Reframing the issue of immigration
Reframing the issue of immigration
Global North-South cooperation and domestic cultural pluralism
Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles, discusses the recent elections to the European parliament, in which the nationalist right attained an electoral victory that will give it a quarter of the parliamentary seats. He maintains that the reaction of the European establishment to the election results reveals that it is united with respect to the “key issues of sovereignty, identity, immigration, family, etc.”; and that it supports the EU’s current immigration policy, which will lead to the displacement of populations in most European nations by migrants from the Global South. He maintains that the “bohemian bourgeoisie” is “blissfully unaffected by the influx of migrants into working class neighborhoods.” Furthermore, the European establishment does not accept as valid the votes of citizens who do not agree with their agenda for Europe, thereby revealing a liberal totalitarianism that has a profound disdain for the people.
Trifkovic expresses well the cultural issues that are at stake in the issue of immigration, and his comments apply to the United States of America, where the elite’s post-nationalist attitude adversely affects the political dynamics of the nation. The people of the United States do not have well-developed historical and global consciousness or political maturity, but they do know enough to know when their concerns are dismissed by an elite—and their sophisticated upper-middle-class allies—who hold them in disdain. This awareness of the people leads them to embrace anti-establishment discourses and maverick political candidates, who also possess problematic partial understandings, and to favor some kind of crackdown on immigration.
The situation calls for a reframing of the issue of immigration.
§
The problem of unregulated international migration today
European immigration to the United States of America during the nineteenth century was necessary and functional for the American economy, which was expanding on a foundation of the conquest of indigenous nations and Western territories, and through a lucrative trading relation with the slave economies of the Caribbean and the U.S. South. Although these processes can be critiqued on moral grounds, the critique becomes superficial self-righteousness when it does not see the benefits of these dynamics with respect to the development of the national economy and capitalist world-economy, from which all American citizens and residents today benefit.
Because of its economic functionality, migration was open for Europeans during the nineteenth century, with restrictions applied only to those with infectious diseases or physical incapacity for manual labor. There was a functional differentiation between the peoples of Great Britain and northwestern Europe, on the one hand, and the peoples of Ireland and eastern and southern Europe, on the other. The former tended to become settlers in the expanding American western frontier, whereas the latter found work as male manual laborers in infrastructure construction and female domestic service.
The cultural and language differences of the migrants provoked anti-immigration sentiments among the native U.S. population. The explosive issue was politically addressed in an effective manner through a policy of “Americanization,” which led to intergenerational loss of cultural and language differences, confining tolerance to religious differences. In the early twentieth century, a few U.S. intellectuals among the migrant peoples proposed an alternative model of cultural pluralism, but assimilation was the overarching demand of the host society, accepted overwhelmingly in practice by the second generation of immigrants, who appreciated the enormous economic opportunities provided by the expanding and ascending American national economy.
But objective world conditions today are fundamentally different. During the course of the twentieth century, the world-system reached and overextended the geographical and ecological limits of the earth. As a result, the economic expansion of the system could no longer be driven by new conquests and territorial expansion, such that worldwide economic expansion was replaced by economic stagnation. Signs of stagnation were becoming visible to the de facto rulers of the world-system during the period 1946 to 1979.
The American power elite responded to this situation with a stunning turn to unenlightened policies, in two stages. First, the imposition of neoliberal economic policies on the weak states and poor nations of the world, beginning in the 1980s, constituting economic war on the world’s poor. Second, a new stage of aggressive wars against certain targeted nations, beginning in the 1990s and accelerating after 9/11, replacing the previous policy of implementing the U.S. agenda through cooperating states, rather than through direct military intervention, in order to maintain a façade of democracy.
These dynamics of sustained economic and military attacks on the nations and peoples of the world have significantly affected socioeconomic conditions worldwide, stimulating migration from the Global South to the regions of advanced economies, precisely in a historic moment in which the stagnating advanced economies were less prepared to receive migrants, and in which social welfare programs to citizens had been reduced. These policies were formulated because they promoted the particular interests of the elites; questions concerning the productivity of national economies and the wellbeing of the peoples of the nations of the world were asked only in a superficial and ethnocentric form.
Thus, it can be seen that Western elites, in the midst of a profound crisis that they did not fully understand, protected themselves, not seeing that the consequences of their attacks on others would eventually come around to them. The people, on the other hand, see that under elite management a problem of uncontrolled and unvetted immigration has emerged, and the elites of power have no plan to deal with it, except for protecting themselves.
§
Reframing the issue and developing alternative policies
The politically necessary reframing of the issue of immigration must be based in addressing its principal cause, which is the sustained U.S. and Western economic and military attacks on the states and peoples of the Global South since 1980, as discussed above. To remedy the problem of uncontrollable migration, it must be understood that U.S. foreign policy can no longer be based on the premise of competition among imperialist powers for control of the world’s natural resources and national economies. It must be based on cooperation with the nations of the world, respecting the sovereignty of all nations large and small, and seeking mutually beneficial trade and the common prosperity of all.
Cooperation among nations is the historic demand of the states of the Global South, initially formulated in the 1950s, and continuing to the present day with greater force than ever and being implemented in practice. The Global South has for the last seven decades created regional and international organizations to address their common concerns, and they have been speaking with a united voice. They maintain that the interventionist policies of the Western powers violate their right to economic development, which is the most fundamental of all human rights. They declare that if they were able to advance further in development, their peoples would be able to freely decide on emigration, without being compelled by economic necessity. Most would be oriented toward their native lands and customs, if there were more economic opportunities in their native lands.
Given the current orientation of the Global South to cooperation, a turn in U.S. foreign policy toward North-South cooperation would not be difficult to implement, because it would be overwhelmingly welcomed and supported by the states and peoples of the South. The biggest obstacle to the policy would be the attitudes of U.S. citizens, who have been fed a stream of toxic misinformation with respect to developing nations in the Global South and East, as a component of a New Cold War designed to shore up Western imperialism in decline.
A U.S. policy of North-South cooperation is not an unknown proposal. Today, the nations of the South and East have persistently reiterated that their emphasis on South-South cooperation does not imply a rejection of North-South cooperation. They have consistently reaffirmed their desire for mutually beneficial trade with the nations of the North, accompanied by cultural exchanges and a dialogue of civilizations. Moreover, it should be noted that North-South cooperation was a platform proposal of the Jesse Jackson presidential campaign of 1988, put forth by Rev. Jackson as an alternative to the foreign policy of East-West confrontation being followed at that time.
In the case of the United States, projects of mutually beneficial cooperation ought to be especially developed with respect to those nations and regions that are the key feeders of migration to the United States, such as Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. In addition to creative attention to the principles of mutually beneficial trade and respect for the sovereignty of nations, missions in both directions could be developed, which would provide excellent experiences for youth.
A U.S. foreign policy of North-South cooperation would be a humanitarian policy of support for the peoples of the world. It would enable the people of the United States to express their solidarity with the peoples of all nations, and it would at the same time alleviate pressure on the U.S. border.
In addition, reframing the issue of immigration ought to include a revival of the early twentieth century concept of cultural pluralism. As noted above, cultural pluralism was proposed by white ethnic intellectuals in the early decades of the twentieth century, in the aftermath of the great migrations to the United States from the nations of Ireland and eastern and southern Europe, but Americanization emerged as the model followed in practice.
Recent demographic tendencies suggest the need to revisit the concept of cultural pluralism. Since 1970, the foreign-born population of the United States has increased from ten million to more than forty-five million. As a percentage of the U.S. population, immigrants reached a zenith of approximately 15% in the period 1870 to 1910, declining to 5% in 1970, and then rising continually since 1970. reaching approximately 14% today. The number of unauthorized immigrants has grown rapidly since 1990.
Latin America and Asia have been the primary regions of origin of the post-1970 wave, which follows from the fact that the key cause of the current post-1970 migratory wave has been the deepening underdevelopment of many regions of the global South, due to imperialist policies. As is logical, this has impacted the racial and ethnic composition of American society. As of 2022, white non-Hispanics comprise 58.9%; Hispanics/Latinos, 19.1%; blacks, 12.6%; Asian, 6.1%; mixed race, 2.4%; and Native American, 0.9%. As an indication of the possibilities for the manipulation of statistics for political or ideological ends, it can be noted that if the category “white non-Hispanic” is suppressed and white Hispanics are included in the counting of whites, that is, if Hispanics who are defined as whites in their native Hispanic country are defined as whites during their new condition as U.S. immigrants, the percentage of whites in the 2022 U.S. population rises to 75%.
Those who stoke divisions among the peoples of the United States maintain that the current opposition to uncontrolled immigration is based on the race or color of the migrants. But this is an oversimplification. In the first place, there was significant opposition to immigrants at the end of the nineteenth to the beginning of the twentieth centuries, even though the great majority of immigrants at the time were from European nations. Racist-like characterizations of the immigrants from Ireland and southern and eastern Europe were constructed during the period and used in anti-immigrant campaigns, but such racist characterizations largely disappeared as the immigrants were assimilated. Secondly, in the new post-1965 era of equal rights for all regardless of race or color—widely accepted in numerous policies and cultural practices—the race or color of the immigrants surely is of declining significance, even though racism continues to be present in a residual form. Thirdly, a far more likely factor in popular anxiety with respect to immigration during the post-1970 wave is its different character today, provoked as it is by a multidimensional world-systemic crisis, in which the powers-that-be are demonstrating their indifference to national wellbeing, as noted above.
From a vantage point of concern with the political stability of the American Republic, the key question in the 2020s is, as it was in 1900, to what extent are the immigrants going to embrace the values of the nation. The question in the earlier period was resolved in practice through Americanization. But Americanization is no longer a workable model, because our understanding of democracy has deepened, and we now understand that it is undemocratic to compel migrants to abandon their languages and cultures. Today we call such practices cultural colonialism.
This suggests the need for resurrection of the previously discarded model of cultural pluralism. As it was formulated in the early twentieth century, cultural pluralism envisioned that all the cultural groups would adhere to a set of common American values, with English as the common language of public discourse, and in this sense, it was a proposal for a progressive, more respectful form of Americanization. In its contemporary renewal, the concept of cultural pluralism ought to affirm the founding constitutional principles of the American Republic, this being necessary for the unity and political stability of the nation. Accordingly, the American Republic would be interpreted as an evolving nation in which the application of the principles of democracy and a deepening understanding of the meaning of democracy develop through time, with Constitutional Amendments documenting and providing the legal foundation for the continuously evolving fulfillment of the American promise of a constitutional republic with full equality and freedom for all. At the same time, each group would be free to identify, to the extent that it desires, with their countries or regions of origin and to develop local community political, economic, educational, religious, cultural, and criminal justice institutions, operating under a democratically elected local political authority. Languages other than English would be commonly spoken in local community settings, and alternative customs and values would be expressed, to the extent practical and desired.
Thus, the concept of cultural pluralism implies not only cultural diversity, but also local community control. It therefore would dovetail with needed national projects for the socioeconomic development of black, Latino, and indigenous communities, which are necessary to create greater equality of opportunity, and which would function as compensation for past wrongs. Local community control, it should be noted, was a central proposal of the black power tendency of the African-American movement from 1966 to 1972, but it was subsequently ignored by most black politicians and activists, who found a discourse of black victimization and white racism to be more convenient.
Furthermore, a turn to cultural pluralism would have positive implications for local communities in white society, many of which have particular histories. In addition, individual whites could be encouraged to rediscover the histories and cultures of their foreparents in European lands, to the extent they so desire. Many of these European peoples also have been conquered, colonized, and/or peripheralized at one time or another; and independent of their degree of subjugation, they are part of the cultural legacy of humanity, which should be remembered by their descendants in America.
In an article in Persuasion, Eboo Patel maintains that pluralism is a much better concept than identity. He argues that an emphasis on identity divides the people, whereas pluralism builds bridges and encourages cooperation. “Pluralism seeks to cultivate the wide space between wokeness and whitewashing.” Patel applies his ideas only to “diversity work” in universities, but his insight can be applied not merely to the fostering of interpersonal bridge-building skills in academic settings, but also to the reconceptualization of national purpose.
The needed reframing of immigration, therefore, would stand on three pillars: a historical understanding of the different stages of the history of immigration to the United States of America, and its different causes in the various stages; a turn in foreign policy toward cooperation with the nations of the Global South and East, seeking the common development and prosperity of all; and a domestic policy formulation of cultural pluralism and local community development, constituting a progressive version of Americanization.
§
Further considerations
The needed reframing of the issue of immigration would likely be possible only if joined with a reframing of other related issues that are at play in promoting divisions among the people of the United States. This wider reframing should be based on the study of the actual histories and experiences of countries constructing socialism, setting aside the toxic anti-socialism rooted in a New Cold War. And it should be based in study of the various forms of democracy that have been developed in the world, overcoming the accusation of authoritarianism directed against nations targeted by the USA. Elevated consciousness on these issues would provide a moral and intellectual foundation for a foreign policy of North-South cooperation.
The institutional foundation for conversation on these issues does not currently exist. It would have to be developed through creative leadership in civil society organizations.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.