From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Opposition to immigration also known as anti-immigration has become a significant political issue in many countries. Immigration,
in the modern sense, refers to the entry of people from one state or
territory to another state or territory in which they are not citizens. Illegal immigration is immigration violating a state's immigration laws.
Opposition to immigration ranges from calls for various immigration reforms, to proposals to completely restrict immigration.
Anti-immigration arguments
National identity
Some critics of immigration argue that the presence of immigrants may distort the national identity
of the native population. That means that the native population opposes
immigration because they fear they may lose their sense of belonging to
their own nation, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture,
language and politics.
National identity can be an important factor for social peace in
cases where there are intra-national divides. For example, a 2015 study
showed that the educational content of Suharto's Indonesia emphasizing the national unity of Indonesia was an important cause of improved inter-ethnic and inter-religious relationships. Attitudes about national culture correlate with opposition to immigration.
Isolation, separation and stability
Immigrants may isolate themselves in their own communities, forming self-organized communities, ghettos or parallel societies
where they live according to their own culture, rather than
assimilating to the native culture with a reduced or minimal spatial,
social and cultural contact with the majority society into which they
have immigrated. Such ethnic enclaves can be the result of humans
naturally liking to be around people like themselves. They might not learn the local language and might eventually undermine the national unity, as well as the cultural and religious unity of the native country. Research by Jennifer Neal of Michigan State University suggests that ethnic enclaves promote social cohesion at the cost of decreasing tolerance between groups and that their size, autonomy and proximity are factors. Some also suggest to devolve more power to local communities.
Immigration may adversely affect social and political stability.
Increased competition
Economic
arguments concentrate on competition for employment, and the higher
burdens that some groups of immigrants may impose on social welfare systems, health systems, housing and public schools of the native state.
For example, Denmark's strict immigration law reform has saved the
country 6.7 billion euros compared to previous more permissive approach,
according to a 2011 report from the Danish Integration Ministry.
Environmental space, quality and resource scarcity
The following are more an argument against overpopulation
than against immigration, but sometimes overpopulation is caused by
immigration (Citation needed). Some people think there is a certain size
of land needed to provide for a population ("environmental space"),
e.g., to provide for the population's consumption, including absorption
of waste products.
Immigrants, in this logic, such as a newborn child, reduce the
per-capita size of land of the native country. This idea dates back to Robert Malthus who similarly claimed this in the early 19th century.
Some are concerned about urban sprawl and congestion, alterations
in the wildlife and natural environment of the state, and an expansive
carbon footprint due to immigration.
Furthermore, some are concerned over a state's scarce resources,
dwindling water reserves, energy, pauperized soils and solid waste.
Diseases
Immigrants
(and cross-border movements in general) can bring infectious diseases
uncommon to the native population from their home countries which some perceive as a threat of significance in opposition to immigration.
Some point out that this threat is often overstated by opponents and there is a significant history of this argument being used by white supremacist groups in an embellished manner.
Immigrant crime
Opponents of immigration often claim that immigrants contribute to
higher crime rates, but research suggests that people tend to
overestimate the relationship between immigration and criminality.
The academic literature provides mixed findings for the relationship
between immigration and crime worldwide, but finds for the United States
that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it
reduces the crime rate.
Military unity
Some concerns regarding immigration can be found in perceived
military loyalty, especially if the country of emigration becomes
involved in a war with the country of immigration or if a country finds itself to need conscription.
Dangerous journeys
Many people make dangerous migration journeys on which many have died.
Harshly restricting immigration and making these restrictions known to
potential emigrants may prevent them from taking such dangerous
journeys.
Import of culture
Immigrants bring their culture with them. The immigrants' thinking, their norms, practices, customs and values shape, extend and influence the native country's culture (Leitkultur).
Some such extensions and influences might not be desired by parts of
the native population, for reasons that may include practises considered
less civilized, restrictions as well as collisions with the native
country's norms, laws and values in general.
Welfare costs
Opponents of immigration often state that immigrants have a net
negative effect on public coffers mainly due to the provisioning of
medical care and welfare.
Various factors influence the impact of immigrants to a nation's
public coffers and their use of welfare. While immigrants can improve a
state's welfare system by for example counteracting trends of aging populations their net economic impact might also be negative. George Borjas,
economics professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, states
that "the more unskilled the immigrant, the more likely the immigrant
will be a fiscal burden".
High-skilled immigrants have better labor market prospects than those
admitted based on kinship ties or for humanitarian reasons. It also depends on the tenures, wages and ages of the immigrants and the country's integration system.
Damage to migrants' home countries
Some opponents of immigration argue that immigration of highly
skilled or well-educated individuals may hurt their home countries,
which could otherwise benefit from them and build up their economy and
improve their social and political system. However, that notion of "brain drain" remains largely unsupported in the academic literature. According to the economist Michael Clemens, it has not been shown that restrictions on high-skill emigration reduce shortages in the countries of origin.
According to the development economist Justin Sandefur, "there is no
study out there... showing any empirical evidence that migration
restrictions have contributed to development." Hein de Haas, a professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam, describes brain drain as a "myth". Research suggests that emigration (both low- and high-skilled) is beneficial to the sending countries in terms of economy, education, and liberal democracy.
Remittances have a major impact on the developing economies
of the world with the majority of remittances, $441 billion in 2015,
going to developing nations. This amount is nearly triple the $131
billion of global Official Development Assistance.
For many developing nations, remittances received make up a significant
portion of their economies often receiving over 10% of their GDP in remittances each year. From a macroeconomic perspective, there is no conclusive relationship between remittances and GDP growth.
While remittances can boost aggregate demand and thereby spur economic
activity, other research indicates that remittances may also have
adverse macroeconomic impacts by increasing income inequality and
reducing labour supply among recipient countries.
