Opposition to immigration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Immigration in the modern sense refers to movement of people from one nation-state to another, where they are not citizens. Opposition to immigration is present in most nation-states with immigration,[citation needed] and has become a significant political issue in many developed countries, although it can be just as strong in others. <ref>Joseph Chinyong Liow, 2004. Malaysia's Approach to its Illegal Indonesian Migrant Labour Problem: Securitization, Politics, or Catharsis? Paper for IDSS-FORD WORKSHOP ON NON-TRADITIONAL SECURITY IN ASIA. Singapore, 3-4 September 2004.</ref>
The four main anti-immigration themes are: psychological xenophobia (dislike and fear of foreigners), economic costs (especially job competition and the expenses of schools and social services), environmental issues such as the impact on population growth), and the impact on the national identity and the nature of the nation-state itself. Opposition to immigration can be directed at the immigrants themselves or their culture, language and religion, at their employers, at migration as such, and at the effects of immigration.
In countries where the majority of the population is of immigrant descent, such as the United States, opposition to immigration often takes the form of nativism <ref>Higham, John, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (1963).</ref> (targeted only at 'first-generation' immigrants).
Contents |
[edit] Major anti-immigration arguments
Opponents of immigration typically appeal to certain basic themes in their arguments.
The national identity of a nation-state is reflected in claims regarding ethnicity: the immigrants "swamp" the original population, and replace its culture with their own. National unity arguments emphasise language use and isolation: the immigrants "isolate themselves in their own communities and refuse to learn the local language". They claim that immigrants "destroy the sense of community and national identity".
Economic arguments usually concentrate on employment: the immigrants "take our jobs". That is often combined with the claim that immigrants make heavy use of social welfare systems, and overload public education. A related argument is that immigration deprives the countries of origin of badly needed skills - the "brain drain".
Environmental arguments include the increased consumption of scarce resources and overpopulation.
[edit] Counter-arguments
Responses to typical anti-immigration arguments include:
- the "isolation" and "swamping" arguments have racist undertones as they are typically directed at immigrants from developing countries. However, those immigrants usually have fewer skills than immigrants from developed countries.
- the claim that immigrants can "swamp" a local population is noted to be related to birth rate, relative to nationals. Historically this has actually happened, but with immigrants whose societies were more technologically advanced than native populations — English, German, and Irish immigration to North America, Han Chinese migration in western China or Bantu migrations in Africa, etc. That is the counterargument is that swamping is good because it replaces a less developed society with a more developed one.
- the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that the jobs being "taken" are typically menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform, creating a demand for labour which is met by immigrants. However, without a ready supply of low-wage, low-skill labor, those jobs would be done by citizens at a higher rate. Or, inefficient industries would be forced to modernize rather than relying on that low-skilled labor. Some very inefficient industries - such as lettuce production - would be forced to relocate overseas, which may end up being in the best interests of the economy.
- the argument that immigrants are an economic burden is unproven and the reverse appears to be the case: immigration is correlated with an improvement in economic conditions, because immigrants spend money on products and services just like everybody else. Many immigrants also send a large percentage of their pay back to their home countries via Remittances
- with regard to the "heavy use" of benefits and services such as publicly-funded health care, welfare and other forms of social security, immigrants are often ineligible to receive such assistance, or their eligibility is otherwise restricted in some way (eg. they may only become eligible after a lengthy period of time); furthermore, the effect of such restrictions is to reduce the economic contribution immigrants can make. In most U.S. states, public agencies are forbidden by law from inquiring about someone's immigration status. Illegal immigrants are also users of emergency care.
- in countries with a declining, ageing, population, immigrants tend to provide additional young residents who will, effectively, later help to support the ageing native population. Indeed, population projections show that some countries who consider themselves to have a problem with excessive immigration will in fact face severe difficulties in future decades wihout immigration. Opponents of large-scale immigration often view the argument that immigration, and an ever-growing population, are needed to save social security (or other retirement plans) as a form of Ponzi scheme. <ref>http://www.npg.org/forum_series/simcox_social_security.htm</ref>
- the problems which are purportedly caused by immigrants equally exist amongst native-born populations as well, and that politicians often use immigration as a convenient scapegoat to distract the public from real social, political and economic problems.
[edit] Nativism in the United States
In the United States, opposition to immigration has a long history, starting in the late 1790s, in reaction to an influx of political refugees from France and Ireland. After passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 opposition receded.
Nativism first gained a name and affected politics in mid-19th century United States because of the large inflows of immigrants from cultures that were markedly different from the existing Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. Thus, nativists objected primarily to Roman Catholics (especially Irish American) because of their loyalty to Rome.
Nativist movements included the American Party of the mid-19th Century (formed by members of the Know-Nothing movement), the Immigration Reduction League of the early 20th Century, and the anti-Asian movements in the West, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act and the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement" aimed at the Japanese. Immigration became a major issue again from the 1990s, with a renewed immigration reduction movement.
[edit] Japan
A movement for cultural isolation arose in Tokugawa-era Japan, in response to the strong influence of Chinese culture. This phenomenon was called "kokugaku" (literally, country culture).
Japan was an anomaly among states, as it went through post-war industrialization without any major use of immigrant labor (unlike countries such as France and Germany) instead depending more on labor from women and rural sections of the country. However, as Japan headed into the 1980s and the Bubble Economy, there was a shortage of unskilled labor in the nation, and illegal immigrants from East Asia and the subcontinent began to trickle in.
These immigrants were a very visible part of Japanese society, performing the so-called 3K jobs: kitanai (dirty), kiken (dangerous) and kitsui (demanding); jobs that natives with higher skillsets wouldn't participate in. Despite their illegal status, they were generally tolerated by law enforcement and government, as they fulfilled a significant function in the Japanese economy. Toward the end of the 1980s, however, illegal immigration became a hot button issue, with many Japanese sharply divided about how to address the problem.
