Country Analysis of Immigration Policies

Country Analysis of Immigration Policies Throughout history, the handling of integration of immigrants in any country has been a pressing political issue. There is no exception in Europe. Although there has been a recent spike in favorable feeling towards minorities in Europe, there are still countries, such as Italy or Germany, that have a deep rooted hatred towards some groups. On the other hand, Countries like France, and Sweden have shown upward movement in the public opinion towards minority groups. Some of the more blatantly discriminated groups in Europe are people who identify as Muslim, and those who identify as Roma. These two groups have long heritages in Europe, and have faced discrimination throughout their history. Because France is has been noticeably proposing policies to help integrate the minority population, it serves as a good country to compare to those that hold a less favorable view on their minorities, such as Greece. The population of a country is key in defining an identity for that country, and so me countries try harder than others to alter who represents them. Although most countries in Europe have a problem integrating immigrants into their social and political systems, France has been a country that has shown the most potential for integration. The recent events occurring in Paris, involving Muslim radicals killing 13 political cartoonists, hasnt helped with integration, but the progress is more evident on other levels. A good benchmark in the upward trend of French opinion on minorities is when Nicholas Sarkozy took office in 2007. Three Muslims, Rama Yade, Rachida Dati and Fadela Amara, were named Secretary of State for Human Rights, Minister of Justice, and the Minister responsible for city housing, respectively. These are huge jobs that have major influence in policies that affect minorities. Part of having a collective identity is integrating the people who arent originally from the country being represented, and minority integration into the government of France is an enormous step forward towards full integration of minorities in France. â€Å"If three-quarters of naturalized immigrants â€Å"feel French,† nationality is not everything. The adoption of a French national feeling among non-naturalized immigrants is quite noteworthy here: more than half of non-naturalized immigrants feel French, and two-thirds of those from North Africa. If a result deserves comment, it is not the lack of adoption of national identity by immigrants and their descendants but rather the strength of that adoption† (Simon, 2012). This quote directly addresses the idea that French immigrants feel a sense of collective identity. In comparison to other countries, this number is very high, and has been increasing steadily. Another aspect that heavily affects the integration of immigrants into a given country is the accessibility of immigration. One of the biggest aspects of French immigration is the idea of duel-citizenship. This means citizens of foreign countries can hold their citizenship in that country, while also be coming a citizen of France. Although Poland holds a similar policy, France allows for an easier transition to citizenship as it promotes children who have been in France to remain in France, while allowing them to keep their original heritage. According to Simon, â€Å" . . . 64 percent of immigrants who arrived before the age of 10 acquired French citizenship, as did 53 percent of those who came between the ages of 10 and 16, and 32 percent of those who arrived after age 16† (Simon, 2012). The reason this information is important is because it shows people who immigrate to France embed their children with French ideas and culture enough that it becomes a part of their heritage. It shows that immigrants in France enjoy their roots in the country, and want to continue their lineage as French citizens. Immigration is an aspect of collective identity that identifies a countries acceptance, and the promotion of integration can lie within the immigration policies of a country. Like France, Germany has shown an upward movement in the general opinion on integration of immigrants, but the rich history of discrimination and the policies that still exist from it are hard to alter, thus making it hard to change opinions. German policy makers have attempted to change these embedded ideals, but their work is in the short term, when in actuality, a long term plan is heavily needed. Migration flows have been low over the past decade in Germany, (Rita, 2009) and this has caused policy makers to focus on other aspects of the country, which is detrimental as the policies made for immigration need to be long lasting and flexible with the tides of migration. Germany has made this mistake before, between 1950 and 1970. They ignored integration policies when there was a huge influx of guest workers immigrating to Germany, causing a greater social inequality for said workers. This ignorance of policy remained active until recently. The quality of immigrants has also never r eally been on Germanys side throughout its history. The recent swing from Turkish, low-skilled labor workers to European families shows very few high-skilled labor workers, also creating social disparity. This a big aspect of Germany that differs from France. While there is an influx of third-country nationalists in France, Germany has a very miniscule percentage of their immigrants coming from this category. Students of German heritage are much more likely to follow an education path than immigrant students, as well as immigrants being much more likely to be unemployed than non-immigrants. Another aspect affecting German immigrant integration is the economy. When the