No solution to underlying problems
Immigration may be the outcome of problems in the migrants' countries
of origin. Open immigration policies and efforts do not address the
problems, but keeping borders closed does not address them either.
Jeanne Park of the Council on Foreign Relations recommends European leaders to address the root causes of migration such as helping to broker an end to the Syrian Civil War, restoring stability to Libya, and increasing aid to sub-Saharan Africa. According to her, a political solution to the regional crises can make Europe no longer struggle with migrant inflows. Concerning the migratory and refugee movements in and from the Horn of Africa, Günther Schröder noted that more efforts are needed to deal with its causes.
A report by the German Caritasverband stated that only a long-term
strategy that differentiates combating the causes for migration in the
countries of origin and the development of an EU migration policy can
find solutions.
Responding to the root causes of illegal migration flows involves
co-operation with third countries, including migrants' countries of
origin and transit, and might manifest itself in conflict avoidance, peacekeeping and state building. It has been suggested that safe havens be created within the country of origin.
It can be argued that immigration means that people "flee" of their
country's problems instead of organizing, building up pressure, being
involved in constructive foreign aid programs, or otherwise addressing
them.
Causes of anti-immigration views
A
2017 study comprised 18,000 interviews across eleven countries:
Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan, Korea, Norway, Spain,
Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States. The study found that
"higher-skilled immigrants are preferred to their lower-skilled
counterparts at all levels of native socio-economic status (SES). There
is little support for the Labor Market Competition hypothesis, since
respondents are not more opposed to immigrants in their own SES stratum.
While skin tone itself has little effect in any country, immigrants
from Muslim-majority countries do elicit significantly lower levels of
support, and racial animus remains a powerful force."
A paper published in 2018 found that an influx of high-skilled
immigration was associated with declines in nationalist voting, but that
an influx in low-skilled immigration was associated with increases in
nationalist voting in elections during the 2007–2016 period.
Perceptions that immigrants are low skilled also caused increased
opposition (though high-skilled immigrants are more likely to be
welcomed).
A 2019 paper from Tel Aviv University identified economic competition,
cultural competition, racial attitudes, and fear of crime as some of the
most significant factors in opposition to immigration.
While much research has been conducted to determine what causes
opposition to immigration, little research has been done to determine
the causes behind support for immigration.
Country of origin
A study of Europe found that immigrants themselves tend to hold more favorable views of immigration. The same study found no evidence that the native-born children of immigrants hold more favorable views of immigration.
A 2017 study found that immigrants who stay in the country longer hold
more negative views of immigration than those who have only been their
for a brief period, possibly due to assimilating into native society and
adopting its views.
Economic status
A 2014 review study in the Annual Review of Political Science
found that "there is little accumulated evidence that citizens
primarily form attitudes about immigration based on its effects on their
personal economic situation. This pattern has held in both North
America and Western Europe, in both observational and experimental
studies." A study of Europe found the unemployed hold less favorable views towards immigration than the employed.
Education and knowledge
Levels of education are one of the best predictors of support for anti-immigration policies and parties. A 2016 study published in the European Economic Review
found, on the basis of European survey data in the period 2002–2012,
that "higher levels of education lead to a more positive reported
attitude toward immigrants".
The authors suggest that this is explained by weaker economic
competition between immigrants and educated natives, a higher aversion
to discrimination among the educated, and a greater belief in the
positive effects of immigration among the educated. A 2013 study in the American Journal of Political Science
lends some support to the economic competition theory, as highly
educated Americans who exhibit lower levels of xenophobia tend to
support reductions in the number of highly skilled immigrants. A 2007 study in International Organization
found that "people with higher levels of education and occupational
skills are more likely to favor immigration regardless of the skill
attributes of the immigrants in question. Across Europe, higher
education and higher skills mean more support for all types of
immigrants. These relationships are almost identical among individuals
in the labor force (that is, those competing for jobs) and those not in
the labor force." A 2018 study in the American Political Science Review
found "an additional year of secondary schooling substantially reduces
the probability of opposing immigration, believing that immigration
erodes a country's quality of life, and feeling close to far-right
anti-immigration parties."
One study of Japan found that exposure to information about the
benefits of immigration substantially increased support for a more open
immigration policy.
A study by Alexander Janus investigated whether social desirability
pressures may partially explain reduced opposition to immigration
amongst the highly educated. Using an unobtrusive questioning technique,
Janus found that anti-immigration sentiments amongst American college
graduates were far higher than subjects were willing to state. This
indicates that support for immigration amongst the better educated may
reflect expression of socially desirable views rather than actual
beliefs.
Further evidence for this was found in a study by Creighton et al.,
where amongst the college educated, it was found the stated support for
immigration was higher than the actual pro-immigrant sentiment. This was
true for other education levels. The study also found that the 2008
economic crisis did not significantly increase anti-immigration
attitudes but rather there was a greater expression of opposition to
immigration, with underlying attitudes changing little before and after
the crisis.
A 2015 study found further evidence that support for immigration
amongst the educated was mainly driven by social desirability bias.
Geographic proximity to immigrants
Some research suggests that geographic proximity to immigrants drives anti-immigration views, while other research shows the reverse. Other research suggests that it is the perception of proximity, not actual proximity, that drives these views.
A 2017 study finds that "more rapid ethnic changes increase
opposition to immigration and support for UKIP" in the United Kingdom.
A 2018 study found that increases in local ethnic diversity in Denmark
caused "rightward shifts in election outcomes by shifting electoral
support away from traditional “big government” left‐wing parties and
towards anti‐immigrant nationalist parties."
A 2018 study in the American Political Science Review
found that Greeks who had "direct exposure to refugee arrivals" showed
more hostility "toward refugees, immigrants, and Muslim minorities;
support for restrictive asylum and immigration policies; and political
engagement to effect such exclusionary policies."
