European Migratory System

Many states in Europe have reviewed their policies to suit the changing trend of immigration. France and Netherlands are such states that have moved strongly to oppose the post-war immigration policies.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on European Migratory System specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Scholars observe that governments have been forced to come up with strategies aiming at weakening national uniqueness. Integration policies are preferred in solving immigration problems that have crippled the continent since 1945. Therefore, European immigration policies can be understood in terms of integration rather than nationalism. National models have been abolished mainly because they rely too much on regulations and institutions (Freeman 3). Even the more democratic states that had strong and representative policies have been urged to comply with the international immigration policies. Integration is much better beca use it means peaceful coexistence. Assimilation meant that foreigners had to abandon their cultures and follow those of French (Joppke 10). Even Germany has reviewed its segregating immigration laws hence incorporating each person in its culture. The November 2004 European Council agreement laid down basic laws of migrant integration rule, which presented a new challenge to European member states. The policies were reached at after the postwar civil liberty progression, global stipulations as well as national legal systems. Such systems ensure that individuals enjoy their rights irrespective of the country they are in or place of origin.Advertising Looking for essay on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In other words, all states that claim to be democratic must respect diversity and appreciate the existence of other races within its territory. The EU immigration policies stipulate that foreigners must be integrated in the financial system and be allowed to access or participate in socio-political activities. This policy has been unrealistic because rarely does a society change because of the arrival of few members. In most cases, foreigners are left to struggle for survival with the aboriginal members, which ends up affecting the societal structure. Upon arrival in the region, an immigrant is supposed to adhere to EU’s rules and regulations. These include respect for human rights, supporting egalitarianism and respect of law. This means that political values are held with high esteem as opposed to moral standards. The society decides on what is right and moves to cooperate in achieving it. Immigrant’s culture and language is valued in integration policy unlike assimilation where foreigners were requested to drop their culture and adopt western customs. New immigration policies have uplifted standards since non-skilled persons are not allowed to enter any EU member sta te. Foreigners are expected to depend on themselves while in Europe. For this case, they are given work permits to seek any form of employment. Integration policies are largely accredited to the Dutch since the government wanted a constant labor force following the 1980s shortage. Overall, an immigrant must past integration test in order to be awarded work permit. Germany funded its language program in other non-EU member states. Such immigrants would be given work permits after completion of the course.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on European Migratory System specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The system was highly controlled by the state in order to eliminate unwanted characters from entering Germany. Germany has a tighter immigration laws as compared to Netherlands and France. Integration is not a genuine immigration policy. The bourgeoisie in the developed countries uses the policy to exploit the poor immigra nts. Immigrants are not paid the same wages as their native counterparts. The laws were deliberately formulated to guarantee steady supply of labor. Immigrants perceived to be lazy and the physically disadvantaged are never granted citizenship easily. One of the requirements of integration test is educational qualification. The most qualified and experienced professionals are granted permits and citizenship without objection. The many refugees in various parts of the world have never been urged to apply for EU citizenship. Athletes and other sportsmen are usually lured to take up EU citizenship because of talent. It is therefore concluded that capitalism is another driving force behind integration policy. The rich want to use the skills of the poor immigrants to enrich themselves in one way or another. EU immigration policies are no wonder political. Policies aim at benefiting the elites not the society in general. In reality, there is nothing as integration because immigrants are r equired to pass integration test, which assesses mostly language proficiency. Integration policies aim at boosting the economies of host nations rather than assisting foreigners. Integration policy is not applied to all immigrants. Foreigners from the Middle East are subjected to a different policy. Even though they are Muslims, the Turks are treated comparatively better (Koopmans 27).Advertising Looking for essay on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More However, they are not given decent treatment as other members of the EU. Therefore, religion is another feature or variable that informs EU immigration policies. Although member states are allowed to enforce integration policies, it is true that regionalism has eroded state sovereignty. The EU makes policies for member states forcing them to drop domestic strategies. In the international system, the weakening power of the state is attributed to globalization. Decisions are currently made on global basis meaning that a state cannot exist in isolation. Each region is struggling to come up with policies that guarantee its future survival. Even the most powerful states such as Britain and France are seeking protection through a regional bloc. France was the second state to drop its domestic immigration laws in favor of regional immigration policies. Supranational organizations dictate what states should do. However, the international system has not changed in any significant way. The ch anges achieved are not enough to warrant a new system. The powerful states still impose policies on the less developed ones. Economic powerhouses influenced the EU to come up with policies that benefit them. France, Germany and Great Britain ensured that other EU member states append their signatures to integration policies. Some states are yet to implement the provisions of the EU immigration policies meaning that the laws contravene their wishes and interests (King 75). In this sense, realism theory manifests itself in Europe since each state wants to implement policies that benefit its people. The international system is anarchic and brutish in nature because the EU only makes policies but leaves each state to implement them in the best way possible. States have not formed a Leviathan that oversees the activities of each person. The EU is used by the developed nations meaning that it does not represent the interests of the majority in Europe (Nikolas 105). Even the global immigra tion laws are not applied uniformly. Each state including those in Europe has their on immigration regulations. The regional or global regimes exist only through the good will of member states. In case of serious violations, the global bodies have no military to intervene neither do they have independent conflict resolution mechanisms to apply in solving tensions. Immigration therefore is a global issue that needs to be addressed by states not global institutions. Works Cited Freeman, Gary. â€Å"Immigrant Incorporation in western Democracies.† International Migration review, 38.3, 2004, 945-969. Joppke, Christian. â€Å"Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe†. West European Politics, 30.1, 2007, 1-22. King, Desmond. In the Name of Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Koopmans, Ruud. â€Å"Migrant Mobilization and Political Opportunities: Variation Among German Cities and a Comparison with the United Kingdom a nd the Netherlands.† Journal of Ethnic and Migration studies, 30.3, 2004, 449-470. Nikolas, Rose. Powers of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. This essay on European Migratory System was written and submitted by user Damon P. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

