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

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"