A 2019 study investigated why residents of cities tend to have
more positive attitudes towards immigration and cosmopolitanism. The
study concluded that it was not living in a city per se that created
more positive attitudes but rather the composition of the populations of
cities; city populations tended to be more educated, which correlated
with more positive immigration attitudes, while people who were more
positive of immigration were more likely to self-select into large
cities. Cities were also found to be internally heterogenous with
regards to immigration attitudes, with attitudes varying between
neighbourhoods.
Intergenerational transmission
Some
research suggests that anti-immigration views are transmitted from
older generations to younger generations. A 2017 study of Germany found
"high association between fathers' and sons' right-wing extremist
attitudes".
A 2015 study found that British communities that were more acceptant of
Jews in medieval times show much more tolerance towards 20th century
immigrants (chiefly Caribbean and South Asian immigrants) and 21st
century immigrants (chiefly Eastern European), and less support for the
far right.
Perspective-taking
A 2017 study in the American Political Science Review
found that prejudice towards marginalized groups, such as refugees,
could be explained by a failure to take the perspective of the
marginalized group.
The study found that young Hungarian adults who played a
perspective-taking game (a game intended to reduce prejudice towards
marginalized groups by having players assume the role of a member of a
marginalized group) showed reduced prejudice towards Romani people and
refugees, as well as reduced their vote intentions for Hungary's overtly
racist, far right party by 10%.
Religion
A 2017 study found that by emphasizing shared religion can produce more supportive attitudes toward refugees.
A 2015 study of the US found that religion did not seem to determine
opposition to immigration as while respondents were explicit about
opposition to Muslim immigration, they also concealed significant
opposition to Christian immigration due to social desirability bias. It
was thus determined that religiosity or denomination did not determine
explicit or implicit opposition and any differences were down to social
desirability bias in this case.
One 2018 study in the United Kingdom found that opposition to
Muslim immigrants was not about a more negative view of Muslim (compared
to Christian) immigrants but rather about rejecting fundamentalist
religiosity. The study concluded that opposition based on religion was
thus less about the religious group and more about political liberalism
versus religious fundamentalism.
Sociopsychological explanations
A 2014 review study in the Annual Review of Political Science found that there is substantial evidence in support of sociopsychological explanations for anti-immigration views. A 2007 study in International Organization
found that "the link between education and attitudes toward immigrants
is driven by differences among individuals in cultural values and
beliefs. More educated respondents are significantly less racist and
place greater value on cultural diversity than do their counterparts;
they are also more likely to believe that immigration generates benefits
for the host economy as a whole."
A 2017 study in the American Political Science Review
argued that hostility towards immigrants is driven by disgust and can
be explained as a psychological mechanism designed to protect humans
from disease.
Research suggests that the perception that there is a positive
causal link between immigration and crime leads to greater support for
anti-immigration policies or parties. Research also suggests that bigotry
and immigrant alienation could exacerbate immigrant criminality and
bigotry. For instance, University of California, San Diego political
scientist Claire Adida, Stanford University political scientist David
Laitin and Sorbonne University economist Marie-Anne Valfort argue
"fear-based policies that target groups of people according to their
religion or region of origin are counter-productive. Our own research,
which explains the failed integration of Muslim immigrants in France,
suggests that such policies can feed into a vicious cycle
that damages national security. French Islamophobia—a response to
cultural difference—has encouraged Muslim immigrants to withdraw from
French society, which then feeds back into French Islamophobia, thus
further exacerbating Muslims' alienation, and so on. Indeed, the failure
of French security in 2015 was likely due to police tactics that
intimidated rather than welcomed the children of immigrants—an approach
that makes it hard to obtain crucial information from community members
about potential threats."
A study of the long-term effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in
the United States found that the post-9/11 increase in hate crimes
against Muslims decreased assimilation by Muslim immigrants.
Controlling for relevant factors, the authors found that "Muslim
immigrants living in states with the sharpest increase in hate crimes
also exhibit: greater chances of marrying within their own ethnic group;
higher fertility; lower female labour force participation; and lower
English proficiency." A study of Germans found that the 9/11 terror attacks contributed to greater anti-immigrant sentiments.
States that experience terrorist acts on their own soil or against
their own citizens are more likely to adopt stricter restrictions on
asylum recognition.
Research has also indicated opposition to immigration may be
motivated by concern about a persons concern about their group's social
position.
Studies found that increasing Hispanic immigration to the US caused
greater support for immigration restriction amongst both white Americans
and non-Hispanic non-white Americans (Hispanic Americans showed no
change in attitudes), suggesting that concerns about group position
could motivate opposition to immigration. Political ideology can also interact with group social position; in the 2016 United States presidential election
white Clinton voters were strongly opposed to the notion of white
Americans limiting immigration to maintain their group position but were
not generally opposed to the notion of Hispanic Americans desiring to
increase their population share via increased immigration, while white
Trump voters showed the opposite. David Frum suggests that while mass migration has occurred historically, for societies that have undergone a demographic transition,
immigration brings change faster since the native population has fewer
children. This causes immigrants to be perceived not as reinforcing the
native population but instead as replacing it.
Opposition to immigration by country or region
In
2018, a survey of 27 countries around the world showed that a median of
45% wanted fewer or no immigrants, 36% wanted to keep the current
immigration levels and only 14% wanted immigration to increase. The
median of those opposing was the highest in countries receiving the most
migrants, with 51% in European countries.
Australia
Pauline Hanson said in her maiden speech in 1996 that Australia "was in danger of being swamped by Asians"
The impact of Europeans was profoundly disruptive to Aboriginal life
and, though the extent of violence is debated, there was considerable
conflict on the frontier. At the same time, some settlers were quite
aware they were usurping the Aborigines place in Australia. In 1845,
settler Charles Griffiths sought to justify this, writing; "The question
comes to this; which has the better right – the savage, born in a
country, which he runs over but can scarcely be said to occupy ... or
the civilized man, who comes to introduce into this ... unproductive
country, the industry which supports life."
