It is time to analyze and understand the history as an entire contextual background rather than cherry-picking random facts and isolated moments in history to point to as evidence of the antiquity’s repetition. In this analysis, we will look at the historical evidence for migration paranoia as well as how this fear has built a new problem of generational wounds that can result in things like radicalization and new extremist organizations as well as depression and other psychological damage.
Immigration to the West has a very long history of tension. Many saw immigrants of the 19th century as unwanted competition for economic opportunity and tensions grew with each new wave. Although there was the common denominator of unease within the Anglo-Saxon communities of the west, the United States and Europe took very different paths in handling their immigration concerns. In the US laws began to form in order to bar immigrants from achieving a certain level of stability. For example, many government programs are exclusive to native-born Americans and even legal residents are unable to obtain things like food stamps. In Europe the shift was more cultural than policy-oriented. Highly exclusive ethnic enclaves began to form and the pattern has remained over the course of many years. Interestingly, the idea of the American dream has caused immigrants to flourish in the US and gives newcomers a sense of hope for a brighter future in their generations to come. However, in Europe the opposite effect has taken place in that the culture of exclusion towards immigrants has created a very low employment rate and level of education for most immigrant families.
Despite the significant differences between North America and Europe, there are many cultural similarities in family structure, career perspective, educational systems, and many other avenues. Immigrants may have integrated differently to these two regions but the animosity towards their perceived invasion has remained amongst many factions. In today’s political climate it appears that the years of history between immigrants and the native-born of the transatlantic are coming to a dangerous culmination. Changing the way that we define and discuss integration is vital in finding new ways to support the immigrant and refugee population in the region. Throughout history integration has been defined by common cultural traits such as learning the language of one’s new home, embracing the popular culture of the land or participating in traditions. However, this method of defining the process of integration has a tendency to divide people within a country based on those same cultural traits. This division deeply impacts our ability to grow and evolve as a culture by learning new things from cultures that we may be less familiar with. The world has benefited greatly from sharing ideas, mathematical and scientific discoveries, farming techniques and much more but by perpetuating the idea that cultures should be closed off from each other unless one is willing to abandon their past can prevent us from continuing this tradition.
Transatlantic governments along with media outlets have an opportunity to redefine integration of immigrants as an analysis of what they are contributing to the society as opposed to what they take away. Although many in the constituency of the United States have not yet embraced the immigrant population, they also have not been properly educated on the contributions that they have brought to the country. The country has a very low unemployment rate among its immigrants and a high percentage of small business owners. First-generation Americans are also highly likely to be more educated and successful than their parents and are more likely to fill technically skilled positions than native-born Americans. As a result, those descendants of immigrants also tend to be more Americanized than their parents and are less connected to their home country thus further embracing the vision of America. On the surface this seems like a threat to those who are native-born but in reality it is a testament to the visceral emotion that comes with a belief in the same American dream that most native-born also hold dear. This is a place of agreement from which the relationship can potentially be rebuilt and in doing so we can also impact the acceptance of immigrants in Western Europe.
The paranoia that exists towards immigrants has been heightened by the escalation of terrorism globally and particularly in Europe. However, that paranoia was born out of a perceived economic threat. As the immigrant population has been able to thrive economically on one side of the Atlantic, the unemployment rates and education levels for these groups in Europe have been abysmal. Concurrently, when these immigrants are accepted into most of these countries and have access to many government programs for low-income families that the North American immigrant population cannot reach. The combination of a lack of income and a large need for government assistance makes the immigrant population an unintentional drain on the country’s economy. This creates a need for close communities of immigrants assisting each other and living in multi-generational homes where they can be closed off from the remainder of society. The economic drain of these immigrants causes further animosity towards them from the native-born Europeans and the reclusiveness of the immigrant community makes the integration of their descendants a much slower and shallow experience than that of first-generation Americans.
The danger of this paranoia continuing is not only related to the economic drain or racial tensions in the transatlantic. This division has given terrorist groups like ISIS more of a propaganda tool to turn immigrants and their children against the Western country in which they reside. Anger builds out of major discrepancies in socioeconomic classes and that type of anger can grow exponentially when it is coupled with a lack of societal acceptance. Terrorist organizations prey on the impoverished, the vulnerable, the victims of civil war, and especially the young and impressionable. The Islamic extremism mantra when recruiting the soldiers in their demented war is that North America and Europe hate them and want to destroy the lessons of their faith. By allowing the division between the Anglo-Saxon world and immigrants, particularly from predominantly Muslim countries, to linger and grow we are creating the propaganda tools for the very enemy who we are trying to fight. By changing the definition of what it means to assimilate and contribute to a country we could begin a key pivot for the transatlantic partnership over the next few years and deal a severe blow to the ability of terrorists to build their network globally.
