Immigration

Introduction

This can be seen as like a follow-up to my article on freedom of speech and expression, since immigration-related issues are a stark example of where speech and expression are frequently abused by bigots, and where as part of clamping down against the bigots, we stifle the ability of responsible people to have a reasoned discussion on the subject.

Problems relating to mixing between natives and immigrants- a UK case study

I have found that in some circles, groups of immigrants in the UK, for whatever reasons, mostly refuse to associate with the British nationals, but it is often taboo to point this out because it is seen as "racist".  This, in turn, actually hinders our efforts to curb racism against said groups because it stops us from having an objective discussion regarding the question, "Why do so many of them keep themselves to themselves?".  Here are just three of many possible reasons for it, none of which have anything to do with skin colour:

• They come from a culture which discourages mixing from people from other cultures.
• Many of them don't speak English very well and so suffer from a language barrier.
• Powerful members of the immigrant group are "bitten" by cases of being screwed over by racist/xenophobic British natives and so tell the rest of the group not to bother mixing with Brits, tarnishing all Brits by association with the racist minority.

In each case, the social norm within the immigrant group becomes, "Don't mix with the British natives", which means that individuals who make an effort to mix with Brits put themselves at risk of being ostracised by their fellow immigrants for being different.  This is a very powerful threat- if you go to a foreign country, you have trouble mixing with the natives, and you are ostracised by the fellow foreigners who come across with you, then you really are on your own.  So, the temptation is just to act "normal" and avoid mixing with the natives.

Unfortunately, some British natives contribute to this problem by, well, being racist.  Sweeping statements like, "This immigrant group doesn't generally mix with the British natives.  Individual X comes from that group.  Therefore, don't associate with X", do a huge disservice to the individuals who make a genuine effort to mix with the British natives, or would like to do so but need help addressing cultural and/or language barriers before they can feel comfortable doing so.  Those of us who try to flag up these issues are then tarnished by association with racists, making it harder for us to give the immigrants the help that they need.

Respect for cultural differences should not take precedence over higher moral considerations

I'm all up for diversity and mixing of different cultures, and preservation of cultural traditions, up to a point, i.e. as long as they can be followed harmlessly and are not imposed on everybody.  For instance, if an immigrant group likes to go to church on a Friday rather than a Sunday, why not?  But if a group has a cultural view that it is OK for husbands to beat up their wives just because their wives were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were unable to defend themselves, then no, I don't think we should "respect" those sort of values.  Saying that cultural rules should always be respected is like saying, "It's normal as far as that culture is concerned, so therefore it's OK".

On the other side of the coin, sometimes we, the country's nationals, can also be guilty of enforcing unreasonable cultural norms (e.g. the unwritten rule that if a man has a close friendship with a child, it probably means he wants to molest the child, in spite of overwhelming evidence on the contrary) or imposing our values on everybody and marginalizing those who deviate (e.g. the traditions saying that you shake with the right hand, and the wife takes her husband's last name, are often enforced in this way).  Thus, it is wrong to blame cultural clashes entirely on immigrants coming in with different cultures- in some cases they might be exposing problems with our cultures- and the problems relating to culture apply regardless of people's ethnic backgrounds.

Issues relating to net immigration/migration

It is very hard to have an objective discussion relating to immigration because a lot of people hold views on the subject that, although they don't like to admit it, are highly racist (e.g. "We don't want those evil foreigners invading our country, we want everybody to be British natives"), and those of us who express reasonable views are frightened of being tarnished by association and marginalized for being "racist".

Immigration, like so many things, is positive in moderation but harmful when it becomes excessive.  The overall economic impacts of net immigration are usually positive, but when population densities become high, there are usually negative social impacts, such as traffic congestion, crowding on public transport, and high demand for local resources which forces everybody to make do with less per head in order to keep the resource use sustainable.  

A significant associated problem, tied in with cultural values and poverty in some developing countries, is that some groups are associated with high birth rates, so even though the net immigration may not be high, population may swell considerably as a result of families having 5-10 children each.  This is, of course, connected to much wider global problems, including world poverty and the issue that population is remaining steady in developed countries while typically rising dramatically in countries that suffer widely from poverty, meaning that most of the world's population now lives in a state of deprivation.  

I see both sides of the issue as I generally don't like areas with a very high population density, and think the UK as a whole is more crowded than I would like, but on the other hand, in recent years, I have had many positive experiences interacting with immigrants from central and eastern parts of Europe.  How do we curb the excesses without significantly impinging on the benefits that we get from immigration, and how much immigration is too much?  Depending on the weights of importance that we apply to various factors, I can see there being literally hundreds of possible "right" answers to this question, so it is an issue that certainly needs to be discussed objectively and seriously.

