As something of a
parting shot yesterday, Trump told Starmer that immigration “destroys countries from
within”, and advised him to deploy the military to stop migration. How
that would work isn’t clear, but perhaps he means a few extra-judicial killings
of the sort which he is implementing himself. Trumpland tends to see absolute
destruction on all sides – his response
to an unfavourable court ruling on his imposition of tariffs was to suggest
that the court’s decision “would literally destroy the United States of
America” as well. The threat of ‘absolute destruction’ is key to his
regular invocation of an emergency of one sort or another. It’s hyperbole of
course: a good general rule of thumb is that any sentence containing the word ‘literally’
is probably going to be more hyperbole than fact. Even when it isn’t from
Trump.
I can’t think of any
actual historical example which would lend support to the idea that immigration
destroys countries; on the contrary, immigration has made many countries what
they are today, with the US being perhaps the most obvious example. What
immigration can do, however, is change the culture of a country, sometimes in
small ways, and sometimes – especially when the ruling elite are drawn entirely
from the immigrant population – much more drastically. Once again, the US
stands out as a particular example of cultural replacement as Europeans
marginalised, and at times massacred, the former population. The world’s
greatest exponents of cultural replacement have been the European colonial
powers, foremost amongst them Spain, England and France, but with dishonourable
mentions for Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy as well. And here in
Wales, we are not exactly unfamiliar with the idea of cultural replacement
either, albeit as victim more than perpetrator.
Does the current
level of immigration – either into the US or the UK – really threaten that sort
of cultural change? There’s no evidence to suggest that it does. Unlike a true
invasion where the ruling group is replaced, attracting migrants into the
general population really doesn’t have that much impact. Historical evidence
says that, after two or three generations, the descendants of immigrants tend
to absorb the majority culture more often than challenging or changing it. The economic
impact of migration is disputed; most objective studies suggest that it has a
net positive effect overall, but for those who are not being well-served by the
economy at present, immigration is a convenient scapegoat. Especially when
exaggerated by those who seek to use people’s fears and prejudices as a route
to power. One of the main elements of those prejudices – we cannot avoid this
truth – is a form of racism; not always based on skin colour, although that’s
certainly a factor, but often on a fear or dislike of anyone seen to be ‘different’.
I seriously doubt whether
the likes of Trump or Farage (or Starmer or Badenoch come to that) really care
very much about immigration at all. Playing to perceived prejudices is just a route
to power, and dividing those over whom they seek power is a bonus. The result
is that, rather than challenging or changing those prejudices, they reinforce
them. Those who seek to rebut the arguments generally highlight facts and
statistics, but it’s an approach doomed to fail. People will not be swayed by
facts and statistics from a view which was never based on facts or statistics
in the first place. There is a certain inevitability about the destination if
we stay on the current trajectory. A standard piece of advice to writers is ‘show,
don’t tell’, and a good starting place for governing politicians would be to
create and then demonstrate economic
success for all rather than verbally reinforcing blame. I’m not holding my
breath.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment