Research: Becoming A Minority
Policy for Native Western Populations as Minority Groups
Welcome to the first of our research roundups. these are expanded versions of the notes we use to create our streams. We can never cover every topic in full, so these extended write ups will provide a resource for people to look into topics via a curated list of sources.
Original stream can be found here.
The Integration of immigrants is a complex subject that, in its current form, is fairly modern. In pre-modern ages, migrants were somewhat expected to retain their own culture, but most were also expected to return to their own lands. When immigrants became citizens, they were expected to adhere to the laws, customs and associated duties of citizenry. Since the emergence of rootless, post empire “nations of immigrants” like the USA, the onus has shifted more and more onto host populations to change to accommodate ever expanding waves of migration. It is no longer simply a one way street…
The idea of a two, and three, way processes of integration can be tracked from thinktanks to the mainstream. We can clearly see the channels this information gets passed through, who adopts it first, and we can only wonder how long it takes to appear in a politicians rhetoric.
Migration Policy on integration: The Changing Concepts around Immigrant Integration - the Migration Policy Institute
WEF on Integration: We need to talk about integration after migration. Here are four ways we can improve it
Migration Observatory: Policy Primer: Integration
These first set of links give us examples of how the elites want us to rethink immigration and integration:
Integration is typically Western-centric, this is of course the reason as to why it is currently not functioning as intended. The paper from the migration observatory suggests that “expectations of assimilation” may be controversial.
Further integration requires a less Western-centric approach, and consequently a host population that is willing to bend to the cultural sensitivities of new arrivals.
Total success of this program would then be the reduction of all host cultures into the one integrated common culture so that migrants in place (two way), and in constant transit (three way), can feel right at home anywhere and everywhere. At the direct expense of the European peoples and their home.
Then we get to the Becoming a Minority project funded directly by the EU commission. Which sets its sights on investigating the “…lives of people without a migration background living in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods where everybody belongs to a minority now.” Need anymore be said? The website touts statistics, such as Malmö having a population which is 56% immigrant, or that of those aged below 20 in Antwerp only 1/3 are native born. Or shall I say those without a migration background. In one of the most brazen examples of a leftist moral crusade, they dare to claim that it is only individuals who are of nowhere, and experience no culture that is wholly theirs. That they alone should be considered or classified positively.
In a later paper —linked on the BaM site—we can directly see them demonstrate this. Villages and small towns that remain culturally, and consequently ethnically homogenous, should be broken up and fixed by the influx of migrants to prevent them becoming white ghettos.
Coverage of this framing of integration and “individuals without a migrant background” in wider media:
University of Birmingham: About Superdiversity
ScienceDirect: Signalling inclusion, increasing belonging: People without a migration background in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods Worth expanding on what to look for, I believe the language used by our elites to talk about immigration—and now that they are here integration—is soon to change.
Worth expanding on what to look for, I believe the language used by our elites to talk about immigration—and now that they are here to stay integration—is soon to change.
The reframing of integration by the faux-right, a Motte and Bailey is being constructed around this term. The Motte being the standard argument of naturalisation and legal integration. The Bailey being the radical stance of integration being a two-way street, whereby the native populations and migrants adapt to one another and form a common culture.
A further attack on European natives under the label “People without a migrant background”. This can be seen in the papers linked above. A total reframing on immigration and citizen ship that re-writes the former as the new norm, and the latter as the equivalent of white ghettos that it would be un-humanitarian to leave as they are. All of this is being pushed directly by the EU through its Becoming a Minority project and the usual sources of Ford, Rockefeller, Open Society, and of recent drag queen story hour fame the Zellerbach foundation, through institutes like Oxford University and the Migration policy institute.
Throughout this entire discourse the notion that integration won’t work for ethno-cultural reasons is not even considered or rebuked, one might take away from this that in no individual in the academic-NGO-governance complex had such a thought occurred.