economy is poor in a country, the idea of locking up jobs for citizens is more favorable, and in January 2009, 8.3 percent of Germanys workforce was considered unemployed (Rita, 2009). This is a huge cause for concern because of the lack of policies that support integration. One of the best ways to overcome a deficit i s to understand that everyone is needed in a country, and increasing the workload for foreigners is a good way to strengthen the economy. The holes in the collective identity of Germany restrict the contribution of immigrants, and really allows the country to suffer as a result. Compared to France, Germany has marginally lower rates of naturalization, as well as stricter policies on voting, which shows a lack of inclusion in society for foreigners. These aspects, on top of very restricted work visa applications contribute to an aging society, a declining economy, and social inequality throughout Germany. Along with the recent decline of the Euro, and economies belonging to the European Union declining, the ECB, or European Central Bank has began a process of Quantitative-easing, which mean they will purchase 80 billion Euros worth of bonds from EU countries over the next 18 months to kick-start their economies. This has been met with mixed responses, most being good, yet there are some countries that feel that it is a bit over intrusive and that it will have an adverse effect. Two countries opposing each other on this issue are Greece and Italy. Both countries have their reasoning for their ideas on the policy, and both make good points to support their arguments. The president of each country have spoken out about the policy, making the outcry very political and important. The fall of the Euro has created a pressing issue for the ECB, and they have been attempting to determine the best plan of action in fixing its value. The plan they have proposed will attempt to bail out countries in debt buy purchasing a large amount of bonds from each one. Italys president, Pier Carlo Padoan, has spoken out in support of the plan saying it has â€Å" . . . already being successful through a declining euro.† Padoan said a â€Å"weaker euro is in line with the single currency area’s long-term economic outlook and will boost Italy’s recovery this year† (Rotondi, 2015). Padoan also says that the new plan will increase Italys GDP by a percent, as the new Euro trend promotes Italian export firms. Italys past few years of having an on and off declining economy fears that low rates of inflation will lead to high rates of deflation, and the new plan of QE will help reduce the risks of full deflation. One aspect of the plan says that it will incre ase the budget of Italys bank, while at the same time not exposing it to any new risks. This is key because when you change such a massive influence of money in an economy, there are usually risks associated with trading with new countries, larger debts, and other economic downfalls. The biggest upside to the QE program for Italy is that it will increase the banks interest in funding private organizations, increasing the value of financial activities. Greece is an example of a country that opposes the QE implemented by the CBE, and they have a few main arguments as to why they oppose it. As of March, 2015, they were not one of the countries included in the list to buy bonds from. This will change if the bonds they purchased from the ECB mature by this summer. Internally, Greece is dealing with their own bailout scheme they implemented that restricts their addition to the QE plan. Their biggest argument is that it does not promote private investing, which is what it aims to do. Greeces president, Yanis Varoufakis has openly stated â€Å"QE could prove both unsustainable and incapable of boosting private credit growth and investment in productive activities,† Varoufakis said. â€Å"Imagine an alternative plan to QE where the EIB will take its marching orders to lead an investment-led recovery for Europe. I’d like to call that the Merkel plan.† This shows the lack of trust that Greeces government has for the plan , and even though they are currently exempt from it, it also shows their mindset for controlling their own economy for the years to come. It is important for Greece to become a country being bailed out by the ECB because the bank no longer accepts Greek bonds, forcing them to rely on emergency liquid assistance, which is a more expensive and damaging asset. Both countries face strenuous economic conditions, and the plan proposed by the ECB seems to benefit most. Greece has internal issues that they must iron out before being included, but once they do it seems there is room for an upward trend in their economy. Minority groups attempting to define themselves in European countries is a long lasting fight that has led to many reforms in governments, as well as society itself. One minority group that is good to compare between countries is homosexuals. Homosexuals have been oppressed throughout history, and most European countries are no exception to this. In fact, how forward the Netherlands are in their policies on homosexuality makes them the perfect country to counter against a country with harsher ideals, such as Russia. Determining a countries collective identity begins with the people, and for a country to have a strong identity, they must recognize all of its people. If certain groups of people cannot be represented, it creates a gap in society, and allows for discrimination. Homosexuality has been an issue that every country has to face, as it is a way of life. Some countries handle it well, and include homosexuals in their identity, while others brush them under the table and hinder their representation. Russia has for a very long time been