So, You’re an Immigrant…
A closer look at recent issues and the lack of political compromise.
In the southern German state of Saxony, lies the beautiful city of Chemnitz. Nestled at the foothills of the Ore Mountains, Chemnitz is a bustling city quiet from global affairs… until last week.
Chemnitz made headlines recently for the stabbing of a thirty-five-year-old man by migrants, spurring protests from the right and counter-protests from the left. These immigration-based protests are certainly nothing new to the nation of Germany; Chancellor Angela Merkel’s controversial open-door policy has certainly neither wholly benefited the political state of her country, nor has it benefited the German citizens.
But as these immigrant debates continue to rage, and as migrant attacks continue to happen, the question that needs to be answered is: what direction do developed nations need to go in wake of these migrant crises.
And for that… I have no answer.
I mean, of course, an immigration utopia would be one with an open-ended “border” and no negative effects to the residents… but that will not happen. Migrants, or any influx of people in that manner, will have some effect on housing, resources, politics, jobs, and anything that is crucial for livelihood. And, this situation even deteriorates when it comes to the migrant attacks that are happening in first-world nations across the world.
Yet, the common perception regarding immigration is not that there is a solution, but that any solution will favor one extreme or the other. Think of it as a Trump travel ban compared to a Merkel open-door policy… which transitively, is the same as saying the right has one idea and the left has the other.
But what I believe we continue to fail to see is that this answer should not come from a political standpoint, but it should come from a humane standpoint, and there needs to be a less superficial discussion but discussion specific for some areas and their residents. By pushing the idea that one political viewpoint is open-ended and the other is close-minded ends up creating situations similar to the protests occurring in Chemnitz, and just result in more headaches for the average person.
At the crux of it… it’s hard to differentiate where an open-door immigration policy may be helpful and where it may be harmful. Tech giants in San Francisco, California might see immigration as crucial for the success of their corporations, but residents in East Palo Alto might see wide-spread immigration as one that leads to more gentrification. When it comes to migrants, especially the international crises happening right now, the worry of whether these migrants will eventually offer to the new country is a valid question.
Time and time again we see this issue being addressed as if there is no difference from place to place, and as I said before, that just leads to conflicts where people just reject the notion of immigration or just completely support it, and that is one of the very reasons why such established politicians like Angela Merkel now seem on their last few steps of power.
And I know, it is difficult to decide, but wouldn’t a moderate approach be the best approach to these immigration issues. Rather than seeing the political complications that are happening when a figure like Merkel or when a figure like Trump have or may continue to make regarding immigration.
I understand the need for politics, and I admire the need of countries utilizing proper political systems for economic and militaristic success. Yet, when the idea of immigration and borders changes consistently regardless of the people who are affected, topics like immigration would have an equal chance of negatively affecting citizens as there is a chance of positively affecting them. The same issue can be applied to almost all topics in political discourse, but in my opinion, immigration is one of the more or less general issues which leads to many other topics stemming from it.
What is the point of seeing an open-border nation all of a sudden turn protective with a change in leadership, and the vice versa? Immigrants and even the employers and industries dependent on these immigrants end up seeing an oscillating range regarding the issue.
I have always toyed with the idea of leaving immigration principles stable from presidential change or party change. I have even wondered what if immigration decisions were left to lower levels than federal entities — such as states, provinces, and even incorporated towns and cities. Wouldn’t this eliminate the notion of the ebb and flow of political stances on immigration and the response against it?
I know political compromise will almost never change. And I also know the ideas that I have brought up are not even concrete… and will most likely not work without some negative consequences. It benefits both parties — the immigrants and the citizens, but it also severely impacts their lives. But I have always wondered why? My stance on this topic is not one of surety but one of doubt… and to that, I ask, what changes can we make to ensure equal representation on topics so dear to all of us… like immigration?
