Migrations history is about as old as mankinds record on earth. Our ancestors have moved from place to place from region to region and from continent to continent because the grass in the next valley seemed to be greener. It was this restlessness an amalgam of curiosity and the temptation of the new that enabled us to conquer the earth and to prevail over our competitors. To understand ourselves we need to evaluate migrations role. The presents controversies that new forms of migration have provoked add urgency to the evaluation of the phenomenon.
It is difficult to categorize a migration as good or bad without judging individual cases. Migration has and is presently taking different forms. A migration can be analogous to conquest possibly followed by the displacement of the indigenous. The movement of peoples that toppled the Roman Empire is an example. So is the case of the Americas or the occupation of south-eastern Europe by the Ottoman Empire. In these instances of cultural convergence" culture suffered knowledge was lost the economy declined and what we now consider to be human rights suffered.
An interesting variant is when a government seeking to accelerate development reaches out to lure the qualified. Often governments invite individuals or entire organized communities to settle. They do so because they need people as colonizers or to access certain skills. That is how Russias Volga German settlements came about. Saxon and Swabian villages in Transylvania and Hungary proper also fit the case. A factor behind Prussias rise has been the acceptance of Huguenots that fled persecution in France. The foundation of the most Swiss of all industries is a fitting theme as French refugees brought watchmaking to the French-speaking cantons of the country. Just investigate how many in the Manhattan Project were immigrants and where they came from. It is summed up by a medieval Hungarian king who declared that (skilled) migrants are a jewel on any crown.
Group migration -and the resulting minority communities- that brought either disaster or advancement needs a post script. Stalin deported his Germans". Later their remnants returned" to Germany. There they are prone to be welfare cases or to spice criminal statistics. When Hitler rose central Europes German communities that kept their sense of identity for centuries tended to side with the Nazis. After the war most of them were repatriated" to Germany. A bad outcome is possible if those fleeing are settled in border areas. Their preserved identity in a parallel society can support irredentas. Some hosting countries were truncated when their protected guests" took their land with them to join an ethnic fatherland".
There is a lesson wrapped in the diverse and confusing record. Migration is neither good or bad because by design or accident it can be either.
Modern times brought individualized migration. This prevailed up to the present when NGOs plead for the entry of closed and separate communities. The resulting subculture whose cohesion often depends on the rejection of majoritarian society and its values make migration into a controversial form of conquest.
For the migrant as well as his host a successful policy of migration has to concentrate on the individual entrant. Australia Canada and the USA have the longest record of personal selection and the greatest success in settling applicants.
Being as a refugee also an ex- migrant and having worked for a UN agency active in the field it seems to the writer that the process of admission needs to raise the right questions. It is entirely rational and therefore also moral to select according to the needs of the hosting society. Inevitably migrations that burden the host create tensions that mobilize society against them. We witness the proof of that now in America as well as in Europe where the problem (crime) dominates public affairs.
As one formulates criteria for admission it appears that their gist pertains to cultural compatibility. Even in the case of individual migration the farther away the cultures are the less probable will integration become. Regardless of the motive moving from one country to another implies that the migrant leaves a life behind to begin a new one. Here personality and early socialization plays a role. Individuals that feel vulnerable and uncertain will react by clinging to old ways by whose standards they are somebody". The resulting protective shield will make the merger into the new resented environment difficult. It also explains why at the same time and place one immigration can surpass the natives while another one flops.
Persons that carry culturally inculcated attitudes that are hostile to the new country will resist the ways by which their host society functions. If the way of life the social order or the religion of the host are depicted as inferior in the canon learned at home a We" against Them" attitude will prevail. The resulting disappointment will be attributed to the indigenous and serve to confirm discrimination. The reader should not take this as a plea for uncritical submission. Indeed not only in America migrants have as innovators made significant contributions to their new country. An innovation presupposes that a local lack is discovered overcome and to the benefit of society at large converted into a personal advantage.
Obviously migrants seek success according to their definition of the term. Intelligent societies that accept them will support that endeavor. On the whole this presupposes that the process of selection be allowed to raise the right questions. Is the ability to learn a new language present? Does the applicant have skills on the level of the hosts development? Is there an ability to acquire new skills measured by the level of schooling? Does a resentment exist that is caused by the need to learn from others? Some cultures refuse to learn from more successful models and they tend to implant a fear of an implied inferiority into their members. Certain inculcated values such as belief in an order adherence to a religion belonging to a chosen" ethnic group make adjustment difficult and it is compensated by creating parallel societies.