considered to have a conservative view on homosexuality. It wasnt until 1999 that being a homosexual was considered a mental illness. This absurd legislation was eventually changed, but the fact that it remained for such a long time is a bit unnerving. The problem stems from a long history of institutionalized discrimination towards the homosexual community. For example, the police in Russia does not keep records of hate crimes towards homosexuals, instead treating them as common crimes. Also, there have been numerous studies showing that in cases involving a homosexual victim, the police have exhibited a lack of interest towards closing the cases, and most of them do not even reach the courts. This disinterest towards homosexuals rights, supports the notion that it is institutionalized, and represents how harsh the treatment of the homosexual community is. Furthermore, the recent rise in radical groups labeling themselves as â€Å"social movemen ts† has shown no favorable attitudes towards homosexuals. A group named â€Å"Occupy Pedophiles† was created in 2012 to actively seek homosexuals and commit acts of violence towards them. Vigilante groups such as this one are becoming more common in Russia, as groups of people aim to prevent their children, and the future of the country from being subjected to homosexuality. The most recent issue involving homosexual rights in Russia came to light during the most recent Olympics. Russian legislation passed a law saying it is illegal to hand out homosexual â€Å"propaganda† to children, including hosting activist events and rallies. Also included was a law stating that same-sex couples could not adopt children. These are recent, relevant examples showing that Russia has not taken many strides towards equality. There is a large homosexuality community in Russia that in not represented, and fearful to express their views as it puts a target on their backs and remove s them from society. Its not until Russia reviews these laws that there will be a true representation of homosexuals, and until then, the countrys identity is blemished. The Netherlands on the other hand, has a long history of homosexual acceptance, and welcomes them into the identity created for Dutch society. As the first country in the world to adopt a policy of same-sex marriage, it has long been considered a front runner in not only European acceptance, but across the globe as well. In comparison the Russia, 30% of homosexuals feel some sort of discrimination (EUAFR, 2012). Also, according to the survey, The Netherlands have the highest percentage of population that supports homosexuals living as they wish. With collective identity as the issue, this shows that the people of The Netherlands accept homosexuals into their society, allowing them to be a part of their identity. The greatest aspect of this tolerance is shown in the fact that even though they are considered heavily progressive when it comes to homosexual rights, The Netherlands is still proposing policies that will strengthen relations within itself and with other countries. This init iative remains constant with their stance on the issue throughout history, and promotes equality for the present and future. According to the LGBT and Gender Equality Policy Plan of the Netherlands 2011 – 2015, one of the main focuses of strengthening homosexual relations involves increasing social awareness. Their two main points of focus are: increasing the rights of same-sex couples and the legal parenthood that comes with it, as well as increasing homosexual equality. The first issue addresses the fact that kids raised in homosexual households should have the same status as those raised in heterosexual ones. This key to developing the future citizens ideas on how identity works in their country. If kids grow up separated from other kids because their parents are homosexuals, it creates alienation which alters identity. The second aspect handles more administrative business of homosexual equality. For example, homosexual men may not donate blood, due to the higher risk of STDs. There are a few countries in Europe that allow this under certain conditions, so the plan will attempt to rewrite the laws for donating blood based upon these countries. Even though this is a small aspect of everyday life, each discriminatory law that is altered is a victory for the homosexual community in Europe. Democracy is an idea that has been around for years, but is still a work in progress to determine the best way to implement it. Public participation is key to any democracy, as the people of the country in discussion must be involved with the government to be heard. There is no one way to run a democracy, and this is evident when comparing different countries public participation. The UK has a long history of public involvement, and is showing progression to allow for more. They involve the citizens in many aspects of government, reaching out explicitly to obtain the public opinion on certain issues. Poland, on the other hand faces difficulties in this section because of old policies and failure to reform them. A new constitution is being worked on, but the constraints of the old one prohibit the involvement of the public in creating a new one. One of the basic rights of many countries is public involvement in the government, and this is detrimental to the success of democracy. The United Kingdom is known for its progressiveness in public involvement, and it serves as a guide for other countries looking to become more democratic. There are, however, some issues that they face when dealing with public involvement. â€Å"One of the biggest problems in UK participation today is that the focus has been on quantity rather than quality. Two common assumptions that many people hold are that ‘participation is always a good thing’ and that ‘if we build it they will come’. We often assume that there is a vast untapped reserve of active people who want to get involved.