Although opposition to immigration is a feature of all countries with immigration, the term nativism originated in American politics has a specific meaning. Strictly speaking, the term 'nativism' distinguishes between Americans who were born in the United States, and individuals who have immigrated - 'first generation' immigrants. A similar distinction is relevant in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In many other countries, a person with foreign-born parents would also be considered a 'foreigner' or an 'immigrant'. Not all opposition to immigration in the United States is concerned with this distinction, but nativism has become a general term for 'opposition to immigration' based on fears the immigrants do not share American values. It can be misleading to apply the term in other countries, especially in Europe, where opposition to immigration is often founded on national identity. Anti-immigration may be used to describe individuals, groups or movements which oppose significant levels of immigration into their countries. Anti-immigrant may refer to those who are opposed to specific migrant groups, or as a pejorative for those who are anti-immigration. The terms often have negative connotations in a political context, particularly in the West, where politicians generally avoid giving explicit support to anti-immigration platforms or describing their policies as "anti-immigrant".
Major anti-immigration arguments
Anti-immigration sentiments are typically justified with one or more of the following arguments, claiming that immigrants:
Language: Isolate themselves in their own communities and refuse to learn the local language.
Employment: Gainfully acquire jobs which would have otherwise been available to native citizens.
Nationalism: Damage a sense of community and nationality.
Consumption: Increase the consumption of scarce resources.
Welfare: Make heavy use of social welfare systems.
Overpopulation: May sometimes overpopulate countries (Or abandon their native countries)
Ethnicity: Can swamp a native population and replace its culture with their own.
In some cases deplete their countries of origin of badly needed skills (known as the "brain drain").
The claim that immigrants can "swamp" a local population is noted to be related to birth rate, relative to nationals. Historically this has actually happened, but with immigrants whose societies were more technologically advanced than native populations — English, French, German, and Irish immigration to North America, Han Chinese migration in western China or Bantu migrations in Africa, etc.
Opponents of immigration blame it for such problems as unemployment, crime, harm to the environment, and deteriorating public education.
[edit] Counter arguments
In response, others point out that:
the "isolation" and "swamping" arguments have racist undertones as they are typically directed at immigrants from developing countries. However, those immigrants usually have fewer skills than immigrants from developed countries.
expatriates from developed countries are just as likely to be isolationist, and refuse or otherwise fail to learn the language of the societies in which they live. In the U.S., there are relatively few current immigrants from developed countries, but a large number from developing countries.
the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that the jobs being "taken" are typically menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform, creating a demand for labour which is met by immigrants. However, without a ready supply of low-wage, low-skill labor, those jobs would be done by citizens at a higher rate. Or, inefficient industries would be forced to modernize rather than relying on that low-skilled labor. Some very inefficient industries - such as lettuce production - would be forced to relocate overseas, which may end up being in the best interests of the economy.
the argument that immigrants are an economic burden is unproven and the reverse appears to be the case: immigration is correlated with an improvement in economic conditions, because immigrants spend money on products and services just like everybody else. Many immigrants also send a large percentage of their pay back to their home countries via Remittances
with regard to the "heavy use" of benefits and services such as publicly-funded health care, welfare and other forms of social security, immigrants are often ineligible to receive such assistance, or their eligibility is otherwise restricted in some way (eg. they may only become eligible after a lengthy period of time); furthermore, the effect of such restrictions is to reduce the economic contribution immigrants can make. In most U.S. states, public agencies are forbidden by law from inquiring about someone's immigration status. Illegal immigrants are also users of emergency care.
in countries with a declining, aging, population, immigrants tend to provide additional young residents who will, effectively, later help to support the aging native population. Indeed, population projections show that some countries who consider themselves to have a problem with excessive immigration will in fact face severe difficulties in future decades without immigration.
Commentators also point out that the problems which are purportedly caused by immigrants equally exist amongst native-born populations as well, and that politicians often use immigration as a convenient scapegoat to distract the public from real social, political and economic problems.
[edit] Driving forces behind nativism
Threats involving language, jobs, pay-scales, control of the government, control of borders (and fears of invasion), moral values, and loyalties to racial and ethnic groups, are involved in nativism, with the exact ingredients varying widely.
For example, economic competition and national security are currently (2006) at issue in the United States. However, it has been pointed out that the poor people who are most economically hurt by illegal immigrants are not usually those who are complaining about it.
While the distinguishing feature of nativism is the opposition between established inhabitants and recently arrived immigrants, the specifics of each situation creates different dynamics.
Often, there are economic tensions caused by the fact that the immigrants are often willing to work harder for less pay, or spend less (saving more and sending money to their home country). Often it is alleged the newcomers form violent gangs that seize control of work, or engage in illegal activities like drugs or prostitution. The allegation dates back to the Irish canal gangs (1840s), Chinese gangs (tongs) in 1880s, Italian ("Mafia") (1890- present), and more recently to Russian and Hispanic gangs. The established inhabitants perceive an economic threat caused by lowered wage scales and lower standards of living.
Linguistic, religious, moral, racial/ethnic and cultural differences might be factors. While there was nativist sentiment in the late 19th century against Catholics from Eastern and Southern Europe, much of this sentiment had subsided by the 1950s as these immigrant groups assimilated into American society and culture. The nativism of the 1880s focused on Chinese. In 1890-1920 the focus was on European immigrants.
In some instances, national security concerns can stir up latent nativist tendencies that are not directly associated with economic competition. Examples of this are the sentiment against German-Americans during both World Wars and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Although the internment of Japanese-Americans was not directly motivated by economic factors, many Californians took advantage of the situation to profit financially at the expense of the internees.
Despite the national trauma inflicted by the 9/11 attacks, there has been remarkably little nativist sentiment in the US targeted against immigrants from Islamic countries. This can largely be attributed to a vigorous campaign by governmental and civic leaders to discourage a nativist backlash in response to the attacks. In Europe, however, there has been a considerable growth of anti-islamic nativism after the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent attacks in London and Madrid.
2007-02-02 03:31:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by ♥!BabyDoLL!♥ 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
cutting-edge feminism is amazingly diverse to the unique females's rights move, which fought for hardship-free human rights for women. one hundred years in the past, the move grow to be a lot needed; I help those targets, and that i'm satisfied that women have now carried out equality. i have not in any respect met everybody who's antagonistic to females's rights. i'm not a feminist because feminism isn't needed any better immediately - females are better than equivalent in a good number of aspects of the legal gadget. i ought to describe myself as an equalist or humanist, because i imagine we decide on to assist the persons of both genders in decide on, extremely than searching in any respect females as victims of male oppression. cutting-edge feminism is about particular rights and gender neutrality, not equivalent rights, and that i do not agree in any respect with it really is objectives. also, helping a move and advocating it are diverse issues... I help animal rights, yet that would not unavoidably make me an animal rights activist.
2016-12-03 08:47:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