Many events illustrate violence and resistance as Aborigines sought to
protect their lands from invasion and as settlers and pastoralists
attempted to establish their presence. In May 1804, at Risdon Cove, Van
Diemen's Land, perhaps 60 Aborigines were killed when they approached
the town.
A sparsely-populated continental nation with a predominantly European population, Australia has long feared being overwhelmed by the heavily populated Asian countries to its north. The standard policy after 1900 was "White Australia"
which encouraged immigration from Britain, was suspicious of immigrants
from Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and which was quite hostile to
immigrants from Asia or the Pacific islands.
After World War II, most Australians agreed that the country must
"populate or perish". Immigration brought people from traditional
sources such as the British Isles along with, for the first time, large numbers of Southern and Central Europeans. The abolition of the so-called 'White Australia policy' during the early 1970s led to a significant increase in immigration from Asian and other non-European countries.
Prime Minister John Curtin supported White Australia policy,
saying "This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants
of those people who came here in peace to establish in the South Seas an
outpost of the British race."
Prime Minister Stanley Bruce was a supporter of the White Australia Policy, and made it an issue in his campaign for the 1925 Australian Federal election.
It
is necessary that we should determine what are the ideals towards which
every Australian would desire to strive. I think those ideals might
well be stated as being to secure our national safety, and to ensure the
maintenance of our White Australia Policy to continue as an integral
portion of the British Empire.
We intend to keep this country white and not allow its people to be
faced with the problems that at present are practically insoluble in
many parts of the world.
Labor leader (1951–1960) H. V. Evatt was a defender of the White Australia Policy.
There was a strong view in Australia that any softening of the White
Australia stance might result in cheaper labour being imported from
overseas. Another prevailing sentiment was that multiculturalism
resulted in instability. Evatt, opposing resolutions which could have
led to more Asian immigration to Australia, told the Chinese delegation
at San Francisco:
You have always insisted on the right to determine the
composition of your own people. Australia wants that right now. What you
are attempting to do now, Japan attempted after the last war [the First
World War] and was prevented by Australia. Had we opened New Guinea and
Australia to Japanese immigration then the Pacific War by now might
have ended disastrously and we might have had another shambles like that
experienced in Malaya.
Another (ALP) Leader of the Labor Party from 1960 to 1967 Arthur Calwell supported the White European Australia policy. This is reflected by Calwell's comments in his 1972 memoirs, Be Just and Fear Not,
in which he made it clear that he maintained his view that non-European
people should not be allowed to settle in Australia. He wrote:
I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud
of his yellow skin, a Japanese of his brown skin, and the Indians of
their various hues from black to coffee-colored. Anybody who is not
proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to
stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to
preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great
harm... I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever
can become a multi-racial society and survive.
It was the high-profile historian Geoffrey Blainey,
however, who first achieved mainstream recognition for the
anti-multiculturalist cause when he wrote that multiculturalism
threatened to transform Australia into a "cluster of tribes". In his
1984 book All for Australia,
Blainey criticised multiculturalism for tending to "emphasise the
rights of ethnic minorities at the expense of the majority of
Australians" and also for tending to be "anti-British", even though
"people from the United Kingdom and Ireland form the dominant class of
pre-war immigrants and the largest single group of post-war immigrants."
According to Blainey, such a policy, with its "emphasis on what
is different and on the rights of the new minority rather than the old
majority," was unnecessarily creating division and threatened national
cohesion. He argued that "the evidence is clear that many multicultural
societies have failed and that the human cost of the failure has been
high" and warned that "we should think very carefully about the perils
of converting Australia into a giant multicultural laboratory for the
assumed benefit of the peoples of the world."
In one of his numerous criticisms of multiculturalism, Blainey wrote:
For the millions of Australians who have no other nation
to fall back upon, multiculturalism is almost an insult. It is divisive.
It threatens social cohesion. It could, in the long-term, also endanger
Australia's military security because it sets up enclaves which in a
crisis could appeal to their own homelands for help.
Blainey remained a persistent critic of multiculturalism into the
1990s, denouncing multiculturalism as "morally, intellectually and
economically ... a sham".
In the 1996 election Pauline Hanson was elected to the federal seat of Oxley.
In her controversial maiden speech to the House of Representatives, she
expressed her belief that Australia "was in danger of being swamped by
Asians". Hanson went on to form the One Nation Party, which initially won nearly one quarter of the vote in Queensland state elections before entering a period of decline due to internal disputes.
The name "One Nation" was meant to signify national unity, in contrast
to what Hanson claimed to see as an increasing division in Australian
society caused by government policies favouring migrants
(multiculturalism) and indigenous Australians.
Some Australians reacted angrily to One Nation, as Hanson was
subjected to water balloons filled with urine at public speeches,
ridiculed in the media, and received so many death threats she filmed a
"good-bye video" in the case of her assassination.
She was imprisoned by the government on political corruption charges,
which were dropped after her imprisonment. In recent years the rise of
other anti-immigrant parties such as the Australian Liberty Alliance and
groups such as the United Patriot Front indicates that anti-immigration
sentiment may be becoming mainstream.
Canada
Opponents of immigration to Canada
have argued that immigration to Canada in current numbers of about
250,000 per year, the highest in the Western world, is unsustainable and
puts pressure on resources such as further worsening the country's
current housing crisis.
They argue that Canadian cities are limited in size and cannot take an
infinite number of people. This also further creates a competition for
jobs and puts a strain on the economy, the environment and tax funded
public services.