† (Bucharest, 2008). This quote is a good start on determining the UKs stance on public involvement, as it highlights the common assumptions held in the country, and underlines the issues they face when dealing with it. What the statement, â€Å"quantity over quality† refers to in this sense is that the group of people who influence governmental decisions in the UK is a small one. The ‘Audit of Political Engagement’ survey for 2007 shows that only â€Å"12% of the British population could be said to be activists and almost half had not taken part in any form of political activity (in the broadest sense) whatsoever.† (Hansard Society, 2008). This is a problem because this percentage doesnt represent the UKs people as a whole. Most of this percentage is elderly, white males with an education, and minorities are represented with just a percent. So what causes the lack of interest in policy making and government regulation? There are a few answers to this question. One is a lack of faith from the public that their voices will be heard. This can be stemmed from bad processes in law-making, making the voter feel as though the decisions have already been made before the vote happens. The system in place if run correctly is sound, but most activists will tell you that their opinions are pushed under the rug by politicians who have their own agendas. Another reason why there seems to be a lack of interest from the UKs public toward policy making is a sort of egocentric mindset that many countries have, which is the idea that if a policy doesnt affect someone personally, then they wont deem it important to them and wont get involved. This is a commonality, but what governments like the UK do is try and make the process sought after by more people. Their goal is to increase the percentage of people who vote to become more involved, which will also increase the amount of people who vote in general.

Introduction to the Rajputs Essay

A Rajput is a member of one of the landowning patrilineal clans of central and northern India. Rajputs consider themselves descendants of one of the major ruling warrior groups of the Hindu Kshatriya varna ( social order ) in the Indian subcontinent, particularly North India. The Rajputs rose to prominence during the 6th to 12th centuries, and until the 20th century Rajputs ruled in the â€Å"overwhelming majority† of the princely states of Rajasthan and Saurashtra, where the largest number of princely states were found. They are divided into three major lineages. The Rajput empire spread in many countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Southeast Asia and some parts of Tibet. The four Agnivanshi clans namely the Pariharas (Pratihara), Solankis (Chalukya dynasty) Paramaras and Chahamanas rose to prominence first, establishing territories and creating kingdoms. The Rajputs were mainly feudal lords under the over-lordship of the rulers belonging to Pratiharas à ¢â‚¬â€œ a dynasty that ruled until the 10th century. Gradually, they attained the status of independent rulers. Their dominion spread over most parts of north India. In the north-west region known as Rajputana, which comprises the present day Rajasthan and parts of Pakistan. The Rajput community comprised of the Chauhans of East Punjab, Northern Rajasthan and Delhi, the Rathores of Uttar Pradesh, the Paramaras of Central India and the Tomars of Gwalior and later, Delhi. Of these the Chauhans and the Rathores were dominant clans. The Rajput though brave and chivalrous often succumbed to inter-clan rivalries, which proved advantageous for the Muslim rulers during the medieval period. The Rajputs being a dominant Hindu clan offered heavy resistance to the Muslim rulers who spread their rule over India during the medieval period. The Rajput princes maintained their own independent princely kingdoms. Some of the brave Rajput rulers who have been made their names eternal in Indian history are Prithviraj Chauhan, Rana Kumbha, Rana Sangram Singh, Rana Udai Singh and Maharana Pratap. Prithviraj Chauhan proved to be the last Rajput ruler of Delhi. The Chauhans, led by Govinda, grandson of Prithviraj, later established a small state centered around Rathambore in present-day Rajasthan. The Rajput lifestyle was designed to foster a martial spirit, with men even forging a bond with their sword. The double-edged scimitar known as the khanda was a popular weapon among the Rajputs of that era. On special occasions, primary chief would break up a meeting of his vassal chiefs with khanda nariyal, the distribution of daggers and coconuts. Many Rajputs are nostalgic about their past and keenly conscious of their genealogy, emphasizing a Rajput ethos that is martial in spirit, with a fierce pride in lineage and tradition. The Rajput rulers had a keen sense of beauty in art and architecture which is seen in the artistic excellence of their temples, forts and palaces. The Indo-Aryan style of architecture developed in North India and Upper Deccan and the Dravidian style in South India during the Rajput period. Both sculpture and architecture attained a high degree of excellence. e.g. The Rathas of Mahabalipuram or Mammallapuram, the Kailash temple at Ellora and the sculpture of Elephanta belonging to the early Rajput period ( 600 Ad to 900 AD ) The temple architecture of Orissa, Khajuraho, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and the Pallava, Chola and Hoysala temples in the South belong to the later Rajput period. ( 900 AD to 1200 AD )

Why do men and women have such different experiences of health?

