Are Concerns over Immigration to Do with Culture of Economic Reasons
To what extent do you agree with the statement that concerns over immigration levels often relate to identity and culture more than to the economy. Use examples to illustrate your argument.
Almost all economists are in agreement that immigration has positive economic effects. Indeed in the United States it “provides natives with a net benefit of at least $80,000 per immigrant, or as much as $10 billion annually” (Bolin, 2006). However despite this there are huge numbers of advocacy groups pushing the pros and cons immigration to the populations of the host countries, with natives having negative views towards immigration (McLaren & Johnson, 2007). Through the course of this essay I will examine whether the root cause of these often xenophobic views towards immigration have root causes in economic reasons (immigrants taking jobs from natives, and leading to lower wages) or symbolic reasons, where the natives are fearful that the immigrants will bring their culture to the host country and cause change. Enoch Powell, the Conservative British politician, gave a warning that immigrants were causing such strife that “like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood” (Powell, 1969). This turned out to be nonsense, and his advice that immigrants should be encouraged to leave, would have left Britain, and many other countries that rely on cheap foreign labour in a horrific state of affairs.
Immigrants are now taking far longer to integrate into their host country and this is upsetting many natives. “In the past a third-generation migrant, for example in America, would have been expected to have shed much of his grandparents’ identity” (The Economist, 2008), not speaking his mother tongue and having little loyalty to the country his family originated from. This is changing “as migrants feel loyalty to more than one country” (The Economist, 2008). For example, Moroccans in Europe, even fourth generation, are encouraged by the Government
Almost all economists are in agreement that immigration has positive economic effects. Indeed in the United States it “provides natives with a net benefit of at least $80,000 per immigrant, or as much as $10 billion annually” (Bolin, 2006). However despite this there are huge numbers of advocacy groups pushing the pros and cons immigration to the populations of the host countries, with natives having negative views towards immigration (McLaren & Johnson, 2007). Through the course of this essay I will examine whether the root cause of these often xenophobic views towards immigration have root causes in economic reasons (immigrants taking jobs from natives, and leading to lower wages) or symbolic reasons, where the natives are fearful that the immigrants will bring their culture to the host country and cause change. Enoch Powell, the Conservative British politician, gave a warning that immigrants were causing such strife that “like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood” (Powell, 1969). This turned out to be nonsense, and his advice that immigrants should be encouraged to leave, would have left Britain, and many other countries that rely on cheap foreign labour in a horrific state of affairs.
Immigrants are now taking far longer to integrate into their host country and this is upsetting many natives. “In the past a third-generation migrant, for example in America, would have been expected to have shed much of his grandparents’ identity” (The Economist, 2008), not speaking his mother tongue and having little loyalty to the country his family originated from. This is changing “as migrants feel loyalty to more than one country” (The Economist, 2008). For example, Moroccans in Europe, even fourth generation, are encouraged by the Government
Bibliography: Bean, F. D., Lowell, L. & Taylor, L. J., 1998. Undocumented Mexican Immigrants and the Earnings of Other Workers in the United States. Democracy, pp. 35-52. Bolin, T., 2006. The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Immigration, Berkeley: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Borjas, G. J., 1999. Immigration and Welfare Magnets. Journal of Labor Economics, pp. 607-637. Briggs, V. M. J. & Moore, S., 1994. Still an Open Door?, Washington DC: American University Press. Card, D., 1990. The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, pp. 245-257. Doty, R. L., 1996. Immigration and National Identity: Constructing the Nation. Review of International Studies, pp. 235-255. Friedberg, R. M. & Hunt, J., 1995. The Impact of Immigrants on Host Country Wages, Employment and Growth. Journel of Economic Perspectives, pp. 23-44. Grinda, F., 2006. Immigration and the lump of labour fallacy. [Online] Available at: http://www.fabricegrinda.com/political-economy/immigration-and-the-lump-of-labor-fallacy/ Huntington, S. P., 1993. Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Affairs, pp. 22-49. McLaren, L. & Johnson, M., 2007. Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain. Political Studies, pp. 709-732. Monroe, K. W., Hankin, J. & van Vechten, R. B., 2000. The Psychological Foundations of Identity Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, pp. 419-47. Powell, E., 1969. Freedom and Reality. Birmingham: Elliot Right Way Books. Rivera-Batiz, F. L., 1998. Migration and the Labour Market: Sectoral and Regional Effects in the U.S., Mexico City: Migration, Free Trade and Regional Integration in North America. Simon, J. L., 1999. The Economic Consequences of Immigration, USA: University of Michigan Press. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L. & Prior, M., 2004. Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities. American Political Science Review, pp. 369-84. The Economist, 2008. Open Up-Special Report on Immigrantion. London: The Economist Group. Thurm, S., 1999. Asian Immigrants are Reshaping Silicon Valley, s.l.: The Wall Street Journal.