Europe
A February 2017 poll of 10,000 people in 10 European countries by Chatham House
found on average a majority (55%) were opposed to further Muslim
immigration, with opposition especially pronounced in several countries:
Austria (65%), Poland (71%), Hungary (64%), France (61%) and Belgium
(64%). Except for Poland, all of those had recently suffered jihadist terror attacks
or been at the centre of a refugee crisis. Of those opposed to further
Muslim immigration, 3/4 classify themselves as on the right of the
political spectrum. Of those self-classifying as on the left of the
political spectrum, 1/3 supported a halt.
According to a Yougov
poll in 2018, majorities in all seven polled countries were opposed to
accepting more migrants: Germany (72%), Denmark (65%), Finland (64%),
Sweden (60%), United Kingdom (58%), France (58%) and Norway (52%).
Political opposition to high levels of legal immigration has been associated with certain right-wing parties in the EU. The issue flared up with the European migrant crisis
in 2015 with large numbers of refugees from the Middle East and Africa
making dangerous trips to Europe and many deaths en route. With high
levels of unemployment and partly unassimilated non-European immigrant
populations already within the EU, parties opposed to immigration have
improved their position in polls and elections. Right-wing parties
critical to immigration have entered the government in Austria, Denmark,
Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Slovakia, and have become
major factors in English, Swedish, German and French politics.
Immigration is one of the central political issues in many European countries, and increasingly also at European Union
level. The anti-immigration perspective is predominantly nationalist,
cultural and economic. A new index measuring the level of perceived
threat from immigrants has been recently proposed and applied to a data
set covering 47 European countries and regions.
In France, the National Front opposes immigration. In the 1988 elections, 75% of supporters of its leader Jean-Marie Le Pen believed France has too many immigrants as opposed to 35% of all voters.
Denmark
According to a poll in 2017, two out of three (64%) wished for
limiting immigration from Muslim countries which was an increase from
2015 (54%).
France
According to an Ipsos poll in September 2019, 65% responded that
accepting migrants did not improve the situation in France and 45%
responded that accepting migrants deprived the French of social
services.
Germany
In 2018, a poll by Pew Research
found that a majority (58%) wanted fewer immigrants to be allowed into
the country, 30% wanted to keep the current level and 10% wanted to
increase immigration.
Greece
In February 2020, more than 10 000 individuals attempted to cross the border between Greece and Turkey after Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan opened its border to Europe, but they were blocked by Greek army and police forces. Hundreds of Greek soldiers and armed police resisted the trespassers and fired tear gas
at them. Among those who attempted to cross the majority were not war
refugees from Syria, but the largest group was from Afghanistan and the
next largest from Pakistan along with significant numbers of migrants
from African countries Ethiopia, Morocco and Algeria. Greece responded
by refusing to accept asylum applications for a month.
Among the illegal immigrants who were apprehended between 28 February
and 5 March by Greek authorities in the Evros region 64% were from
Afghanistan, 19% were from Pakistan, 5% were from Turkey, 4% from Syria
and 2.6% from Somalia.
Hungary
In 2015 during the European migrant crisis, Hungary built a razor-wire fence on its border to Serbia to stop migrants from entering the European Union.
Italy
According to poll published by Corriere della Serra,
one of two respondents (51%) approved closing Italy's ports to further
boat migrants arriving via the Mediterranean, while 19% welcomed further
boat migrants.
In 2018, a poll by Pew Research
found that a majority (71%) wanted fewer immigrants to be allowed into
the country, 18% wanted to keep the current level and 5% wanted to
increase immigration.
Portugal
Portugal had little immigration until a sudden influx in the 1970s, as ex-colonists, most of them ethnically white, returned.
After the former Portuguese African colonies gained independence, and
because nationals of Portuguese-speaking nations can freely live and
work in Portugal without much bureaucracy, an incremental growth of
immigration from Portugal's former overseas possessions was observed
over the past few decades, notably from Brazil, Cape Verde, Angola and Mozambique.
There are nearly 150,000 Brazilians (a considerable proportion of them
of mixed-race background) and 370,000 people of African Ancestry living
in Portugal. Immigration to rural areas is more limited. Until recently, far-right party "National Renewal Party",
known as PNR, was the only one in Portugal who actively targeted the
mass-immigration and ethnic minorities (mainly related to Gypsy and African communities) issues. After years of growing support—0.09% 4,712 2002, 0.16% 9,374 2005, 0.20% 11,503 2009, 0.31% 17,548 2011— it managed 0.50%, or 27,269, of the electorate in the 2015 Portuguese legislative election. Since 2019, far-right political party CHEGA has gained traction in the country. Following the 2019 Portuguese legislative election, the party's president, André Ventura, assured a seat in Assembly of the Republic, after having received over 66,000 votes, 1,3% of the electorate. In the 2020 Azorean regional election, the party secured two assemblyman to the regional government and, during the 2021 Portuguese presidential election, André Ventura managed to gather approximately 500,000 votes, 12% of the total. The party has been described as being anti-immigration and xenophobic. CHEGA has an estimated 25,000 militant members and is expected to continue to rise in popularity and political force.
Spain
A January 2004 survey by Spanish newspaper El País showed that the "majority" of Spaniards believe immigration was too high.
In Spain, surveys show "in descending order, jobs, crime and
housing" as the primary concerns for citizens opposed to immigration.
Small Neo-fascist
parties, such as Movimiento Social Español, openly campaign using
nationalist or anti-immigrant rhetoric as do other small far-right
parties such as National Democracy (Spain) and España 2000. These parties have never won national or regional parliamentary seats.
Sweden
A 2008 study which involved questionnaires to 5000 people, showed
that less than a quarter of the respondents (23%) wanted to live in
areas characterised by cultural, ethnic and social diversity.
In late 2015, Sweden introduced temporary border checks on the Øresund Bridge
between Denmark and Sweden and public transport operators were
instructed to only let people with residence in Sweden board trains or
buses. The measures reduced the number of asylum seekers from 163 000 in
2015 to 29 000 in 2016.
A 2016 SOM Institute survey published by University of Gothenburg
reported that between the years 2011 and 2016, the estimated share of
people with concerns about the increasing number of immigrants increased
from around 20% to 45%. In the period 2014–2016.
In 2018, a poll by Pew Research
found that a majority (52%) wanted fewer immigrants to be allowed into
the country, 33% wanted to keep the current level and 14% wanted to
increase immigration.
On the question of repatriation
of the asylum immigrants, 61% of native respondents in 1990 thought
that it was a good suggestion, with this figure steadily decreasing over
the ensuing years to a low of around 40% in 2014. In 2015, there was an
increase in respondents in favor of repatriation; where a majority of
52% deemed it a good suggestion. The proportion of respondents who felt
repatriation was neither a good nor bad proposal simultaneously dropped
from almost 40% to 24%.
In February 2020 finance minister Magdalena Andersson
encouraged migrants to head for other countries than Sweden. Andersson
stated in an interview that integration of immigrants in Sweden wasn't
working since neither before nor after 2015 and that Sweden cannot
accept more immigration than it is able to integrate.
Municipalities in Sweden
In 2020 several municipalities refused to pay social welfare to additional asylum seekers from settling in their domains. In a government deal from January 2019 (Swedish: Januariavtalet)
32 municipalities were allowed to designate vulnerable areas in their
domains where asylum seekers would lose the right to social welfare
payouts. Several municipalities responded by designating their entire
jurisdiction as a vulnerable area, among them were Malmö, Helsingborg
and Landskrona.
United Kingdom
In the UK the British National Party made opposition to immigration one of their central policies in the 2010 general election. The anti-mass-immigration party, UKIP, have proposed setting up a Migration Control Commission, tasked with bringing down net migration. The Conservative Party pledged to bring immigration from the EU and rest of the world down to the "tens of thousands", with a range of welfare restrictions and housing restrictions.
The vote for the UK to leave the EU
was successful in Britain, with several commentators suggesting that
populist concern over immigration from the EU was a major feature of the
public debate.
British Prime Minister David Cameron resigned over the vote. In 2006,
Cameron dismissed UKIP supporters as "fruitcakes, loonies and closet
racists, mostly" though later conceded to hold a vote on leaving the EU, due in part to the Conservative party losing votes to UKIP.
The former Prime Minister Theresa May introduced an Immigration Skills Charge
in April 2017, on companies who employ skilled non-EU immigrants, of
£1000 per immigrant employee; small or charitable organizations pay a
reduced amount of £364. The money is to be used to help fund apprenticeships and skills training for people from the UK and EU. In her 2017 General Election
manifesto, the Prime Minister promised to double the Immigration Skills
Charge to £2000 per employee, if re-elected. EU law prevents the charge
being applied concerning immigrants from the EU (or limiting the
apprenticeships to people from the UK); the prime minister has promised
that after Brexit there will also be restrictions on migration from the EU.
Middle East
Israel
In 2012, Israel constructed a barrier on its border with Egypt which reduced the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border into Israel, from 16000 in 2011 to fewer than 20 in 2016 which represents a decrease of 99%.
The government tried offering money to migrants to encourage them to
return to their countries of origin, while the Supreme Court blocked the
government's attempts to deport them.
In December 2017, the parliament approved legislation which would allow the government to overrule the Supreme Court to deport 40000 illegal immigrants. In the preceding decade, some 60000 illegal immigrants entered Israel by crossing the border with Egypt. Some were legitimate refugees, most were economic migrants.
Asia
India
India has anti-immigration parties at the state level. Two anti-immigration parties in the state of Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena and the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, are a proponent of the idea that migrants from Northern India steal jobs from the native Marathi people,
with a history of attacking immigrants and accusing them of playing a
role in crime in the city of Mumbai. The Shiv Sena also has a history of
threatening the Pakistani cricket team from coming to Mumbai and also
threatening Australian cricket players in the Indian Premier League, following racially motivated attacks on Indian students in Australia in 2009.
In the last few decades, there has been a rise in the anti-illegal immigration attitudes in the North East Indian states like Assam, which has become a common entry point for illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Riots have occurred between the native tribes of Assam and illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
In 2019, the Government of India introduced the Citizenship Amendment Act,
which gives a faster path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities that have
immigrated both legally and illegally from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan that suffer religious persecution (provided they arrived in India before 31 December 2014).
Any refugees from these groups that arrived after the cutoff must
reside in India for at least 5 years before they can gain citizenship.
Widespread protests have been held, both opposing and supporting the
Act.
The National Register of Citizens is a register of all Indian citizens whose creation is mandated by the 2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Its purpose is to document all the legal citizens of India so that the illegal migrants can be identified and deported. It has been implemented for the state of Assam starting in 2013–2014. The Government of India plans to implement it for the rest of the country in 2021.
Japan
The movement for Japanese cultural isolation, sakoku (鎖 国), arose in Edo period Japan, in response to the strong influence of Western culture. The study of (ancient) Japanese literature and culture was called kokugaku (国 学, "country study").
Americas
Brazil
Brazil is a country of immigrants and developed a reputation for
"warm welcome" of people all over the world. Nevertheless, different
analysts often dispute how truthful this image is and, although openly
xenophobic manifestation were uncommon, some scholars denounce it
existence in more subtle ways.
Despite the fact that Brazil was considered a safe haven for
neighboring refugees and immigrants, xenophobic violence has erupted.