How to cut the cowardly language and say what you mean

How to cut the cowardly language and say what you mean Cut the cowardly language Cowardly writing is the linguistic equivalent of your unreliable ex. It avoids committing. It leads you astray. It wastes your time. And it evades all entreaties to be straightforward or say what it really thinks. You can recognise it by its long sentences, convoluted structure and overuse of words and phrases such as ‘clearly’, ‘it may be assumed that’ and ‘there is evidence that’, with no verifiable evidence in sight. These vague, deceptive or empty proclamations are also known as ‘hedges’ or ‘weasel words’ (so called because of weasels’ habit of sucking the insides out of eggs, leaving a shell that still looks full). Linguistics professor Ken Hyland defines hedging as ‘any linguistic means used to indicate either a) a lack of complete commitment to the truth value of an accompanying proposition, or b) a desire not to express that commitment categorically.’ Â  The hedging writer distances themselves from their own content, either out of insecurity or a lack of knowledge: ‘it may be believed that’ is a big, frightened step away from ‘I believe that’. Come out, come out So why do people hide behind woolly wording? Well, because actually saying something can be scary. It puts you at risk: of being questioned, proved wrong, or held accountable. Long, overly complex sentences and unnecessary jargon are often a sign that someone’s trying to hide something – perhaps the fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about. And even if they do know, it’s going to look to the reader like they don’t or that they’re a bit shifty. Editor Patrick Neylan lives up to his Twitter handle @AngrySubEditor on the subject of cowardice in language, and the causes behind it. ‘Usually [the writer’s] only goal is to have written To have been understood is a worry. To have inspired action in others is terrifying.’ Pull the wool Of course, the whole point of writing is to inform and inspire, not confound. And if your writing goal is to persuade or encourage your reader to take action, you’re more likely to achieve this if you are clear and sound authoritative. So here’s how to pull the wool from your writing – and therefore your readers’ eyes: Start by knowing what you actually want to say: do your research, plan, and structure logically. Ask yourself the all-important questions: who, where, why, what, how – and how much does it cost? And dont start writing until youre firm on the answers. Avoid the temptation to cover your back. Never mind ‘it could be said that’: are you saying it or not? Be direct – don’t qualify everything with ‘possibly’s and ‘perhaps’s (unless you’re making the point that something is uncertain): state facts, reference them, and note their implications. Use the most direct words possible to make the relation between things clear, eg ‘because’ not ‘due to the fact that’. Favour simple sentence structure (subject-verb-object) wherever possible, eg ‘Prices have fallen.’ Remove words and phrases that add nothing but ink. For example, ‘consensus of opinion’ (just ‘consensus or ‘opinion’ will do), ‘as is explained below’ (are you explaining it twice?), ‘as the case may be’, and ‘at the overall level’. Speaking of inspiration, we could all do with some. Consider then, these wise words from Chinese artist and political activist Ai Weiwei,: ‘Say what you need to say plainly, and then take responsibility for it.’ Or, with @AngrySubEditor’s tough love approach: ‘(Wo)man up; say what you’ve got to say, say it briefly, then shut up.’ Image credit: Elena Yakusheva / Shutterstock