: adapt, integrate, work hard and… we’re more than happy to have you.
9 Responses to “Muslims in Dutch Cabinet”
I’m curious about what is meant by “integrate”.
That word can be a synonym for “to be the same”. Here in America we refer to racial “integration”, where white and black students attend the same schools. I’m not sure many or most Americans would want or expect cultural “integration” in that sense of the word.
However, it can also mean some degree of sameness, combined with some differences. I’m aware that in regards to immigration, particularly immigration from Islamic countries, America has a distinct advantage over Europe: We tend to attract Muslim immigrants who are both wealthier and better educated (and less radical) than the Muslim immigrants who arrive in Europe, and our “national mythology”, “founding narrative”, or whatever you want to call it, is stronger and more likely to be adopted by immigrants.
I also wonder what you mean by “integrate”. Expecting total “integration” if you mean that they will act like everybody else and have the same thoughts and desires is completely ridiculous.
Here in the U.S., literally hundreds of years of immigration have proven this pattern time and again: the first generation of immigrants, those who come here as adults, will never integrate. They simply won’t. They will cling to their language and their way of life until they die, and as long as they don’t harm me, then why should I care what they believe?
The second generation, those that were young children when they came over or were born right after, will be in the middle. They will adopt American practices, but they also feel a lot of pressure to “stay true to their culture”. They are the ones who will learn both languages, who will translate for their parents who never learn English, etc.
By the third generation, they are completely integrated, in that they share in the common beliefs that make up America. They don’t become suicide bombers or anything like that.
It is ridiculous to hear anybody expect the first generation of immigrants to integrate. If you have lived 40 or 50 years of your life doing one thing, you aren’t going to be able to change. It’s not going to happen, so deal with it. As long as they don’t hurt others, it’s not my problem.
One thing that America does better than parts of Europe is that you are a citizen by birth here. That way, the second and third generation are guaranteed entry into all of the institutions of America, and they feel like they can be involved. In some European countries, citizenship is by blood, so even future generations of immigrants aren’t automatically citizens and thus are shut out of the citizenry. When you have a perpetual group of “outsiders” who can’t enter the game and play along with everybody else, of course you will have problems.
I have already answered that question in the past. Several times.
Well, in that case, thanks for posting links back to your definitions to those new to the site.
“Integrate” “Our culture” “Our customs”
Wow.
I have already answered that question in the past. Several times.
Well apparently I missed that…or, more likely, I’ve forgotten.
Could you post them again?
I can’t speak for Michael for what “integration� means, but since I distinctly remember that he and I are mostly in agreement on the subject, I can give you my own vision.
The most fundamental part of integration is that you adapt to the core values of the country you go to. There are certain precepts that are simply inflexible, and you can either adopt them or leave. Democracy, male and female equality, freedom of expression occur to me as core values. Certainly there are disagreements as to what gets included in “core values� but that is a decision that the natives must take and the immigrants must accept, if they wish to stay.
Other things matter as well. You can speak your native language, naturally, but you MUST learn the language of the receiving country. The receiving country doesn’t have to bend over backwards to make everything intelligible to new immigrants. Certainly you can include immigrant languages in programs specifically for new immigrants, but there must be a pressure to learn the native language. You don’t have to dress like the natives (though there are gray areas where dress and religion mix), or listen to the same music or eat the same food or worship the same God, you can keep a strong sense of your native culture and still be perfectly integrated. And yes, you can be Muslim and be perfectly integrated, all you need is to not be so extremist that your religion interferes with the CORE VALUES of the receiving countries. American Muslims manage to do this, it’s not unfair that we ask European Muslims (or rather new Muslim arrivals to Europe) to do the same.
Now something that bothers me personally. The receiving country does not, I repeat, does NOT owe you any favours. They have no obligation to get you a job, or pay for an apartment or keep you out of a life of crime. An immigrant who LEGALLY enters a country, finds work and stays out of trouble is great and welcome, and should have access to all the social services a native would have. An immigrant who breaks the law (and I’m not talking a parking ticket) should be kicked out at ONCE.
Here in the US, blacks who don’t embrace a separate ‘black culture’ are subject to criticism that they’ve ‘sold out’. Is there a similar backlash against Muslim immigrants in your country, Michael? Do some Muslims see these politicians as sellouts?
The US black culture is largely one of failure. Being accused of selling it out ought to be a badge of honor to men like Mr. Obama, Ms. Rice, etc.
We also see this “racial obligation” being thrust on Mexican immigrants in the southwest. Our assimilation of Latinos here is faltering badly because immigration activists are actively working against our “founding narrative” and encouraging illegal immigration.
That may not be hurting me directly, Gonzo, but this attitude of ethnic entitlement injures all Americans by undermining our culture of integration.
I think Lynx’s definition of integration is a good one. I wish that more Latino immigrants would embrace it here in the US.
I don’t have any huge problem with anything said here, but I’ll reiterate one of my previous thoughts which is more about diction than substance.
If you really want “integration” then change has to be a two way street. If you want the immegrants to change but for your culture to remain the same, that is more like “assimilation” or “conversion”.