Immigrants -- a benefit or a threat?

Are immigrants a benefit or a threat to a society? In Canada, the overall answer is "a benefit". Each year about 300,000 immigrants move to Canada which is the highest number in the world. Professor Will Kymlicka, one of the leading experts in multiculturalism, explains the secret behind the Canadian model and what societies like Denmark can learn from it. There is no magic fix, but trust is a keyword. However, according to Professor Kymlicka, the Danish model is rather based on distrust.

[@rorystirling9246]

Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights is an important yet flawed concept that has laid a theoretical foundation for western multiculturalism. This insight into rethinking the liberal tradition to illustrate the compatibility and necessity of differential minority rights in contemporary liberal democracies. The importance of cultural membership embedded in a strong societal culture is a ‘primary good’ for all individuals, according to Kymlicka. This notion develops numerous logic jumps to achieve a more socially equal and cohesive society. These are attributed to a narrow conception of autonomy and unhelpful categorical conceptions of various polyethnic groups and these fallacy's are consistent throughout Kymlicka’s work. Akan (2003), Killmiester(), MacDonald (2010) and others have argued that these shortcomings lead to increased segregation and the development of separate communities living parallel lives. These critiques conclude that Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights when transcended into multicultural policy are counter-intuitive notions that create and embed the decisiveness we observe today. Multiculturalism thought has lead to the shift away from old assimilationist models of integration. We observe the fallacy's of these old models as attempts to institute cultural homogeneity. The multicultural reality of European societies today have created an environment where attempts to institute and singular homogeneous culture are in vain. Through the observed results of multiculturalism and assimilation, it is clear that a balance needs to be struck between the two models if a cohesive and fair integration policy is to be developed. Each nation will have its own cultures, values and peoples to recognise before sensible integration can commence. This recognising of differences however should not institute these differences in law to be used as reasons for claims for differential treatment of minority groups. In adopting the strongest points of each method, it is argues that a more efficient integration policy can be developed. Malik (2015) argues that states and their policy's however can do so much to promote integration because there must be a renewal of civil society to compensate for the social disengagement multiculturalism and assimilation models have created through their divisive nature. The apathetic position of minorities and wider society in regard to one another's culture has been encouraged through contemporary multicultural policy. Faults of all cultural groups must be recognised if any attempt of integration policy is to be put into law abiding legislation to fully accommodate all members of society. These critiques reflect the notion put forward by Jopkke (2004) that culture isn’t always the problem, nor is it always the solution.Multiculturalism and assimilation approaches both have culture as a central theme in their arguments and thus, they cannot by their own definitions deal with the complexities integration policy requires.

[@billdunne7466]

I love this Kymlicka guy! He's a prime example of how to get a vanity PhD in some B.S. area of study, such as multiculturalism or social equality, and if you challenge his thesis or disagree with him you are racist plain and simple end of debate and discussion. I want a PhD in the equality of sexual differences between people of colour and the white colonial settlers in relation to their divinity and customs. You disagree? You are a racists and xenophobic.