Immigration: The new "Hot Topic" in Politics

N

I've been reading Mary Hawkins' "Global Migration, National Resettlement, and Indigenous Peoples" and I've got a few talking points which I think would be great for this forum.

It's a new trend in poltiics. Immigration is the catch phrase when people talk about populations and global movement of people. Of course, this has been a contentious point for the last few years in Australia but we're starting to see the anti-immigration mentality spread (openly) across the world. For alot of countries, immigration is the lynchpin in a successful bid for president, prime minister, chancellor etc.

Why do you think Immigration is considered a negative in recent times?

Do you believe there is a double standard in immigration policies around the world?

Anonymous

It is interesting that the housing industry in Australia has indicated that immigration positively affects the industry. However, I agree that there is an underlay of fear and nationalism behind most migration policies. To me this is a reflection of the low levels of discussion in this country, mostly driven by ignorant remarks - such as John Laws and Andrew Bolt among others - ignorance is fashionable and not only in Australia.
Do you think it has to do with the speed in which we live, which leaves not time for reflective thinking?

N

That's a really good question. I think alot of it comes from a lack of empathy/understanding towards people who have immigrated due to reasons above their control (i.e: war/political unrest). I think that Australians are very generous with charity and overseas aid, but when it comes down to it there is a sense of "not in my backyard". I suppose I find it odd that we can decry the genocide in say, Darfur, but complain about the increasing number of non-white immigrants.

I'll post the rest of the reply when I leave work! *sorry!

N

As I said before, I think your question is very interesting especially the "speed of life" which may not allow for reflexivity in today's society. I'm currently finishing a Sociology subject and have found this to be a recurring theme in today's society. People are so absorbed in what is going on in their immediate sphere of understanding (and, if I can add, a little more selfish) that anything that can be construed as a threat to their way of life incurs some kind of knee jerk reaction that if it's a change, it must be a threat.

There is an excellent chapter by Saskia Sassen called "Global Cities and Survival Circuits" in 'Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy' which is not completely relevant to this topic, does bring up the idea of individuals in Developed countries having to "outsource" some of their responsibilities while at the same time decrying immigration.

The topic I posted is not meant to force people to reveal their standpoint on immigration persay, but to talk about why this (of all issues) has become such a large part of political/international debate when there are much larger problems to tackle which, for the people who want less immigration, could lead to less immigration. Is it easier to say "Immigration needs to be stemmed" rather than "We are going to help countries who are constantly being subjected to ineffectual International Loans and Trade Agreements"?

beatriz

Hi N,

There is also this important article by Richard Sennett, "New Capitalism, New Isolation: A flexible city of strangers". Sennett claims that changes to the work environment and conditions are reflected in the way we perceive and use the city.
He states that "Architects and planners are faced with new challenges. Globalisation has transformed production which now allows people to work more flexibly, less rigidly and makes them experience the city differently."

In regards to human interactions, he says: "Besides, this lack of mutual engagement is one of the reasons it is so hard for trade unions to organise workers in flexible industries or businesses as in Silicon Valley; the sense of fraternity as a shared fate, a durable set of common interests, has been weakened. Socially, the short-term regime produces a paradox. People work intensely, under great pressure, but their relations to others remain curiously superficial. This is not a world in which getting deeply involved with other people makes much sense in the long run."

Source: Le Monde Diplomatique, http://mondediplo.com/2001/02/16cities