towards other people that produce the most harm.
He brings up a point I have mentioned many times:
"you cannot argue for free trade and then put up controls on people who want to immigrate."
If you think of the logic in this.... you might wonder what is wrong with all the people that are screaming their nativism full blast. How can you (a country) want globalization while simultaneously controlling the immigration you need so you can achieve global significance?
I don't want to make it very simplistic, but it does seem that much of the problem revolves around nativists' fear of the dark-skinned people that are now surrounding them. As long as their numbers are kept to a controlled minimum, and they are basically out of site except for certain situations... then they are ok... but it's the whole idea of being "surrounded" that creates the fear that creates the anger.
-----
ANWER SHER
Dubai, UAE
Washington Post
Post Global Blog
December 4, 2007
Originally from Pakistan, Anwer Sher is based in Dubai and writes for Gulf News, Khaleej Times and Emirates Today. His varied career experience includes banking, consulting, and real estate development. He has a Masters degree in International Relations.
Immigration Disruptive Only to Some
Is immigration disruptive? The answer all depends on your individual perspective. From my view, you cannot argue for free trade and then put up controls on people who want to immigrate. You cannot use a lack of integration as an excuse to discriminate against immigrants; after all, most colonizers did not integrate into the countries they colonized. Societies prosper when they open their doors, and despite how much the Americans, the British or the French complain about non-Caucasian minorities, they also need to see how much immigrant doctors, engineers and professionals have contributed to their society. Every American who is not a Native American is an immigrant, and one should never forget that no land belongs to anybody in the true historical sense.
This is an interesting question given the recent riots in France, protests in Malaysia by Malaysians of Indian origin, and with human migration generally becoming a more critical subject. Immigration has always been an integral part of the human saga of development, and under various names the phenomenon of people seeking new opportunities in new lands has always been there: in America, in Australia, and so on. In the modern world it has become more of an issue and more 'disruptive,' as nationalist sentiments make one question the rationale of allowing 'other people' into a society. In a number of former colonizing societies – Great Britain, France, The Netherlands – the 'import' of cheaper labor in the post-colonial era resulted in large migrations of people, particularly in England. With higher birth rates and the tendency of such immigrants not to assimilate, one can are England is now facing 'reverse colonialism'; who would have though 50 years ago two members of the House of Lords will be Asian descent.
In the overall scheme of human settlement, the disruptive element of immigration has been nominal. While riots may seem to suggest a catastrophe waiting to happen, the reality is less troublesome. In France it is the French youth who are being hooligans; they happen to be of African or Moroccan descent, but make no mistake: they are born and bred Frenchmen. Immigration is not the issue - our attitude towards people is.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/immigration_disruptive_only_to.html
No comments:
Post a Comment