Migrants must make the effort to assimilate into society

If the Grand Mufti’s appeal for dialogue fell on deaf ears he should hardly be surprised. He was speaking, after all, in Arabic, a language incomprehensible to 98.7 per cent of the population.

“We want proper dialogue,” explained his patient translator, “so that we can engage into learning exercises and to refute any misperceptions.”

After 18 years in this country, one presumes that Ibrahim Abu Mohammed spoke Arabic by choice. As a tactic for refuting misperceptions, it wasn’t the most helpful way to start.

Indeed, it served to reinforce the perceptions that some migrants are less successful than others at integrating into the broader society. It fuelled a deeper anxiety; that for some migrants, separatism is not an accident but a deliberate choice.

The Grand Mufti’s distinction between “us” and the “rest of the Australian society” will make many uncomfortable. Is he encouraging his followers to live seamless, integrated lives like other migrants or does he expect they will forever live in hermetic enclaves?

We hear no calls for “proper dialogue” between, say, Cantonese or Sri Lankan migrants and the mainstream community. Why? Because for them dialogue just happens. It occurs through chance encounters in schools, tearooms, yoga classes and everywhere else citizens happen to bump into one another.

It is baffling why any left-leaning citizen should object to integration. Shared communal identity is essential for much the Left holds dear. It is, to use the modern jargon, inclusive. It ticks the box for equity, since an integrated society grants everyone with a legally obtained tax number the right to a fair go.

Yet a subversive few appear intent on overturning the inclusive approach that has prevailed for centuries. Asking children to sing the national anthem is part of an oppressive campaign of “forced ­assimilation” according to Hizb ut-Tahrir frontman Uthman Badar, who seems to hate just about everything in the country in which he lives.

Advance Australia Fair “reflects a disputed view of history”, claims Badar. He objects to the citizens’ oath of allegiance and its pledge of loyalty to Australia “whose democratic beliefs I share”.

“It’s not enough that you obey the law, no, you have to adopt our values,” he said. Well yes, as it happens, because without shared national values there can be no trust, that invaluable commodity essential to commerce and civility.

It is unlikely that the Victorian teachers who excused Shi’ite Muslim students from singing the national anthem understand the damage they are doing, despite the anxiety they have aroused in the rest of the community. Frighteningly, they appear to have received the backing of the Education Department. It reminds us that diversity “includes understanding and respecting religious or cultural ­observances”, raising the question: which muddle-headed wombat writes this stuff?

Foolishness is rife in the immigration debate where emotional indignation too often trumps empirical evidence. So it is refreshing to consider the cool-headed framework for multiculturalism provided by economist Paul ­Collier. Exodus, his 2012 book on the subject, becomes more pertinent by the day.

He points out that assimilation, as opposed to separatism, has generally proved to be a far more successful foundation for prosperity and social cohesion. A common language is manifestly convenient and helps foster mutual regard, writes Collier. “Migrants who are unwilling to learn the local language are free-riding on the public goods that a common language has helped to foster.”

For Collier, trust, co-operation and mutual regard are not just Kumbaya words; they are the social and economic building blocks of a civilised nation.

The success of migration models is a product of the size of the program and the rate of integration.

Countries with successful migration models, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are able to accommodate large numbers of migrants because integration is swift. European countries, such as France, receive a smaller number of migrants per capita. Yet a lack of integration has exacted a high social cost.

“The higher the level of trust is on the part of the indigenous population, not just regarding migrants but each other, the easier it is for migrants to integrate,” writes Collier.

The size of the diaspora — the non-absorbed migrant population — is the crucial measure. The diaspora is a reflection of cultural distance that, by nature, fosters distrust. Separatism becomes self-reinforcing; migrant communities cut themselves off while non-­migrants hunker down.

Diasporas, once established, will grow exponentially unless checked by migration restrictions. They provide support networks for the newly arrived, lowering the cost of migration. All other things being equal, the larger the diaspora, the higher the rate of migration will be from the place from which the diaspora comes.

Collier’s analysis, set against the chaotic backdrop of Europe’s collapsing borders, should prompt us to reflect on the relative success of Australian multiculturalism and the threats to this happy condition.

While some are still uncomfortable about the word itself, Australian multiculturalism has developed into something quite different from that in most of Europe, where separatism has been widely tolerated and in some cases actively encouraged.

In last year’s Scanlon Foundation survey of social cohesion, only 10 per cent disagreed with the statement “multiculturalism has been good for Australia”.

It may be time to disentangle the words diversity and inclusiveness, which trip off the tongues of the bien pensant as if they were one and the same thing. If Collier is right — and it is hard to find evidence he is not — an emphasis on diversity hinders inclusion, which surely must be the ultimate goal.

Following this path requires making unfashionable choices; a policy of assimilation is unlikely to win plaudits in The Guardian. It means challenging the modern ­assumption that nationalism is akin to racism and confronting the pieties of cultural relativism. Some cultures, let’s face it, are more ­successful than others.

“Migrants themselves are voting with their feet,” writes Collier. “If a decent standard of living is something to be valued, then on this criterion not all cultures are equal.”

Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre.