There are many people, both in the US and the UK , who oppose immigration not on an economic, but on a cultural basis. They fear that their countries will become less cohesive.
This is a challenge to Epicureans, who believe in tolerance and live-and-let-live. Let me take a single example. In London, opposition to homosexuality is far more prevalent than in the rest of the country. This is despite London being traditionally seen as a haven for Britain’s gay community, and despite being traditionally one of the most tolerant and relaxed cities in the world.
This is owing to a growing immigrant community that is largely socially conservative in a country that is becoming more socially liberal. This culture conflict, which is religion-based, is likely to cause serious problems in the future. The taxpayer has to contribute towards “anything-goes” religious schools. For instance, there is at least one Jewish fundamentalist school in North London where the boys (only) arrive at 7 a.m and go home at about 8p.m. They study the Torah only, are kept away from their local community, and are taught that non-Jews must be avoided because the latter hate them. Moslem and Christian schools, likewise, are being influenced by religious extremists, making integration and social cohesion problematic.
Epicurus would have opposed this trend, which is divisive and breeds ignorance and suspicion where none existed before. If these people cannot integrate and be normal, tolerant citizens then they should go elsewhere. Unfortunately, they come because “elsewhere” doesn’t seem to produce acceptable government. A conundrum for us who subscribe to the inclusive world of Epicurus.
Sources: (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/is-londons-diversity-to-blame-for-its-unprogressive-views-on-homosexuality/)(http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/muslims-in-the-uk-are-now-attacking-mosques-does-that-make-them-islamophobic/) and (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33999801.)
(Topic and websites from Owen Bell)
Am I over-stating all this? One hears about homosexual hate attacks, of genital mutilation, forced marriages, and pre-historic attitudes towards women, all which are distasteful (but may be over-stated) It is the trend that is worrying. As migration grows, so will migrant communities cohere and be self-continuous, bringing with them unhealthy attitudes to anything that doesn’t conform with the views the migrants brought with them from Africa or the Middle East. Global cllimate change will be the biggest unseen but pervasive influence in this, and cultural atavism, posing as religion, will destroy enlightened cultures built up after centuries of struggle and strife. Will someone re-assure me?
The only reassurance I can give is that the second-generation immigrants will be just as influenced by the liberalism of British society as by the conservatism of their upbringing. But if many of these people are growing up isolated- like the Jewish boys you mention- then that likelihood is reduced. The other thing to mention is that it is not just Britain that is facing these challenges. The Danish are big eaters of pork, but some Muslim parents have called for pork to be banned in some Danish schools. In Israel, the ultra-religious Yeshiva students have tried to become exempt from the draft, but this has angered more secular Israelis who cannot apply for the exemption. There is controversy in America over the increasing use of Spanish in public life, and whether English should be aggressively promoted in the name of cultural unity.
It is tempting to become like Poland, Finland, South Korea or Japan: an ethnically homogeneous country where these issues don’t exist. But that could be considered a refusal to take up our moral obligations towards the world’s poorest and most desperate people.