Immigration: The Two Walls Preventing The West From Reaching a Clear Response
If a time-traveller from the 20th century arrived in mid-2018 and picked up a newspaper they would be shocked. Articles dominating the first few pages report about U.S. travel restrictions for residents from several Muslim-majority countries, the rise of a populist government in Italy and a coalition crumbling behind an open-door migrant policy in Germany. A large image interrupts the rhetoric: a group of caged children, separated from their parents who had attempted to cross the US-Mexican border illegally. It would be easy for our time-traveller to wince, then immediately return to the seemingly more liberal 1920s.
Much like this analogy, data and headlines can be plucked from anywhere to support one argument or another. What is certain is that while large segments of western societies accept and embrace immigrants, others do not. The rising politicisation of the topic has made it increasingly divisive within and between western societies, surfacing many flaws associated with national debates about the assimilation of large amounts of outsiders. Taking a break from the cacophony surrounding such a frequented debate, let us focus on two pivotal dimensions which are too often brushed aside and which too often undermine many conversations related to migration: distorted media attention and disparities in political views between demographics.
Wall #1: A Media Feeding Frenzy
Media headlines surrounding the topic of migration are widespread and they oftentimes distort reality. For example, the two most circulated British newspapers, The Sun and The Daily Mail, are renowned for selling anecdotal stories with strong anti-immigrant undertones. While we should not deny these newspapers the right to express right-leaning views, such cacophony both inflames and reflects a wider problem: public debates about borders draw skewed attention from root causes and other, often more consequential issues. While democratically elected political parties spend time and other resources bickering over migration policy which has become a major concern for large swathes of voters, they neglect other topics of critical importance both related and unrelated to borders.
While it is within national interests to discuss migration, it is causing too many distractions from the real issues related to crime, education, income, housing and access to healthcare among others. Shifting the blame from one cause to another, migration ultimately threatens liberal societies characterised by transparency and evidence in which the freedom of the individual is the central problem of politics by threatening structured, balanced debate.
Just imagine if your newspaper was not so clogged up with Trump, Brexit and mass refugee movements, what other stories would fill their place? Would other scandals rise to the surface? Would serious reform in other areas be materialising as a result of the scrutiny of the public eye focusing elsewhere? In 2007, British artist Banksy painted a white dove wearing a bulletproof vest on the Palestinian side of the Israeli wall. A story circulates the local area of a Palestinian man telling the artist that he had made the wall look beautiful, to which Banksy thanked him, only to be told ‘We don’t want it to be beautiful. We hate this wall. Go home.’ Today, the press and political debates surrounding immigration eat away at much of the attention that should be spent elsewhere as well as some of the systems and values that have thus far made western democracies work so well. This is not to say that the topic of immigration is unimportant, but it is overdramatised in many spheres of influence.
Wall #2: Demographic Gaps
There are clear divisions in attitudes between demographics. Studies from The Migration Observatory, a project at the University of Oxford, indicate that tolerance towards immigration differs dramatically by age, education and income in the UK. Similar studies from other western countries show comparable findings. Individuals from older generations and/or with lower levels of educational attainment are generally more likely to be less tolerant towards immigration. This has been demonstrated through two prodigious events in 2016 in which immigration policy played a major role. Britain’s vote to leave the EU, largely driven by anti-immigration sentiment rather than broader discontent with politics, and the victory of US presidential candidate Donald Trump in which exit polls suggest Republican voters felt immigration to be the most important issue in the presidential race.
Given that the population pyramids of most Western countries resemble the Chrysler Building more than actual pyramids and that income inequality is growing in many developed economies, these findings explain, at least partially, how Brexit and Trump succeeded and why such divisions prevent a united front in political spheres.
From the statistics, it can be argued that older generations are generally reluctant to change, evoked partly by immigration and hence want to cling to more traditional nationalistic policies. These continue to slip from their grasp however, as the younger, more liberal generations rise to positions of influence. Meanwhile, those with lower levels of education and social mobility are more likely to feel the brunt of globalisation rather than the merits, stimulating anti-immigration sentiment. Conversely, younger generations and those with higher levels of educational attainment, are arguably more exposed to and educated about universal tolerance while consuming the fruits of globalisation.
The Verdict
While there are arguments for and against different types of immigration, it is appropriate to argue that the ways in which we argue are not optimal. Instead, they too often detract from the root causes and symptoms of problems which are often cited as being outcomes of mass immigration. This undermines Western political debates. The stubbornness of people who long ago decided their political orientation and therefore disregard new realities and values does not help. As a start, we should ensure that people are universally aware that, whether they support immigration or not, their views are largely contingent on their media consumption and demographic background, not on whether they are right or wrong. These two dimensions, or “walls”, have guided and will continue to guide politics as long as we remain heterogeneous in our values and experiences.
