Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Set legislation to promote or force acceptance via legislation, as opposed to acceptance via assimilation.
|
I don't see it as promoting or forcing acceptance. I see it as protecting the vulnerable, in order to safekeep their efforts to integrate and make all things as equal as possible. Obviously, people can still choose not to integrate--and natives can still choose to dislike foreigners--no legislation is going to change the attitudes of those types of people. But at least in that sense, there is no violent threat to not integrating--people are free to live as they wish, within the rule of the law, regardless of what group they belong to.
If the context of reception is at least neutral (at best, welcoming), and not hostile/violent to the minority... then the burden truly remains on the minority members themselves to integrate. But that never happens--the context of reception for immigrants/outsiders is initially almost never positive or even neutral, and yes, that does have an effect on their attitude/willingness towards integration.
Native residents very rarely consider that consequence of their behavior towards outsiders, but I believe that is the point of anti-hate-crime legislation and why it must take a different tack than regular crime legislation. It is meant to put a stop to (or at least lessen the effect of) perpetuating historical wrongs, and to protect the rights of a minority from a sometimes hostile majority. In a utopia, such legislation will no longer be necessary--but we're not there yet, by far.