The debate over immigration often centres on the question of integration. Politicians and commentators, particularly from the right, frequently argue that the failure of migrants to integrate poses a significant threat to the stability and cohesion of the host nation. These critics often claim that multiculturalism is failing, pointing to the language barriers and cultural differences that persist among immigrant communities as evidence. However, this argument overlooks the complexities of what it truly means to integrate in a free society – one that values liberty, choice, and free speech.
At its core, integration in a free society should be understood as compliance with the laws of the land. These laws are the foundation of any society, and they apply equally to everyone, regardless of background. As long as immigrants respect and follow these laws, they have fulfilled the most fundamental requirement of integration. To demand more – such as fluency in the local language or active participation in community life – is to impose additional, and often arbitrary, burdens that may not even be uniformly expected of all citizens.
The language debate: A flawed metric for integration
One of the most common arguments is that immigrants must learn the local language to be truly integrated. While language is undoubtedly a powerful tool for communication and access to opportunities, it is not an absolute requirement for integration. Consider the case of indigenous peoples within many countries, who may speak a language other than the dominant one or may have limited proficiency in it. Their cultural and linguistic differences do not make them any less a part of the nation. If we accept that indigenous communities, with their distinct languages and traditions, are integral parts of the society, why should the same standard not apply to immigrants?
Moreover, many native-born citizens may also struggle with the local language or may choose not to engage with broader community activities. Does this mean they are not integrated? Of course not. Integration should not be measured by the language one speaks but by their adherence to the laws and norms that govern society.
The myth of a unified set of national values
Another argument often made is that immigrants must share and adopt the values of the host country. But this raises a crucial question: What exactly are these values? In a diverse society, is there even a consensus on what these values are?
Values such as freedom, equality, and justice are often cited, but these are broad concepts that can be interpreted in various ways. Moreover, there are significant differences in how these values are understood and prioritised across different communities within the same country. For example, the value placed on individualism versus collectivism can vary widely. The idea that there is a single set of “national values” that all immigrants must adopt is a simplification that ignores the rich diversity of thought and belief that exists within any free society.
Before we can ask immigrants to share in these values, we must first define them clearly and ensure there is broad agreement among the existing population. Even then, expecting complete alignment on these values may be unrealistic. A free society, by definition, must allow for a diversity of perspectives and beliefs.
The need for a clear definition of integration
The real issue is not whether immigrants are integrating but rather how we define integration in the first place. If integration is understood merely as compliance with the law and respect for others’ rights and freedoms, then the vast majority of immigrants are indeed integrated. However, if we impose additional, more subjective criteria – such as language fluency or participation in certain cultural practices – then we risk creating a society that is less free, less tolerant, and less inclusive.
What is needed is a clear and agreed-upon definition of integration that reflects the values of a free society. This definition should focus on the principles of lawfulness and respect for the rights of others, rather than on cultural or linguistic conformity. It should recognise that integration does not mean assimilation into a monolithic culture but rather coexistence within a diverse and pluralistic society.
Integration as mutual understanding
Ultimately, integration is a two-way process. It requires not only that immigrants understand and respect the laws of their new country but also that the host society recognises and respects the diversity that immigrants bring. A free society thrives on this diversity, and it is through mutual understanding and respect that true integration is achieved.
We must move beyond simplistic and restrictive notions of what it means to be integrated. Only by clearly defining integration in a way that aligns with the principles of freedom and respect can we foster a society where everyone – immigrant and native-born alike – can coexist and thrive.