Some Things Considered...

'Tis the season to get politically active in the United States. While our news feeds fill with political promise and scandal alike, here are a few thoughts to consider about immigration from a Norwegian perspective.

Before moving on, there are a few things to point out. Comparing the American and Norwegian immigration and citizenship services, keep these three things in mind:

1. Size Matters. Immigration to the United States is of a very different scale than immigration to Norway. The USA immigrants population reached 41.3 million in 2013; as of January 2015, Norway's total immigrant population reached 804,963 migrants.
   
2. But, different-different, same-same. Correcting for total population size, Norway and the USA are much more similar than they are different. Of Norway's nearly 5.5 million residents, 15.6% are immigrants. By comparison, immigrants comprise only 13.1% of the total US population.
   
3. Immigration is not homogeneous. Labor migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and family reunification account for most migration to the United States and Norway. In Norway refugees and asylum seekers account for the majority of migrants. In the USA labor migrants remain the most significant migrant group.

* * *

Visiting the Directorate of Immigration and Diversity (IMDi), I learned that the Norwegian immigration system has been crafted toward a vision of employment and integration. During the 1990s, failed efforts to integrate immigrants to Norway (mostly refugees) into the work force threatened to create an immigrant underclass. That would undermine Norway's efforts to have full employment, posing serious challenges of crime, overburdened welfare services, and declining social cohesion. The response was the creation of the Introductory Program in 2003.

The Introductory Program has one goal: to get migrants working. It accomplishes this through financial and educational components. Migrants are introduced to Norwegian bureaucracy and work life through the receipt of "wages" for daily participation in the program. Migrants are also trained in Norwegian language and culture, and they receive individual advisement. It is important to note that such benefits are only available to Norwegian refugees and asylum seekers; there is no state introductory program for labor migrants.

All such programs are implemented at the municipal level with state funding.

* * *

TLDR:

I don't assert that "we should do what they're doing in Norway," or that there is any right answer when it comes to immigration in the United States. But when the American immigration agency's citizenship checklist (here) looks like a list of eligibility requirements for a charity scholarship, I think it's safe to say things are getting a little too far off-base for my liking. What I want to see in this country is a vision executed consistently and accurately--just like the Norwegian system.

We cannot, at the same time, tote around the American dream and make it highly restrictive and inaccessible. Just as Norway has done, we must decide a balance between rights and responsibilities of future-Americans who enter this country filled with aspirations of a better life.  

Sometimes Goodwill Is Expensive

When I was young I lived with the idea of my innocence; that is to say, with no idea at all. I'm not the self-tormenting kind of person, and I made a suitable start in life. I brought off everything I set my hand to, I moved at ease in the field of the intellect, I got on excellently with women, and if I had occasional qualms, they passed as lightly as they came. Then one day I started thinking." (Albert Camus, The Plague)

I condemned myself to dancing in Bergen's notorious night life only to come to a full stop. I frantically scraped pen against napkin before the thought left my head. You know, it's a dangerous thing, thinking. I wouldn't blame you for stopping here to preserve a calmer way of looking at things.

Or perhaps you may read and decide not to think about it. Regardless, the choice to read is yours; and the responsibility is mine to write.

* * *

My mission in Oslo is to understand goodwill. What does it mean to be nice to one another? What is peace? The International Summer School seems to be a perfect place to accomplish this task. Our concepts of peace often regard overcoming the tensions inherent to the congress of nations, so if diverse students may cooperate, the world can too. So goes the concept.

Do not misunderstand me. No palpable tensions exist among us at the ISS. Peace would reign supreme here were it not for our unfortunate inheritance. We have not achieved peace.

* * *

In the city of peace I have learned--above all-- one lesson from the example of such leaders as Malala Yousafzai, Kailash Satyarthi, Jimmy Carter, and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is this: peace is positive and negative. Peace is as much the presence of goodwill as it is the absence of disdain. Peace is as much the presence of compassion as it is the absence of hatred and violence. I repeat we have not achieved peace.

* * *

We have not achieved peace because we have chosen to inherit a system of self-organization which rejects it. Self-organization as sovereign nation-states has ensured greater negative peace (the absence of conflict, should we respect the norm of sovereignty). It has also divided us, the international society, into groups disinterested and apathetic to the cause of compassion and goodwill. I have learned this lesson from the students at the ISS--myself included.

