Introduction:- In the age of globalization it is believed that cultural differences across the world have been greatly reduced. But, it has also made the recipient people to be upset when meeting strangers for their strange behavior. The movement of people in search of jobs and better future, and the attempt to expel strangers strains political systems. A wave of refugees and immigrants caused reaction in the West. Some people in the West argue for control of immigration, while others argue in favor of it. Those who argue for control of immigration believe that they are not obliged to open their borders to immigrants and force should be used to stop them. They consider immigrants as invaders. They also believe that they have made sacrifices to make their countries democratic and prosperous. If immigrants failed to do the same in their own country it is not the fault of democratic and prosperous countries. If voters of a democratic country do not want to see immigrants in their country, it is their right to do so. If they accept some immigrants, it is a ‘favor not an obligation.’ This implies that these immigrants should be grateful instead of presenting a list of demands as if the recipient country is their own birth place. 2. Current Situations: Antiimmigrants believe that their country has the right to have any kind of immigration policy. It can screen immigrants for criminal records, professional certificates or religious affiliations. Such acts of screening are within the rights of voters, which democratic governments have to obey. Several developed countries, however, face complications in dealing with immigrants. Y.N. Harari pointed out that these countries ‘turn a blind eye’ to illegal immigrants and accept them on a temporary basis when they want to exploit foreign talents and cheap labor. They refuse to legalize the status of these people saying that they do not need immigrants. He says ‘this could create hierarchical societies in which an upper class of full citizens exploits an underclass of powerless foreigners,’ as happens currently in the Gulf States. Pro-immigration groups, on the other hand, believe that countries have a moral duty to accept immigrants, both refugees and job-seekers, who seek better future. Particularly, in the age of globalization, ‘all humans have moral obligation toward all other humans,’ and those who refuse to accept such responsibility are either egoists or racists. These groups also believe that it is impossible to completely control immigration. ‘Desperate people will always find a way through.’ It is, therefore, wise to legalize immigration than to create ‘a vast underworld of human trafficking, illegal workers, and undocumented children.’ The movement of immigrants is not risk free. The immigration trek is dreadful, causing death due to hunger and thirst. Advocates of immigration believe that people have a right to immigrate if they want to and host countries have a ‘duty to absorb’ them. This view shocks those who oppose immigration. Why should they blame citizens of being racists for refusing immigrants entry into their country? The host countries will be obliged to provide privileges to immigrants, whom they accepted as a favor, but not as a duty. It is also argued that if immigrants are allowed to stay in the recipient country, they should have the obligation to ‘assimilate into the local culture.’ Here, the question is how far should assimilation go? Should immigrants abandon their religion, dress code, food taboos, family ties? Anti-immigrants require immigrants to accept local culture, while supporters of immigration want a relaxation of such requirements. Advocates of immigration argue that the West has diverse people who have their own imaginary habits and values that make their country vibrant. New immigrants should not be forced to accept such imaginary Western identity. Should Muslim immigrants adopt Christianity? Should Indian immigrants forgo rice and curry in favor of hamburger? If the Western core value is liberalism with focus on freedom and tolerance, then the West should also show tolerance and give freedom to immigrants, provided that immigrants also do not harm the rights and freedoms of other people. Those who oppose immigration understand that tolerance and freedom are core values of the West. But, they accuse immigrants, particularly those from Muslim countries, of ‘intolerance, misogyny, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.’ Because the West is tolerant it does not accommodate intolerant immigrants. Antiimmigrants believe that if the West allows extremists, the nature of its society changes. They think that it is not enough that immigrants stick to Western standards of tolerance. They must adopt the unique characters and culture of Western citizens. Even then, the local culture is taking risk of dilution. It may also destroy itself by accepting immigrants. Those who oppose immigration argue that If a Western country ‘offers full equality, so it must demand full assimilation.’ If immigrants have their demands unsatisfied, they can go somewhere else. Harari fears that those who favor immigration may oppose it if immigrants become guilty of intolerance of local values. If, however, immigrants proved to be liberal and accept Western values, they will disarm any opposition to immigration. If immigrants make effort to assimilate and adopt values of tolerance and freedom, the host country has the duty to treat them as citizens. Those who support immigration push for quick acceptance, while those against it want longer probation period. The pro-immigration group warns that if the host country does not treat thirdgeneration immigrants (children) as full citizens, then it invites hostility and violence. On the other hand, the anti-immigration group believes that high expectation by immigrants is the root cause of several problems in the host country. Immigrants should be patient and behave according to the rules of the host country. They should not expect to be treated as natives. Supporters of immigration observe that host countries fail to fulfill their obligation despite efforts of immigrants to assimilate. Host countries treat immigrants as second-class citizens even when they successfully assimilate. However, it is possible that both sides fail to meet their commitments, leading to suspicion and resentment. Harari observed that when evaluating their commitments, both sides give more weight to ‘violence than compliance,’ by the other party. Yet, both who favor and oppose immigration agree that it is necessary to downplay concerns regarding terrorism. They believe that host countries should focus on integration, freedom and tolerance. Similarly, immigrants should integrate into and tolerate the culture of people in the host countries. 3. Lessons and implications: 3.1 Immigration or invasion: In Africa people have the tradition of crossing borders in search of grazing land and water for their cattle. People also move across borders in search of jobs and better future. They also move across borders whenever clan or tribal conflicts occur. These sometimes lead to tensions between neighboring governments and political entities who claim to represent the concerned clans and tribes. Those on the receiving end make an attempt to expel strangers who migrate into their domain. They fear to be overwhelmed by the huge number of people coming from a neighboring country. They hate to share the meager resources they have with the immigrants. Mostly, the people who live on both sides of the borders of neighboring African countries share the same culture, language and identity. They move freely across borders and engage in employment. They also benefit from all kinds of donor assistance that accrue to immigrants. Those people at the receiving end are against such benefits. They believe that their borders should not have been open to immigrants in the first place. To reduce the burden of immigration, the concerned country should distribute the immigrants to different parts of the country, including the hinterland. It is also important to identify trouble makers who fuel tensions between immigrant clans or tribes with those within the host country. 3.2 Legalize immigration: It is wise to legalize immigration than to create ‘a vast underworld of human trafficking, illegal workers, and undocumented children.’ Human trafficking is a profitable business conducted by organized criminals. Suppliers of the human ‘commodity’ incur little cost in it compared to its sale. The traffickers depress the purchase price and inflate the selling price of the ‘commodity,’ as it is a risky business. Considering the risk of transporting, feeding or losing the ‘commodity,’ they snatch huge profit. So does the ultimate user of human beings bought in the underworld. Illegal workers suffer from lack of identity in the recipient country. They have no legal documents that indicate their origin, destination, skill, and profession. So, they are forced to work for low pay and to face exploitation of their labor. Though they ran away from poverty, they live in misery in the host country, subjected to unlawful treatment and discrimination. Undocumented children also suffer from maltreatment. Legalizing immigration is, therefore, necessary to protect the basic rights of people. However, legalizing immigration is not free from negative social reaction. Legalizing immigration needs intensive consultation and clarification with people at the receiving end to clear their perception that they would negatively be affected by immigrants or refugees. These people would unfairly treat the new comers as ‘invaders’ due to wrong perception. 3.3 Difficulty of controlling immigration: It seems nearly impossible to stop immigration by force. Immigrants are mostly desperate and it is believed that they will find ways and means to cross heavily guarded borders. In this age of globalization instead of controlling ones border it is believed that the case of immigrants be considered fairly. Moreover, every country has a moral obligation to accept immigrants, both refugees and job seekers, who seek better life. Those who refuse to accept such refugees are either racists or ethnic despots. 3.4 Prevent death of immigrants: Immigrants travel through deserts at night to avoid detection by border security guards. They ride camels at exorbitant fare to cross deserts that expose them to danger. They use boats that could leak water and sink while crossing seas habited by sharks. The identities of these immigrants who die while crossing borders on land or sea are unknown. Their families, relatives and loved ones are not informed about the misfortunes they have faced. These families wait with hope that one day in the future the migrant relative would appear and relieve them of their poverty and deprivation. Can one imagine the emotional cost when families discover of the misfortune that befell their kinfolks: losing life while looking for better life. Finally, I believe that consulting people on issues, such as immigration, that affect their lives is of primary importance. It is the duty of government to consult people as it is the right of people to be consulted on matters that are crucial to their lives. This leads to a balanced economic and social development in the country. Thank you.
The Ethiopian Herald February 17/2019
BY GETACHEW MINAS