Brazil received up to 3000 Syrian refugees becoming the largest receiver of such in Latin America. However xenophobic and islamophobic attacks were reported against Syrian refugees and Muslims in general. After the alleged beating of a shop owner during a robbery by alleged Venezuelan migrants, riots occurred in the Brazilian-Venezuelan border which included attacks on Venezuelans nationals, destruction of refugee tents and fires. 1200 Venezuelans went back to their homeland as a result and President Michel Temer's
government increased military personnel in the border. The burning of
the refugee camps was reported in national and international news outlet
and the authorities announce they will investigate and prosecute the
authors. However anti-migration far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro won the recent Brazilian general election in 2018.
Canada
In a 2013 interview with the French news magazine L'Express Canadian academic and environmental activist David Suzuki
stated that Canada's immigration policy was "crazy" and "Canada is
full". However, he insisted that Canada should "open its doors to those
who are oppressed" and accept refugees.
In a 2017 poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute, a majority of respondents (57%) indicated that they believed Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.
The National Citizens Alliance is a far-right political party in Canada that regularly holds anti-immigration rallies.
Costa Rica
Anti-immigrant
feelings date back to late 19th century and early 20th century with the
country's first waves of migrations from places like China, Lebanon and Poland. Non-Polish European migration dates back to practically the independence from Spain but was generally well received. Polish migration was mostly Jewish thus the backlash was due to anti-Semitism. Records of the time show Chinese migrants as the most affected by prejudice especially from government official and the first anti-Chinese laws were enacted as far back as the 1910s. In 1903 President Ascensión Esquivel Ibarra
enacted one of the first decrees forbidding non-White immigration and
explicitly stating that migration from Asians, Blacks, Gypsies, Arabs
and Turks was not allowed.
Although these laws were common in Latin America at the time, and Costa
Rica's government eventually became the lead force in its abolishment.
Polish, Chinese and Lebanese
migrants would integrate fully into Costa Rican society with time to
the point that many prominent Costa Ricans from industry, politics,
arts, academy, etc. are of those descents. Latin American migrants became the next source of mistrust and opposition, especially Nicaraguan and Colombian migrants. During the second half of the 20th century and to this date Costa Rica receives numerous waves of Latin American
migrants from all the region, but Nicaraguans are by far the higher
group among immigrant population encompassing 74.6% of the immigrant
population, followed by Colombians and Americans (immigrants in general are 9% of the population) making ethnic Nicaraguans
and binational Nicaraguan-Costa Rican citizens one of the most
notorious ethnic minorities in Costa Rica outnumbering other groups like
African-Costa Ricans. This caused debate in the country with some voices claiming for harder regulations and border control. The issue was one of the main topics of the 2002 election and was again important for the 2018's campaign with right-wing politicians like Otto Guevara quoting Donald Trump as an inspiration and calling for harsher migratory laws and eliminating the citizenship by birth in the Constitution.
The Migration Law was reform globally in 2005 hardening some of the
requirements for entering, staying and working on the country which was
criticized as excessive, but further reforms, the last one in 2009, reduce some of the impact of the more controversial parts of the law. Far-right ultra-conservative National Restoration Party, that held an important role in the 2018 presidential election, also holds anti-migration positions.
After a series of fake news spread by several far-right Facebook pages
inciting hatred against Nicaraguan migrants, an anti-migration
manifestation was organized on 18 August 2018 known as the "Taken of La
Merced" after Nicaraguan refugees were falsely accused of having
"taking" La Merced Park in San Jose, a common gathering of the Nicaraguan community. Although some of the protesters were peaceful, participation of openly neo-Nazi groups and violent hooligans with criminal records caused riots and attacks on Nicaraguans or people suspected of being. The national police Public Force intervened with up to 44 people arrested, 36 of such were Costa Rican and the rest Nicaraguans. Several violent articles including Molotov bombs were confiscated and some of the protesters identify themselves with Swastikas and yelled "¡Fuera nicas!" (Nicas out!). A pro-immigrant manifestation was scheduled a week later with a high attendance.
Further anti-migration protests (this time with the explicit exclusion
of hooligans and neo-nazi) were organized in later days but with lesser
participation.
Mexico
In Mexico, during the first eight months of 2005, more than 120,000 people from Central America
were deported to their countries of origin. This is a much higher
number than the people deported in the same period in 2002, when only 1
person was deported in the entire year. Many women from countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (most of former USSR), Asia and Central and South America are offered jobs at table dance establishments in large cities throughout the country, causing the National Institute of Migration (INM) in Mexico to raid strip clubs and deport foreigners who work without the proper documentation.
Mexico has very strict laws pertaining to both illegal and legal immigrants.
The Mexican constitution restricts non-citizens or foreign-born persons
from participating in politics, holding office, acting as a member of
the clergy, or serving on the crews of Mexican-flagged ships or
airplanes. Certain legal rights are waived, such as the right to a
deportation hearing or other legal motions. In cases of flagrante delicto,
any person may make a citizen's arrest on the offender and his
accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.
Many immigration restrictionists in the United States have accused the Mexican government of hypocrisy in its immigration policy, noting that while the Government of Mexico and Mexican Americans are demanding looser immigration laws in the United States and oppose the 2010 Arizona Immigration Bill,
at the same time Mexico is imposing even tighter restrictions on
immigration into Mexico from Central America and other places than the
Arizona law. However, Mexico started enforcing those laws which they
previously ignored at the direct request of the United States, which saw
a surge of Central American immigration during the Bush years; the
newly elected president of Mexico has stated his desire to be more open,
and would not deport Central Americans on their way to the United
States or those who wish to remain in Mexico.
Panama
The recent exodus of Venezuelan migrants in Panama encouraged the xenophobic and anti-migration public speech from Panamanian nationalist groups.
