|
|
|
|
The National Interest
Contact: The Politics of Migration
by Jeremy Black
. . . Migration, like many other issues, does pose a challenge to conservatives. Aside from defining a coherent response, there is the question of formulating and implementing effective policies in response to the issue, and also avoiding the deleterious domestic political consequences to which they can give rise. The range of conservative responses is vast: from opposition to restrictions on immigration, variously stemming from libertarianism or a belief in the free movement of labor; to a desire to halt both immigration and, in the past, emigration, in order to preserve the ethnic identity of states or to enhance their strength. This variety is a reminder of the richness of conservatism as intellectual tradition, political culture, and set of assumptions and interests. It is also a reminder of the welcome absence of any directing ideological group or institution comparable to the dreary (and deadly) thought-policing of the Left during the last century. Yet ideological variety can also create problems if conservatives fail to appreciate its consequences.
The migration debate also showcases the various national strands of conservatism. This last is a point that tends to be underrated by ideologues committed to the notion that the world is an isotrophic surface and who are unwilling to accept that the particular contours and contents of national conservatisms involve more than "cultural relativism." For a while, the configuration of the debate appeared simple: the emphasis on ethnic constructions of nationhood and on nation-states was a dated if not an even worse aspect of a redundant racist nationalism. Instead, the emphasis fell on a melting-pot, or mélange, approach, as in the United States or in the prospectus for the European Union. This was thought to be progressive. Maybe so, but it is also clear that older constructions of nationhood, which are frequently challenged by migration, have a capacity to elicit popular support as well. There is an analogue here to trade, although the fit is far from perfect: while free trade is desirable, protectionism enjoys a ready purchase in democratic politics, as seen in both the United States and the European Union. At the risk of pushing comparisons too far, it is also possible to bring in international relations with the problems of selling the compromises of multilateralism contrasted with the simple clarities of unilateralism.
The populist reluctance to accept immigration owes much to fear. The language is indicative: "floods" of economic migrants threaten to "swamp" indigenous cultures, "sponge off" a welfare system, and "provoke" racial tension. Tensions are certainly readily apparent. By 2000, thanks to immigration, nearly three of France's 60 million residents were of North African origin, with another 415,000 residents from Turkey and the Middle East, and 250,000 from sub-Saharan Africa. In the case of France and many other states, hostility toward immigrants is most frequently expressed by politicians on the far Right. This has marginalized the debate, not least among mainstream conservatives, who are understandably reluctant to be associated with such politicians. On the other hand, the welcome success of the United States, a state that continues to receive large inflows of migrants, as well as the general argument in favor of labor flexibility, leaves many conservatives unable to grasp the problems that immigration does pose in political, economic and social terms. . . .