Since meeting each other as international equals with a common identity as students enrolled at ISS, we have devolved into convenient relations. We have prioritized nationality, language, shared interests, and other qualified criteria over the sustenance of a relevant and legitimate single identity. The mutual construction of identities implies the simultaneous creation of organized groups and loyalties. Those loyalties prioritize socialization and inclusion for others who identify with the organized group. That's to be expected, and it should be noted that inclusion does not necessitate exclusion.

Yet there are those who are excluded. They are regarded as independents or lone wolves. How did this happen?

Simply and shockingly, a process of prioritization and loyalty makes it extraordinarily tempting to discriminate. Forming new identities makes differential treatment something valuable and easy to do. We afford ourselves the chance to forget about others simply by making them 'others.' Neglecting a responsibility to ensure social cohesion presents a challenge for peaceful relations.

A shattered mosaic of social identities (in-groups and out-groups) breeds stereotyping, ethnocentrism, pride, and disdain. These attributes are systemic, but they are also attributes which we may choose to reject. The problem is that they make positive peace something quite difficult to achieve.

Here is the place for goodwill and compassion. Recognizing the nature of identity as socially constructed lets us choose to overcome its temptations. We have the opportunity to decide that diversity isn't a legitimate reason not to talk with someone, not to trust someone. We recognize the ever-inclusive human identity and a loyalty to ensure no individual is excluded--purposefully or not. Such is the cause for peace in our time. It is a cry to institute dialogue, teach diplomacy, and foster goodwill among all. It is a call to know one another.

Or at least to pay attention when someone is sitting alone at the lunch table surrounded by distracted voices.

Red, White, & Blue

In honor of Independence Day I'm lightening up this blog with some pics and sweeter content. Naturally this means food, food, food, and in Norway that usually means fish. But not today. Dessert is on the menu along with the enigmatic popularity of TGI Friday's. Let's get straight to the pics.

(L-R) Rømmegrøt, strawberries, and a street shot from downtown Oslo.

Rømmegrøt: imagine a world where gravy is sweet, where it has a Greek yogurt twang not unlike a Spanish guitarist plucking your tastebuds rhythmically. Boom, a cloud of cinnamon-sugar redefines "Pompeii," and that soothing, salty lake of butter says, "Hei. Velkommen." Norwegians know their porridge, and what an epicurean overload to taste the simplicity of boiled milk, flour, and sour cream.

Norwegian Strawberries: it's what you get when you combine a flash-pan growing season with midnight sun in a country where 3% of the land is arable. These flavorful treats make us consider the true meaning of the phrase "from concentrate." These are the original Gushers, and if you can get 'em eat 'em as soon as you can. They go quickly, but occasionally you'll find a few in the forest looking back at you wildly. Must eat with blocks of velvety vanilla ice cream.

Finally, in honor of my brother Joseph who is the biggest fan of Guy Fieri's culinary expertise, "Holy guacamole look at that patio!" For some reason every TGIF in Oslo (yeah, there's multiple) has lines that make them wanna "shut the front door." For an American trying to discover his identity abroad, it's more than a curiosity. But for the average Norwegian, dining out is not in the daily routine. With prices this big, it's no wonder why Guy's surprise portions and over-the-top cheese combos might attract a better bang for your kroner. Still, whether you're a fan or not, two TGIFs in three blocks in Oslo is like seeing mackerel and tomato sauce at a Ruby Tuesday. Strange, but intriguing...

Some other culinary delicacies here in Norway have been cured lamb, brown cheese (caramel heaven), and the humble popularity of packing your lunch. In any case, a happy Fourth of July to everyone stateside. More to come, more to come.

Welfare: Norwegian Models

If you expected this post to be tall, blond, and fit... well, we'll examine the Norwegian welfare state nonetheless. It doesn't sound quite as sexy, but I assure you I will try to spice things up-- give you as much as I've learned, so you can, too. If it's still not up to expectations, well... imagination is a wonderful thing.