In looking at the question â€Å"Why do men and women have such different experiences of health†, I am going to look into topics such as Biological differences, Gender responsibilities, and Sociological explanations. The diversity in male and females health begins from puberty, usually around the age of ten to fifteen in both sexes. Young women begin their menstrual cycle at an average age of thirteen, so it is acceptable to say that they are aware of their Physical self early on in life, women are more likely to visit their doctor as a result of menstruation, and are also encouraged by their friends, family and the Media to seek medical advice when they have a concern about their sexual health, which would lead to Routine visits for smear tests, or contraceptive advice. Conversely young men would not usually bother to go to the doctor possibly for the reason that they do not want to cause a fuss, or even their peers dismiss their ailment, with comments similar to â€Å"be a man†. Another biological factor is connected to differences in physical make-up other than biological function. This view is based on different genetic features; for example women are generally smaller and so men are generally considered to be stronger. This view is, however fraught with inconsistencies because of the variations that obviously exist in physical attributes among men and women. It also ignores social and cultural factors that are vital to any appreciation of gender. Our ideas in society tend to construct gender differences in health problems, there appears to be some evidence that men take more risks than women such as dangerous sports, Violent activities and hazardous occupations. Although women tend to consult doctors more often statistics suggest they have more ill health, this could be because women in their socially produced gender roles are seen as more acceptable to show weakness and seek medical help and also if they are going to the doctor they are more likely to be diagnosed, possibly if men visited the doctor more often there would be a change in that statistic. In childbirth, reproduction, and mental health, women are more likely to be given prescriptions for anti-depressants or tranquillisers, men however are more likely to have alcohol problems, a more socially acceptable response to stress than it is for women, although statistics indicate that women are catching up with men in the drinking stakes. A woman's role is often looking after everyone in the family so she tends to carry an added burden of stress with an attitude of having to soldier on with her responsibilities so she may be prone to physical and mental disorders. Victims of social and economic circumstances women tend to suffer from what is known as â€Å"housewife syndrome† the isolation and constant decision making involved in housework are very stressful as is the responsibility of looking after young children and managing a job, and of course we must not forget single mums they have the extra stress of either being on benefits and trying to feed themselves and their children as healthily as they can, or being the only wage earner trying to do the same with very little time to relax which is a contributing factor towards stress not forgetting, men are single parents as well and do suffer from the same financial factors as single mothers. In addition there are certain illnesses that women suffer from because of their biology such as post-natal depression, and the menopause, because women tend to live longer they are more likely to suffer from degenerative disorders like arthritis and senile dementia. And an alarming 21% of women suffer from some form of disability. Men are more at risk from Coronary heart disease and there is an increase in men only disorders such as Prostate, Testicular, and Bowel cancer. Gender social roles are becoming less important, girls are doing better than boys at school, they are more career minded than ever, the emphasis is on fending for themselves, its almost as if they don't need men. So where does that leave men? There is substantial evidence that more and more men live alone, there is an increase in the rates of mental illness, suicide, and even eating disorders. Present day mobility, lack of roots, weakened family structure and increased pressure to succeed have all been suggested as playing a part in the growing trend toward high suicide rates in young men. There are more emotional support networks aimed at women, leaving men feeling isolated, although the last five years has seen a boom in men's magazines such as FHM, Loaded and Maxim. These magazines investigate a large number of health issues concerning men, and they incorporate relevant medical information such as home examination of their testicals in a jocular light hearted way, they also contain contact numbers and advice lines, which must be a reasurance for men. The artefact