These alternative societies will excuse failure blame the majority for being left behind see the dominant group as guilty of exploitation and show limited loyalty to their" country. In the context of collective failure lacking loyalty and the legitimacy of crime against them" is an outcome. So are exaggerated demands that insist on reparations" for past and current crimes" against the to be privileged victims".
The lesson to be derived from the record is a mixed one. Immigration is a neutral term. It can be a benefit or a bomb planted into the receiving community. As a group immigrants can be successful or be perceived as underperformers. The perception will contribute to creating commensurate results.
Success or failure is more than a derivate of the migrants background efforts and wish to participate. Communities that accept new settlers are to varying degrees able to integrate and to assimilate. During the early stages of industrialization unlearned immigrants the huddled masses" could easily enter the economy. Having space for newcomers will also facilitate their absorption. The degree of the local cultures openness will prove to be crucial. The learnability of the majoritys language plays a critical role. Rudimentary English -globally already widely spread- is easy to learn. Except for east Asians Hungarian is likely to remain a closed world.
As far as the future goes the migration-related controversy will intensify. Improved communication creates an awareness of a better life far away but it fails to show the effort it takes to create the good life. This raises irrational expectations an extreme example being the migrant who said that he goes to Germany because Merkel will give him a house. Furthermore the trend will be bolstered by the mass that rolls toward the industrialized and largely Western zones of the world. Its absorption is not only unlikely it is impossible because its volume challenges the survival of the targeted hosts way of life as a developed economy.
The reaction to be expected is the growth of defensive movements that stress identity tradition and homogeneity. The chiding by international organizations for nationalism" asserting that migration is a basic right will be dismissed; the will to survive is stronger than the desire to please. The demonstrative actions of visible migrants who to provoke make themselves additionally visible will alienate and discourage compliance with moralizations. Instead traditional parties and their liberalism that programs them to mishandle the new migration will lose ground and a rotation of elites will come about. Therefore the already discernible radicalization of internal politics and of the international scene is likely to continue in an amplified form.
Migrations history is about as old as mankinds record on earth. Our ancestors have moved from place to place from region to region and from continent to continent because the grass in the next valley seemed to be greener. It was this restlessness an amalgam of curiosity and the temptation of the new that enabled us to conquer the earth and to prevail over our competitors. To understand ourselves we need to evaluate migrations role. The presents controversies that new forms of migration have provoked add urgency to the evaluation of the phenomenon.
It is difficult to categorize a migration as good or bad without judging individual cases. Migration has and is presently taking different forms. A migration can be analogous to conquest possibly followed by the displacement of the indigenous. The movement of peoples that toppled the Roman Empire is an example. So is the case of the Americas or the occupation of south-eastern Europe by the Ottoman Empire. In these instances of cultural convergence" culture suffered knowledge was lost the economy declined and what we now consider to be human rights suffered.
An interesting variant is when a government seeking to accelerate development reaches out to lure the qualified. Often governments invite individuals or entire organized communities to settle. They do so because they need people as colonizers or to access certain skills. That is how Russias Volga German settlements came about. Saxon and Swabian villages in Transylvania and Hungary proper also fit the case. A factor behind Prussias rise has been the acceptance of Huguenots that fled persecution in France. The foundation of the most Swiss of all industries is a fitting theme as French refugees brought watchmaking to the French-speaking cantons of the country. Just investigate how many in the Manhattan Project were immigrants and where they came from. It is summed up by a medieval Hungarian king who declared that (skilled) migrants are a jewel on any crown.
Group migration -and the resulting minority communities- that brought either disaster or advancement needs a post script. Stalin deported his Germans". Later their remnants returned" to Germany. There they are prone to be welfare cases or to spice criminal statistics. When Hitler rose central Europes German communities that kept their sense of identity for centuries tended to side with the Nazis. After the war most of them were repatriated" to Germany. A bad outcome is possible if those fleeing are settled in border areas. Their preserved identity in a parallel society can support irredentas. Some hosting countries were truncated when their protected guests" took their land with them to join an ethnic fatherland".
There is a lesson wrapped in the diverse and confusing record. Migration is neither good or bad because by design or accident it can be either.