Hi Nardos,
thank you for this great essay and thank you for focusing on the ‘human-side’ of transatlantic relations that we sometimes tend to forget when we throw around ideas regarding big businesses or security strategies. I fully agree with your statement that “paranoia was born out of a perceived economic threat” and not – as populist movments have us believe – out of fear of ‘foreigners.’ Because you also included the threat of terrorism, particularly ISIS, in your essay, I wonder if you would envision a different approach on migration from non-Muslim countries. Especially regarding the US, their perceived economic threat seems to stem from migrants from Latin and South America, with ICE even deporting people that have lived in the states for decades.
Hi Christin,
Thank you for your thoughtful question! It is a similar issue in the United States when it comes to Latin America, in my opinion, because of the same connections that are being made here. Not only is there a perceived economic threat, but there is the gross exaggeration of the crime rates for illegal immigrants as well. The methods that this administration has chosen are not methods that will lower crime while keeping civility in society. I am actually concerned that by spending more time, government spending, policing, and energy on these groups that are the least likely to commit crimes instead of focusing on real threats then we could create that animosity towards the US in those groups as well.
I simply focused on terrorism since it is the most prevalent threat that both regions have in common. Both have failed to address the human side of the problem as the focal point, but that human side is what these terrorist groups focus on to lure in young people before planting their doctrine. It concerns me because I feel that if it does not change, the tensions and the ease of recruitment will only get worse which means paranoia will rise and the policies will get more strict and we could continue this vicious cycle until it is irreversible.
Do you think there is a contradiction in the two paragraphs that you just wrote?
The first paragraph argues that the crime rate for illegal immigrants is highly exaggerated and they are the group least likely to commit crime — and the following paragraph argues that we need better social services because that same group is easily persuaded to join terrorist groups.
I’m talking about two different groups, but what I mean is that the more that you tell someone they are bad the more likely they are to become bad. It may sound contradictory to some, but it’s more like a self-fulfilling prophesy in my eyes. If someone enters the West with an expectation of the culture as being positive and are instead met with targeted stereotypes or being poorly treated, that is when they are likely to turn against the country that they entered. It is a part of basic human psychology that is acknowledged in parenting, teacher-student relationships, how employers provide feedback to their employees and yet with immigrants it is often ignored.
In addition, the history between the US and Latin America is a bit different where the US government has looked to the south for cheap labor since the 50’s. It’s a relationship that is only promoted when it benefits our economy, and demonize when we think it hurts us. However, with immigrants from other countries, there has been a bit more consistency.
Thank you for your insightful reply! For a moment I had forgotten the exaggerated crime rates of migrants from Latin and South America that Donald Trump especially used during his presidential campaign. I still believe though that we need different approaches for answering to different groups of migrants, if only because they share different historic and economic relations with the US (and Europe).
Hi Nardos,
thanks for this very interesting read! You’re completely right about integration, social upward mobility and extremism (although there are of course other reasons, too). Which programs in the framework of the transatlantic partnership could you imagine to adress these challenges?
Best wishes,
Hendrik
Nardos,
In your article, you mention that legal residents in the US are unable to utilize the food stamp program. I did some fact-checking and it does appear that non-citizen, legal residents are eligible for food stamps through SNAP (with some restrictions).
Here is the link: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/snap-policy-non-citizen-eligibility
I thought that bridging the topic of terrorism and immigrations (esp. concerning ISIS) was a great way to analyze the fundamental aspects behind the root of terrorism. Your quote: “Anger builds out of major discrepancies in socioeconomic classes and that type of anger can grow exponentially when it is coupled with a lack of societal acceptance…” is very insightful in linking the fundamental reasoning that terrorists can be successful in their recruitment .
Great Article!
Brandy
Thank you for your feedback! The restrictions end up being a lot more limiting than one would think and there are much more details that bar people from these programs when you look at the current demographics. There are groups like Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, etc. who are taking up a large portion of the current immigrants who actually need help until they get on their feet because of the traumas that they have suffered. The terms that they use in the laws are often broad so even if we are able to get them help at the center I work with, it takes a very long time and they usually don’t need it anymore by the time they receive it. This is part of why it has become more and more popular to house refugees in people’s homes so that the families don’t have to be concerned with getting help to get their lives in order.
I do feel, though, that these families are coming here because they believe in the idea of the “American dream” and are eager to work, so my point with the government assistance was just to show a contrast between how the two regions have responded to immigrants. The focus on working instead of assistance has been a positive thing in the US that Europe could benefit from. However, in order to do that, the stigma about immigrants needs to be removed so that it is easier for them to find jobs instead of requiring government assistance. In the US, people need to be more educated on what the immigrants here are contributing and that they are not taking things away from Americans.
