The problem of immigration politics in democracies.
Immigration is a subject of intense political importance, discussion, and misunderstanding. The creation of the modern state made immigration a salient topic. Borders, citizenship, and nationality are distinct concepts which necessarily distinguish between what is within and what is without. The politics of immigration are almost always fraught because they concern the single area in which a state and a nation can decide who else is allowed to take part in society. Citizens born of other citizens, regardless of how loathsome or virtuous their behavior, are not up for debate. A citizen born of the state has no standing to withhold citizenship from another with the same status. But citizens of other states, those who don’t have the same legal standing, are up for discussion and deliberation.
The politics of immigration often get caught up in what is “fair.” What is fair to potential immigrants wanting entry to the state? What is fair for the citizens, born of the state and thus “deserving” of the privileges afforded by the confluence of history which has formed the state? Should potential immigrants be granted similar rights and responsibilities as those born of the state or do they need to prove their loyalty and commitment to the state in some way?
Complicating the politics of immigration in the democratic state is the lack of inclusion for immigrants in the discussion. Being necessarily outside the authority and jurisdiction of the state, potential immigrants have little to no political voice in shaping immigration policy. This leaves the discussion up to members born of the state to decide who should be allowed entry, how long they are allowed to stay, whether they are ever afforded the ability to earn their membership in citizenship, and how they will go about proving their commitment to the rights and responsibilities afforded by the state.
This obviously creates an issue discrepancy; the decisions about immigration in a state are handled by the people least affected by those decisions. This also allows a clear pathway for political entrepreneurs to use division and abstraction to shape debate and eventual policy, often in order to gain political clout and standing. Immigration is a powerful political tool. The ‘upsets’ of 2016: Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, were both fueled by a message of unfettered immigration leading to ruination of the nation. Elsewhere in Europe, right-wing parties benefited from the humanitarian crisis spurred from the Syrian civil war in which millions of Syrians and others sought asylum all across Europe. Casting all migrants and asylum seekers as either unworthy or worse, uncultured barbarians, political operators were successful in turning enough of the population against the concept of immigration.
Clearly a state must have an immigration policy, and politics is the arena in which those policies are shaped and initially implemented, but the politics of resentment, fear, and anger create policies designed to inflict maximum pain on those who dare to ask for entry into the state. In response to restrictive and cruel policy, the response from pro-immigration advocates has been to further stretch their policy positions. Concepts like open borders or abolishing the departments for immigration enforcement call for the end to immigration restrictions entirely. The polarization of the politics of immigration raises emotions on both sides of the debate, with those who have come to hate all expressions of ‘otherness’ pitted against those whose empathy stretches beyond the concept of the state as we recognize it. This form of debate further removes rational immigration policy advocates from the policy table and leads to an uninformed population.
Citizens of states with heightened immigration rhetoric tend to be misguided about the reality of immigration in their states. This discrepancy between issue salience in the mind of voters and the facts of immigration points to the political problem that immigration poses to democratic states. Because immigrants are necessarily removed from the democratic process of the countries they inhabit or seek to inhabit, it is easier to target political rhetoric against the nature and character of those immigrants. This is why immigration rhetoric can oftentimes be so nasty and caustic: it’s an effective way of reducing voter empathy and support for current or potential immigrants in their country.
This is most clearly demonstrated via the denigration of race, culture, ethnicity, or religion of particular immigrant groups. European political entrepreneurs have used the image of barbarian hordes or floods of invaders when referring to migration from the Middle East and North Africa. Casting immigrants as being unable or unwilling to adapt to life in their host states makes citizens less likely to support increased immigration and more likely to support regressive or even cruel limits on immigration and policy towards current immigrants.
Are fair and equitable immigration systems impossible in democratic states? The discussion to this point would seem to point to the negative answer but actual evidence indicates this is not the case. Countries can operate reasonable immigration policy but it requires that the issue not become overly polarized. This is a fine path to tread because it only takes a handful of talented political entrepreneurs to stoke the flames of division and inspire the populace to look down on the ‘unworthy,’ ‘violent,’ and ‘dangerous’ outsider.
How do we protect the immigration discussion and negate the voices of political entrepreneurs? This question has no easy answer. Particularly today, in the digital age, voices spouting the worst attacks against immigrant groups are amplified and spread far and wide. Further complicated by the major platforms' algorithms of engagement (read: rage inducement equals clicks, comments, and shares) and you’ve got a recipe for continued polarization on immigration. Simply delve into the comment section on any new story related to immigration or immigrants and you’ll find vile commentary castigating entire races, religions, and cultures.
Numerous studies have indicated that interaction with immigrants of different backgrounds leads to greater understanding and sympathy for immigration. However, studies have paradoxically also shown that greater immigrant diversity in neighborhoods leads to a lowering of social trust among the population living in those spaces.
The matter of immigration perhaps drives closer to one of the biggest political questions of the 21st century: can a diverse democracy exist without devolving into deep identitarian divisions? When differences in appearance, ethnicity, and culture are readily apparent the ease with which political entrepreneurs can stoke the flames of division are elevated. This is a uniquely democratic problem. In a state where decisions are made by the people, a feeling of loss-aversion to growing groups which do not share one’s characteristics can be seen as an immediate threat which leads to using the levers of the state to repress threatening groups. Unfortunately, the best examples of large multi-ethnic, multicultural, multi-religious, and pluralistic states tend to be empires ruled by singular authorities or small cadres of elites.
Perhaps democracy, for all its positive qualities, simply isn’t designed to handle the human mind in regards to groups and identities. Democracy is better served when fewer divisions are present among the population. Homogeneity brings respect for opposing opinions and lessens the feelings of threat.
Maybe the answer to the problem of the politics of immigration is the state itself. Our modern conception of the state is not necessarily the end location for how we govern and legislate ourselves. Already larger institutions like the EU and UN have experimented with the removal of sovereignty from member states and the administration of vast territory and peoples. However, few would argue that either institution is on the verge of becoming a dominant model and they remain a collection of states as opposed to a larger sovereign entity. The reestablishment of empire and the domination of the many by the few is a path that seems more regressive than progressive. Solving the problem of immigration politics by removing democracy all together is therefore not much of a solution at all.
Immigration will continue to be a topic of immense political debate and political entrepreneurs will continue to use it as a wedge to drive between peoples in democracies. We as conscious citizens must be more cognizant of our biases and confront our fears, assessing them for validity, before falling prey to divisive attacks. Immigration is not an either-or, it is not black and white, we need not fall into the came of zero-immigrants or zero-borders. We are capable of rational and well thought out policy which addresses real concerns of maintaining the state while extending an invitation to outsiders. The best solution, like so many matters, is slowing down and attempting to remove the emotional instinct associated with fear, loathing, love, and unfettered empathy.