Those in favor of cutting off all immigration fell into the sakoku camp, and those in favor of a less restrictive policy were on the side of kaikoku. Those in favor of sakoku argued that immigration (illegal or otherwise) would be detrimental to Japanese racial homogenity and also dilute culture as well as promote crime. Kaikoku, on the other hand, wasn't necessarily in favor of immigration, but rather proponents acknowledged that illegal immigrants had arrived and were a viable part of the economy that must be addressed at the risk of eroding human rights further (conditions in factories were poor, and as illegal immigrants were on the periphery of society, they had no protection from the law).
Ultimately, Japan passed the Immigration Control Act in 1990 which opened a side-door to ethnic Japanese (up to the third generation) living in other countries, allowing them to immigrate to Japan for the unspecified purpose of performing unskilled labor (Japan still does not issue visas to anyone but skilled workers). By adding this provision--they must be ethnic Japanese--the government had addressed the sakoku arguments by preserving racial homogenity (despite the glaring cultural and linguistic differences), but also compromised with those in favor of kaikoku by allowing a legal loop-hole providing for immigrant unskilled labor. This caused a large influx of Japanese Brazillians.
Today, there is still much illegal immigration, and attitudes in Japan remain decidedly negative towards immigrants, legal or otherwise.
[edit] Opposition to immigration in Mexico
In the first eight months of 2005 alone, more than 120,000 people from Central America have been deported to their countries of origin. This is a higher number than the people deported in the same lapse in 2002, when 130,000 people were deported in the entire year. [1] Many women from Eastern Europe, Asia, United States and Central and South America are also offered jobs at table dance establishments in large cities throughout the country causing the National Institute of Migration (INM) in Mexico to raid strip clubs and deport foreigners who work without the proper documentation. [2]
Mexico has very strict immigration laws pertaining to both illegal and legal immigrants. [3] The Mexican constitution restricts non-citizens or foreign born persons from participating in politics, holding office, acting as a member of the clergy, or serving on the crews of Mexican-flagged ships or airplanes. Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions. In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may make a citizen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.
The country's instability and endemic corruption, ranked higher as of 2006 than in several past years, mean that many laws are selectively enforced. The frequent violence between police, military, and drug gangs along the U.S. border, sometimes with collaboration between these groups, adds another dimension to problems which fuel mass emigration. Critics of Mexican social policy also consider severe rural poverty to be caused by international competition with US exports, and another cause of illegal immigration. Many immigration restrictionists in the United States have also accused the Mexican government of hypocrisy in its immigration policy, noting that the Mexicans are demanding looser immigration laws in the United States while at the same time keeping restrictions on immigration into Mexico itself tight. The country's 1910 constitution guarantees citizens "freedom of movement".
[edit] Opposition to immigration in Europe
Opposition to immigration in Europe is vehement, and the issue is one of the central political issues in most countries, and increasingly also at European Union level. The anti-immigration perspective is predominantly nationalist and cultural, rather than economic or environmentalist. The issue is complicated by the fact that so many immigrants in western Europe are Muslims from Turkey and Northern Africa. Prominent European opponents of immigration include Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and the assassinated Pim Fortuyn. Anti-immigration views are held by almost all right-wing groups and movements in Europe, and by substantial sections of the political left as well.
[edit] Opposition to immigration in Spain and Portugal
Popular attitudes include such examples as the majority of Spaniards who currently see immigration into their country as excessive (see article mentioning El Pais survey). Fascist parties, such as Movimiento Social Español, openly campaign using nationalist or anti-immigrant rhetoric. Everyday racial harassment of Africans is sometimes a problem - a notorious incident being the November 2004 Spain-England football (soccer) friendly. Popular media sometimes portray American Black culture and music negatively for humor, though there exists also an active following of such music in Spain as well.
Portugal was long a dictatorship and had little immigration until a sudden influx in the 1970s, as ex-colonists returned. Today Lisbon has mixed native-born, African, and Middle Eastern neighborhoods. The rural areas have just recently begun to see many new arrivals. The country has right-wing parties that support curbs in immigration quotas. (Any resident of a Portuguese-speaking country is free to live and work in Portugal, and vice-versa.)
[edit] Opposition to immigration in France
In France, the National Front opposes immigration. Major media, political parties, and a large share of the public see the possibility of anti-immigrant sentiment due to the 2005 civil unrest in France.
[edit] Opposition to immigration in Germany
A major anti-immigrant political organization in Germany is the National Democratic Party.
[edit] Opposition to immigration in the United Kingdom
Anti-immigrant perspectives in the United Kingdom have to do with the many South Asians, particularly Pakistanis and Indians, who have moved there in recent decades. Current concerns also involve Africans, Eastern Europeans, East Asians, Middle Easterners, and numerous others have become part of the estimated 4.3 million of the UK's population that is foreign-born (see BBC piece, "Analysis: Britain's Modern Face"). Like other countries, public attention is on their perceived refusal to assimilate, sheer numbers, illegal immigration, and Islamist terrorism. Abuse of asylum policies is also a frequent discussion topic. [citation needed]
[edit] References
[edit] External links
[edit] See also
- For immigration controversies by country, see also Immigration
- Asylum
- Benefit tourism
- Brain drain
- Emigration
- Illegal immigration
- Immigration policy
- International Organization for Migration
- Multiculturalism
- Nationalism
- Nativism
- Overpopulation
- People smuggling
- Right of foreigners to vote
- Refugee
- Immigration reduction
- Immigration reform
- Rivers of Blood speech
- Xenophobiade:Nativismus (Politik)