Unpacking the Norwegian welfare model is daunting, and I'll admit I'm inexact. Still, when it comes to Norway and the evolution of social welfare, a few things are important to keep in mind. Here's what you need to know:

1. Social welfare has a long history in Norway, but it really took off after World War II when there was great need and democratic political will to enact it.
2. Universal welfare models pre-date the Norwegian oil-boom. The world's largest sovereign wealth fund does not fund the world's most notorious social welfare regime. Individual tax contributions do.
3. There is political consensus on universal welfare. There is no debate in Norwegian politics (from far Left to far Right) on the existence of social welfare. There is much debate on its inclusiveness and the degree to which welfare services are privatized.
4. Norway's welfare model is based on universal rights. This means that all Norwegians are recognized as eligible for state assistance--whether that's unemployment benefits, pension, health care, etc. Some policies are targeted, but the majority are universal.

The biggest curiosity of the Norwegian welfare state is this: why would rational citizens agree to be taxed more to fund a system of universal social welfare? The answer is more complex than I can imagine, but the takeaway is the ideological difference between American and Norwegian welfare models.

* * *

Norwegian welfare is all about increasing personal freedom (I know right?). Equality of all isn't the point-- which distinguishes these policies from far-Left, Communist ideals. Individual freedom to decide destiny (pursue happiness) is the goal of social welfare. The policies exist to liberate individuals from socially-imposed constraints and obstacles. Imagine if you could actually be anything you want to be-- with no concern for "that makes too little" or "people like me just don't do that." Such is the basic principle at work in the Norwegian context (as I understand it). Not much different from the USA, right? Locus of responsibility accounts for all the difference.

American and Norwegian models of social welfare both recognize risk in the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes things just don't work out. But the Norwegian model distinguishes between two types of risk: private and collective.

Private risk measures variation in what we are responsible for as individuals. Things like working hard, taking the job, arriving on time, packing the lunch, etc. If I fail because I fail to be responsible for one or many of these things, it is more justifiably "my fault" that I'm in the situation I'm in, and I should bear the cost. But, contrary to the US model, not all risk is private.

Sometimes social institutions bigger than individuals can affect the individual pursuit of happiness. Variation in achieving what makes us happy can be due to things we can't change, like our race, gender, ethnicity, educational opportunities, etc. It can also be due to economic cycles which are surely beyond our responsibility. The Norwegian model is sensitive to such risk factors, and it is a system which has democratically decided that the individual should not bear the cost of collective, social irresponsibility.

Combating collective risk in the pursuit of happiness is achieved by bestowing universal, civil and political rights. These rights set a standard (for the financiers, diversifies the collective risk through investments in universal healthcare, education, employment, etc.). Rigorous definitions of rights and individual responsibilities demarcates the expectations and benefits of being Norwegian. That is the central concept of Norwegian social welfare.

*Aside*: measuring success of social welfare is simple. First, Norway measures if people are pursuing their destiny (e.g. employment). Second, Norway measures if the collective risk is fully diversified (e.g. inequality). To clarify, the goal is not full equality, but to eliminate as many factors as contribute to stifling individual freedom.

Welfare: Average America?

Talking about social welfare is serious, influential, and taboo in the American context. Doling government entitlements seems to go against Puritan, anti-tax leanings that cut across the aisle. To struggle and to fail indicates an individual moral ill, whereas profitability is divine providence. And to entitle a group to receive social welfare is to assert they are somehow more than deserving--a controversial charity case of public concern which is unmerited given the failure of individuals to provide for themselves.

Do you agree? I want to avoid normative assertions in this post. I don't want to imply that certain concepts of social welfare are better or worse. That might sound weak and indecisive, but I promise it's so I don't exclude anyone from the conversation I hope to have.

Whether you're Democrat, Republican, or other, I feel the above statement is a more than apt description of American attitudes toward social welfare--even among welfare recipients. My own concept of social welfare before coming to Norway was one of inequality and unfairness (however justified): welfare recipients are asserted to be incapable of providing for themselves, so they become public burdens for the rest of society which doesn't have so hard a time succeeding. Again, taboo and serious, but I encourage anyone to disagree.