HI Nardos,
Thanks for the explanation. I understand your point of view and can also sympathize that things are not always so clear cut in real life. It’s good to have some dialogue on these articles for clarification. I am already learning a lot from the background and involvement from the authors in our group.
Thanks again for sharing your experience!
Brandy
Nardos, thanks for your well written article. I think you’ve raised some important points in terms of problems with integration and avoiding stereotypes. I would offer, however, that the difficult challenges of Muslim-majority immigration to Europe over the last several years are linked to irreconcilable outcomes based on some difficult realities. In 2015 alone, Germany accepted a number of immigrants/asylum seekers that amounted to 2% of its total population. Those types of numbers are not sustainable and create multi-faceted socio-economic challenges. Chancellor Merkel has acknowledged as much. Furthermore, there is a fundamental gap in shared values and cultural norms that exists between recent arrivals and their host countries. The disturbing events in Cologne and other cities indicate just how insurmountable this challenge really is. Longer term, Europe simply cannot sustain these current levels of immigration without accepting a fundamental–and perhaps irreversible–transformation of basic European values, norms, and identity. This is where measured policies of limiting immigration, as well as ensuring a realistic integration of new arrivals into society can help. As we see in the US, there is a difference between an “ethnic” portion of town (e.g. the North End in Boston, Greektown in Chicago, etc.) and religiously-isolated enclaves as we have seen in Europe. Thanks, Jake
I’d like to add a critique of Nardos’s main arguments, and why they’re unconvincing.
1) She argues that the US has done a much better job integrating migrants than Europe. I like that because USA #1, but in reality, the US has a much more gradual immigration pattern than Europe. In the last two years, the US accepted <100,000 refugees. Europe has millions of people at the borders. Europe can match American success of integration, but only if they suddenly have orders of magnitude more money … or limit immigration. The second is more plausible than the first, I think.
2) People will dismiss her second argument, which is that there needs to be more social services and societal support given to migrants, or they will maybe join a terror organization and cause trouble. If there exists a non-starter, that's it, right there.
This is my point, though. When we focus only on the economic threat that is how both the US and Europe have chosen flawed immigration plans. The US restricts the entry and has a rigorous vetting process but they when people enter here they are encouraged to start small businesses, etc. instead of being sustained by their government. The rhetoric that surrounds the policies created is what causes the divide, but when they get here they are productive and contributing members of society and gradually adopt the culture of America willingly. In Europe the borders are far more open and the rapid entry is what causes resistance from the community. If immigrants are less likely to get jobs and have more access to government welfare, that is not beneficial either. And if people are entering Europe and ending up in poverty, they are in a vulnerable place to be radicalized. If people enter the US and face prejudice no matter how productive they are that also creates animosity which can make someone susceptible to the same thing.
And providing more assistance is not at all my point. My point is that the focus on getting immigrants to work in the US has worked well and could benefit Europe. However, in Europe because of the overwhelming number of immigrants who end up poorly vetted and living off of the government, there is a lot more separation and tension between the communities so they are less likely to be hired in Europe than the US. In the US, the problem is not getting more assistance to people the issue is that there is a perception that immigrants are living off of the government and stealing jobs that Americans want when in reality they are working cheap labor, saving up their money to start businesses or raising their children to contribute even more. Both have an imbalance because both focus solely on an incorrectly analyzed economic threat, again in my opinion.
Hello Nardos,
I agree with you about the value of integration and the acceptance of other cultures. I also agree that stereotyping and mistreating new immigrants can create resentment of their adoptive country. As you mention, there are many people in both the United States and Europe who hold negative perceptions of immigrants. Ironically, many times this is a case of old immigrants fearing new immigrants. What policies and actions do you think should be pursued to educate people about the contributions immigrants make to economy and society?
I think that the solution is multi-faceted. There must be more of an integration of global understanding into classrooms first and foremost. One must learn acceptance from a young age so having a better grasp of those contributions from immigrants could help greatly. There were studies done about this during the process of ending segregation and younger generations are a key component in changing perspectives of a society. Secondly, there is a need for more accurate media which is a tough one since both regions have a fairly free press. This part is most likely combatted by society pushing back on the media which would require those of us who believe in acceptance to call the media to task. I also feel that larger groups that work with immigrants like the IRC or ACLU or UN need to set up online forums where these ideas can be shared and fears or concerns can be brought up in a safe environment where individuals can learn about those who they do not understand. Currently, the most dangerous groups in the world seem to be the only ones who are using these online forums effectively, especially terrorist organizations. If the tool is effective for recruitment, I feel that it can be equally effective to knock down their ideologies and to improve the relationships between vulnerable immigrants and their adoptive countries.