Modern times brought individualized migration. This prevailed up to the present when NGOs plead for the entry of closed and separate communities. The resulting subculture whose cohesion often depends on the rejection of majoritarian society and its values make migration into a controversial form of conquest.
For the migrant as well as his host a successful policy of migration has to concentrate on the individual entrant. Australia Canada and the USA have the longest record of personal selection and the greatest success in settling applicants.
Being as a refugee also an ex- migrant and having worked for a UN agency active in the field it seems to the writer that the process of admission needs to raise the right questions. It is entirely rational and therefore also moral to select according to the needs of the hosting society. Inevitably migrations that burden the host create tensions that mobilize society against them. We witness the proof of that now in America as well as in Europe where the problem (crime) dominates public affairs.
As one formulates criteria for admission it appears that their gist pertains to cultural compatibility. Even in the case of individual migration the farther away the cultures are the less probable will integration become. Regardless of the motive moving from one country to another implies that the migrant leaves a life behind to begin a new one. Here personality and early socialization plays a role. Individuals that feel vulnerable and uncertain will react by clinging to old ways by whose standards they are somebody". The resulting protective shield will make the merger into the new resented environment difficult. It also explains why at the same time and place one immigration can surpass the natives while another one flops.
Persons that carry culturally inculcated attitudes that are hostile to the new country will resist the ways by which their host society functions. If the way of life the social order or the religion of the host are depicted as inferior in the canon learned at home a We" against Them" attitude will prevail. The resulting disappointment will be attributed to the indigenous and serve to confirm discrimination. The reader should not take this as a plea for uncritical submission. Indeed not only in America migrants have as innovators made significant contributions to their new country. An innovation presupposes that a local lack is discovered overcome and to the benefit of society at large converted into a personal advantage.
Obviously migrants seek success according to their definition of the term. Intelligent societies that accept them will support that endeavor. On the whole this presupposes that the process of selection be allowed to raise the right questions. Is the ability to learn a new language present? Does the applicant have skills on the level of the hosts development? Is there an ability to acquire new skills measured by the level of schooling? Does a resentment exist that is caused by the need to learn from others? Some cultures refuse to learn from more successful models and they tend to implant a fear of an implied inferiority into their members. Certain inculcated values such as belief in an order adherence to a religion belonging to a chosen" ethnic group make adjustment difficult and it is compensated by creating parallel societies.
These alternative societies will excuse failure blame the majority for being left behind see the dominant group as guilty of exploitation and show limited loyalty to their" country. In the context of collective failure lacking loyalty and the legitimacy of crime against them" is an outcome. So are exaggerated demands that insist on reparations" for past and current crimes" against the to be privileged victims".
The lesson to be derived from the record is a mixed one. Immigration is a neutral term. It can be a benefit or a bomb planted into the receiving community. As a group immigrants can be successful or be perceived as underperformers. The perception will contribute to creating commensurate results.
Success or failure is more than a derivate of the migrants background efforts and wish to participate. Communities that accept new settlers are to varying degrees able to integrate and to assimilate. During the early stages of industrialization unlearned immigrants the huddled masses" could easily enter the economy. Having space for newcomers will also facilitate their absorption. The degree of the local cultures openness will prove to be crucial. The learnability of the majoritys language plays a critical role. Rudimentary English -globally already widely spread- is easy to learn. Except for east Asians Hungarian is likely to remain a closed world.
As far as the future goes the migration-related controversy will intensify. Improved communication creates an awareness of a better life far away but it fails to show the effort it takes to create the good life. This raises irrational expectations an extreme example being the migrant who said that he goes to Germany because Merkel will give him a house. Furthermore the trend will be bolstered by the mass that rolls toward the industrialized and largely Western zones of the world. Its absorption is not only unlikely it is impossible because its volume challenges the survival of the targeted hosts way of life as a developed economy.
The reaction to be expected is the growth of defensive movements that stress identity tradition and homogeneity. The chiding by international organizations for nationalism" asserting that migration is a basic right will be dismissed; the will to survive is stronger than the desire to please. The demonstrative actions of visible migrants who to provoke make themselves additionally visible will alienate and discourage compliance with moralizations. Instead traditional parties and their liberalism that programs them to mishandle the new migration will lose ground and a rotation of elites will come about. Therefore the already discernible radicalization of internal politics and of the international scene is likely to continue in an amplified form.