Unfortunately, because there are so many racists out there, and our standard reaction is to clamp down against everybody to legislate for them, it is often the case that the people who are most able to have a discussion on these topics are the ones with the most racist views.  This is something that, not just in the UK, but in many similar "Western" countries, needs to change if we are to make major inroads against issues like racism, without making everybody frightened to express themselves for fear of being punished by association with racists.

Freedom of speech and expression

Freedom of speech and expression is under threat due to our tendency to legislate for the minority who abuse it

No, I don't believe in unlimited freedom of speech and expression- it should be bounded by the responsibility to be considerate towards others and not actively encourage actions that impinge on others' freedoms.  I have no problem with society frowning upon expression of views like, "X is inferior because he's black", for example.

The problem is a variation on the "legislating for idiots" problem that I have also blogged about.  When clamping down against unreasonable speech and expression, we tend to feel obliged to show a hard-line approach, which means being willing to tarnish innocent speech and expression by association.  Such an approach can be "justified" on the basis that "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" because "that's life", and/or by setting up rules that mandate it and then insisting that "rules are rules".

Example 1:  Clamping down against those who support illegal activities, and in doing so, stifling the ability of others to question the correctness of the law without being jumped on by association.

B.  As a community we do not tolerate views that condone/support copyright infringement.  Anyone who expresses such views will be banned.
A.  Download copyrighted file P from file-sharing site Q.  Here's a link.
B.  Instant ban for A.  That's the sort of thing that we don't allow.
C.  I believe that copyright law X is too restrictive because it prohibits activity Y, and Y probably doesn't erode content creators' sales and benefits the consumer.
B.  Therefore you condone Y, which is a form of copyright infringement, so you will be banned too.

Such "no condoning copyright infringement" policies are common on internet sites to guard against people like A, who could potentially get a site sued by copyright holders for posting links to illegal downloads.  But they are also used against people like C when they try to speak out against what, in their opinion, are unreasonably stringent copyright laws.

Example 2:  We clamp down against dangerous activities and the expression of views that support them.  As a result, those who speak out against the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders end up having their views stigmatised by association with those of offenders.

B.  We do not support reckless driving because of the way that it results in tragic loss of life.
A.  I want to be allowed to drive as fast as I like, because I find it fun.
B.  If you want to drive as fast as you like, go to a race track.
C.  I don't agree with the progressive tightening up of traffic restrictions.  While a minority do drive recklessly for pleasure, and I support clamping down against those people, a lot of people currently get enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner too.  If the restrictions are tightened too much, this will be lost, and I don't support phasing out the recreational side of driving as part of clamping down against the minority who abuse it.
B.  Pleasure should never come before safety.  If you want to enjoy driving, go to a race track.

In effect, C's views are tarnished by association with those of A, since C is not arguing that "boy racer" type behaviour should be allowed, but is rather arguing that the freedoms of responsible law-abiding motorists should not be sacrificed as part of clamping down against it.  I am very used to arguing positions like C and being dismissed simply with the one-liner, "Go to a race track."

Political correctness and avoiding offence

The term "political correctness" is often over-used.  Here, I am thinking mainly of the philosophy where we outlaw language that can cause offence and/or encourage negative stereotyping of vulnerable groups, in the hope that it will make people question widely-accepted stereotypes and lead to a breakdown in values that encourage discrimination.

However, this policy encourages the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders.  In the past, when bigots used words offensively, the general public would often start using them as more general terms of abuse and water them down, forcing the bigots to find other words to use abusively, such as when we cycled through "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" as terms for the mentally handicapped.  But today, when bigots use words offensively, we tend to outlaw them altogether, which results in the bigots getting a much larger say in what words are and aren't acceptable.

Also, we often have too much emphasis on the "avoiding offence" aspect of political correctness, as opposed to the "avoiding inciting negative stereotypes of vulnerable groups".  In some cases it is taboo to express opinions that are perfectly reasonable but might offend certain people, by association with related views that are unreasonable, such as the two examples that I provided above relating to road safety and copyright laws.

Of course, sometimes groups of people develop a hatred of a particular word because it is widely used offensively against them, and so it is only natural that if it is used inoffensively, they may misinterpret it and be highly offended.  People do need to be considerate of this, and take some care with their use of language, especially slang, on the internet and around people that they don't know.  However, when people use a word inconsiderately and without thinking, they should only get punished accordingly (in many cases, a mere warning would be the most appropriate) rather than being punished highly disproportionately by association with those who use the word as part of their oppression of certain vulnerable groups. 

And yes, I am seeing a worrying trend towards organisations setting up rules saying that all usage of a particular word should be punished by association with its most offensive usage, and justifying them on the basis, "The rules are right because the rules say so, and the rules say so, because the rules are right."

Instead, I refer readers back to my article on normative bullying and suggest that tackling this problem is the best way of combating discrimination.