* * *

The American concept of social welfare is rife with sympathy and pity. After studying it, I define sympathy as a sort of "doing unto others as you would have done unto you." Vital here is the dark chasm that separates self and other. There is no solidarity, and though noble, sympathy is often motivated by pity. Pity is a state of personal sadness or distress that is relieved by doing what we feel is "right" (and often times what makes us happy). The emphasis here is on self. The entire experience of sympathetic charity is discussed in terms of "me" ("us") and "them."

At the end of the day, sympathetic charity and goodwill is a great start. It still means something good gets done (however that's defined), but could it also mean it puts a limit on the amount of good we can accomplish? If so, it has to deal with how we--as a society-- think about social welfare.

Targeted welfare programs are good for recipients. For instance, affirmative action indisputably increases minority representation in higher education, and lower-income insurance programs like Medicaid are well-intended, too. But at the end of the day, these targeted programs miss out on a huge opportunity to discuss what it means to be American. Here's why.

Targeted welfare programs qualify general benefits of citizenship. While they're pragmatic to social liberals in the United States, such programs are not empathetic with the groups they benefit. They can qualify the question of civil liberties by implying that "the poor" or "minorities" in some way cannot independently achieve what is a generally-held standard quality of life. Targeted welfare divides the United States into racially- and economically-charged camps of "beneficiaries" and "non-beneficiaries." No matter where you sit, inferiority takes hold in a nation that commits itself to universal equality. Such rights to education, health, and general welfare are secured for some but not all. Or, there is something especially inferior about some that prevents them from providing for themselves in the same way most people do. Some are entitled, some are not; and qualification for entitlement is failure on any number of items for which we expect personal responsibility.

Is this the inclusive, free, and equal America we strive to be? Does this system benefit all concerned? More importantly, is there any better way of alleviating extreme and illegitimate social inequalities without marginalizing individual rights and freedoms? In Part 2, I will share what I've learned from the Norwegian example.

Oslo Syndrome

The Sun, Edvard Munch as seen in the University of Oslo Festival hall at opening ceremonies.

I feel like a sleeping child who's awoken to a noise in the middle of the night. Listing all that's happened in the past five days would make for a boring read, so I pray God inspires me to say all it is you expect to hear from me. In the very least, I'll keep it short.

If the Oslo International Summer School were a rap song, the bass dropped at Monday's opening ceremonies. The severity of our setting made me wonder what I've ever done to deserve the treatment and confidence ISS confers to its students. We found ourselves 89 nationalities surrounded by the genius of Munch-- the gravity of the Nobel Peace Prize. We were entrusted with the Oslo city center's finery. More than this, we have been declared stewards of a tradition of academic excellence and goodwill.

Studying Scandinavian politics and the much-divisive Norwegian welfare state is intensive and inspiring, and I cannot wait to share what I have learned-- riddled with analogies. But I cannot help asking: who am I to be here? I am reminded of the selfishness of such a question. I am here because of you, for you, with you; and I intend to make good on the trust with which you've sent me.

Entrance to Festival Hall, City Council Chambers, and Oslo City Hall

Year in Review

Belated 'Happy Birthday!' to The Pursuit of Happy Meals, started one year ago.

I've caught nostalgia while dusting off this blog for my Norway adventures. But I found it impossible to romanticize McDonald's more than I already do, so I downloaded Picasa. I even googled "Pursuit of Happy Meals" as a narcissistic measure of web-stature. Much to my dismay, I am not alone. Existentially threatened by this more gluttonous McBlog, I want to defend my raison d'etre before leaving the country for some time.

This blog boils down to one inspiration: despite its best efforts to convince us otherwise, McDonald's sells memories--not food. The Dollar Menu features cheap fixes for the nostalgia-junky, the child in us all with a voracious appetite for reliving our McMemories. That's what McDonald's means to me. It's more than just-okay food and spotty service. But McDonald's-- like this blog-- is not unique.

Life is full of those moments when something real makes you dream of heaven. It's like a Rosenquist with dull pieces that don't fit together, and every once in a while it just works. For an instant the colors are vivid, and you smile. And you chase any clues to escape life's labyrinth.

This is a journey on Crete. This is a journey to Norway. This is a taste-ful adventure. This is compassion. This is the Pursuit of Happy Meals.