76 · Gökçe Yurdakul and Y. Michal Bodemann
Immigrants and Minorities
Nation-states draw distinctions between two groups: minorities and
immigrants. On the one hand, a minority is the “other” who does not
belong to an imagined homogeneous nation—someone who is almost
one of “us” but not quite.^4 Minorities become members of the state invol-
untarily through occupation of land or federation.^5 Immigrants, on the
other hand, become members of the state—permanent residents or full
citizens—through voluntary immigration. Since they consent to being in
a “minority situation” in the receiving country, immigrants are expected
to learn the language of the majority, conform to its values and norms,
and assimilate into the host society.
Sujit Choudhry refers to Will Kymlicka’s assumption that “immi-
grants have waived their right to live in accordance with their own cul-
tures through the decision to immigrate to a society in which they knew
that they would constitute a minority.”^6 Minorities have not waived that
right, because they were involuntarily incorporated into the majority.^7
Therefore, minorities possess shared memories, values, practices, and
institutions whereas, according to Kymlicka, immigrants are unable to
construct this institutional completeness that the minorities enjoy.^8
Minority associations make demands for distinctive social, political,
and cultural rights that recognize their differences. Take, for example,
the case of German Jews who receive state-collected taxes for syna-
gogues and welfare organizations, have the right to practice religious
slaughtering, and maintain religious schools. Through such “recognition
of difference,”^9 they are able to maintain a certain level of institutional
completeness that includes their own community organizations, news-
papers, bookstores, restaurants, and schools. In other words, minorities
may possess group rights that allow them to establish and run their own
institutions and pursue their own values, norms, and lifestyles.
Immigrants’ associations, however, are assumed to be social services
to facilitate the incorporation of immigrants into the broader society. They
may provide “cultural events,” such as folk dances, language courses
for second or third generations, or traditional celebration days. But they
are not expected to make claims on the state authorities or to politically
mobilize immigrants. In contrast to the situation of minorities, immi-
grant associations must facilitate incorporation rather than maintaining
institutional separateness.^10 In this context, we argue that the boundaries