United States
Donald Trump
campaigned for president in 2016 by promising to build a wall on the
border of Mexico and the United States "as the centerpiece of his
immigration plan"
Anti-illegal immigrant car sticker in Colorado
In the United States of America,
opponents of immigration typically focus on perceived adverse effects,
such as economic costs (job competition and burdens on education and
social services); negative environmental impact from accelerated
population growth; increased crime rates, and in the long run, changes
in traditional identities and values.
In countries where the majority of the population is of immigrant
descent, such as the United States, opposition to immigration sometimes
takes the form of nativism.
In the United States, opposition to immigration has a long
history, starting in the late 1790s, in reaction to an influx of
political refugees from France and Ireland. The Alien and Sedition Acts
of 1798 severely restricted the rights of immigrants. Nativism first
gained a name and affected politics in the mid-19th century United
States because of the large inflows of immigrants from cultures that
were markedly different from the existing Protestant culture. Nativists primarily objected to Roman Catholics, especially Irish Americans. Nativist movements included the American Party of the mid-19th Century (formed by members of the Know-Nothing movement), the Immigration Restriction League of the early 20th Century, and the anti-Asian movements in the West, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act and the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement"
which was aimed at the Japanese. Major restrictions became law in the
1920s and sharply cut the inflow of immigrants until 1965, when they
ended. The federal government took charge of finding and deporting illegal aliens, which it still does.
Immigration again became a major issue from the 1990s onward,
with burgeoning rates of undocumented immigration, particularly by
Mexicans who crossed the Southern border, and others who overstayed
their visitor visas. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
provided an amnesty which was described as the amnesty to end all
amnesties but it had no lasting impact on the flow of illegal
immigrants.
By 2014, the Tea Party movement narrowed its focus away from economic issues, spending and Obamacare to attacking President Barack Obama's
immigration policies. They saw his immigration policies as threatening
to transform American society. They tried but failed to defeat leading
Republicans who supported immigration programs, such as Senator John McCain. A typical slogan appeared in the Tea Party Tribune: "Amnesty for Millions, Tyranny for All." The New York Times reported:
- What started five years ago as a groundswell of conservatives
committed to curtailing the reach of the federal government, cutting the
deficit and countering the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party has
become a movement largely against immigration overhaul. The
politicians, intellectual leaders and activists who consider themselves
part of the Tea Party movement have redirected their energy from fiscal
austerity and small government to stopping any changes that would
legitimize people who are here illegally, either through granting them
citizenship or legal status.
As of 2014, over 42.4 million immigrants were living in the United
States. This was about 13.3% of the entire United States population at
that time.
- Labor unions
The American Federation of Labor
(AFL), a coalition of labor unions formed in the 1880s, vigorously
opposed unrestricted immigration from Europe for moral, cultural, and
racial reasons. The issue unified the workers who feared that an influx
of new workers would flood the labor market and lower wages.
Nativism was not a factor because upwards of half the union members
were themselves immigrants or the sons of immigrants from Ireland,
Germany and Britain. However, nativism was a factor when the AFL even
more strenuously opposed all immigration from Asia because it
represented (to its Euro-American
members) an alien culture that could not be assimilated into American
society. The AFL intensified its opposition after 1906 and was
instrumental in passing immigration restriction bills from the 1890s to
the 1920s, such as the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, and seeing that they were strictly enforced.
Mink (1986) concludes that the link between the AFL and the Democratic Party
rested in part on immigration issues, noting the large corporations,
which supported the Republicans, wanted more immigration to augment
their labor force.
The United Farm Workers was committed to restricting immigration during Cesar Chavez tenure. Chavez and Dolores Huerta, cofounder and president of the UFW, fought the Bracero Program
that existed from 1942 to 1964. Their opposition stemmed from their
belief that the program undermined U.S. workers and exploited the
migrant workers. Since the Bracero Program ensured a constant supply of
cheap immigrant labor for growers, immigrants could not protest any
infringement of their rights, lest they be fired and replaced. Their
efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964. In
1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed
employer sanctions that would have prohibited hiring illegal immigrants.
On a few occasions, concerns that illegal immigrant labor would
undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events,
which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have
also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1969, Chavez and
members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys
to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal immigrants
as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale.
In its early years, the UFW and Chavez went so far as to report illegal
immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers (as well as
those who refused to unionize) to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States-Mexico border
to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally
and potentially undermining the UFW's unionization efforts. During one such event, in which Chavez was not involved, some UFW
members, under the guidance of Chavez's cousin Manuel, physically
attacked the strikebreakers after peaceful attempts to persuade them not
to cross the border failed.
In 1979, Chavez used a forum of a U.S. Senate committee hearing
to denounce the federal immigration service, which he said the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service purportedly refused to arrest
illegal Mexican immigrants who Chavez claims are being used to break the
union's strike.
Bernie Sanders opposes guest worker programs and he is also skeptical of skilled immigrant (H-1B)
visas, saying,:"Last year, the top 10 employers of H-1B guest workers
were all offshore outsourcing companies. These firms are responsible for
shipping large numbers of American information technology jobs to India
and other countries". In an interview with Vox, he stated his opposition to an open borders immigration policy, describing it as such:
[A]
right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.
[...] [Y]ou're doing away with the concept of a nation-state. What
right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy.
Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be
great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages
in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create
millions of jobs.
Africa
South Africa
Several periods of violent riots against migrants have occurred in
South Africa in the past decade, some resulting in fatalities. Countries
from which the migrants targeted originated include Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
In March 2019, groups armed with machetes broke into the homes of migrants in Durban.
At least six people were killed, several were wounded and their homes
were looted. At least 300 Malawi migrants were forced to leave the
country. In separate attacks, foreign truck drivers were forced out of
their vehicles and were attacked with knives. On 2 April 2019, another
group of migrants in Durban was attacked and forced to flee their homes. The escalating violence added tension to the upcoming 2019 South African general election.
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