theory suggests that the use of surveys for statistics is inaccurate because it fails to take into consideration the clinical iceberg where it is unknown how many people suffer illness as they don't always report it, also most health care happens in the home, usually women treating symptoms by self care. In the case of postal surveys not everyone will respond and generally women fill in the forms for other family members. It is also unreliable because the figures relate to males of working age and not females, or older and younger people also statistics change all the time. However a survey carried out in 1992 showed that there were major gender differences in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour relating to health. These figures come from surveys like the General Household Survey (GHS) which is a continuous survey based on a small sample of the population resident in private households in the UK, included in this survey are questions on fertility, housing, health, employment and education.

Why Did Civil War Begin - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 647 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/05/18 Category History Essay Level High school Topics: Civil War Essay War Essay Did you like this example? In 1861 the Civil War commenced, but why? Yes you may know some little tidbits but do you know the real reasons? Well yes slavery caused it, but why did the north not like it? You may think its pretty self explanatory, but why did the south like it and the north was so strongly against it and how did they have such different opinions on it? What caused those opinions? What else caused it or was it just slavery? This was such a big issue because people were not being treated like living beings they were being treated like objects. They were taken away from their family, beaten and forced to work all day and all night. This caused slaves to revolt against the South.. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Why Did Civil War Begin?" essay for you Create order Well in the north people began to oppose slavery for many reasons. Some Northerners wanted to end slavery because they felt that it was an unfair advantage to the south. Well yes it may give them some advantages to the south like they would get things done faster but that still didnt erase the fact that they were being so morbid to these people. That is how some Northerners felt that it wasnt moral. In the article Why did northerners want to end slavery in the first place? Donald Mcarthur states Some saw the 3/5 compromise of the Constitution counting 3/5 of a states slave population in determining its representation in Congress and its weight in the Electoral College as giving southern states undue influence in the Federal government and the presidency basically saying that slavery was unfair and unjust. Reason two that slavery was such a big problem is because so many northerners felt that it was unfair to them because the south had so much more money, they got more work done and they did it faster so they were able to get more money because they were able to sell more in a quicker amount of time. As much as the northerners wanted to change this they couldnt. In the article How Slavery Became the Economy Engine of the South by Greg Timmons, he says If the Confederacy had been a separate nation, it would have ranked as the fourth richest in the world at the start of the Civil War. Meaning that this was the Souths economy as much as they wanted to get rid of slaves, the South would never agree to it. Thats why they had to start the Civil War. Reason three is that was unfair to slaves. That was an odd statement right? Of course its unfair. People shouldnt judge other people on their skin color. Thats one reason the slaves hated it. They hated slavery because obviously it was unfair, they would get beaten, they barely got any food, and they didnt get paid. In the article Why is Slavery Wrong? Bob Krumm states Slavery is wrong because it is based on violence. He says this because truly it is. If one of the slaves didnt do something properly or quick enough they would be beaten or sometimes even killed. Bob Krumm also states In such cases as these, racism is not a motive for slavery. But still, would it not be wrong to enslave your neighbor, or even your son? Of course it would. So, if slavery is wrong even when racism is not its cause, then there must still be something about slavery that is itself inherently wrong. Saying that we shouldnt treat slaves like this just because of the way that they look. In conclusion, the Civil War began because of how many problems slavery caused. The North thought the South had an unfair advantage, the South was making more money, and the slaves wanted to revolt because they didnt like the way they were treated. Although the Civil War caused lots of tragedies, hopefully we can learn from it.