Problem Called Immigration
Immigration
is becoming a major problem world over. Europe, never an immigrant friendly
place, finds itself facing immigrants from North Africa and Syria and is
clueless on how to deal with non-white, non-Christian folks. Even America now
struggles with Hispanics who don’t even learn English. India refused to allow
Rohingya refugees largely due to right-wing fears (world over, not just India)
that Muslims-don’t-assimilate.
The
debate over immigration is 3-fold, writes Yuval Noah Harari in 21
Lessons for the 21st Century. The first point of contention is whether
allowing immigrants in is a duty or a favour? Left-leaners are closer to the
duty view whereas the right considers it a favour, which means it can be
denied. To aggravate matters, many immigrants add fuel to the fire:
“(They) come with
a list of demands as if they own the place.”
There
are also those who want it both ways. Like the US who knowingly look the other
way at some illegal immigrants because, hey, they’re cheap labour. Nations in
the Middle East never grant citizenship to foreigners but are fine with having
them as an “underclass” of workers.
The
second point, as per Harari, is far more problematic: “How far should
assimilation go?”. Are they expected to shift from deeply religious to highly
secular? From patriarchal to (almost) feminist? Should they abandon their dress
codes? Pro-immigrants point out not everyone in the host country subscribes to
most items on such checklists, so why expect that from immigrants?
Anti-immigrants agree with that, but say some points of difference go too far,
specifically a tolerant society cannot allow too many intolerant people in it.
The
third point is how much time must pass before immigrants are allowed to become
“full members of society”? He asks if first-generation Algerians are right to
feel aggrieved if the French don’t accept them even after 20 years? Or 3rd
generation immigrants who are told to go “back” to a country they’ve never
seen, be it in India or in France?! The root issue here is this:
“From the
viewpoint of human collectives, forty years is a short time. It is hard to
expect society to fully absorb groups within a few decades… From a personal
standpoint, forty years can be an eternity.”
Regardless
of one’s take on the topic, Harari is right when he says it is wrong for any
government to “force large-scale immigration on an unwilling local population”.
Why not? Because absorbing a large number of outsiders is hard enough under the
best circumstances, but it is almost impossible when it was opposed in the
first place.
Comments
Post a Comment