International Migration – WTF?

Wouldn’t it be fun if someone just explained it all in English?

Oh, here we go with the moral panic again, right? Except we’re not, we’re not that kind of a magazine. Now, international migration, isn’t that fun? Especially now, considering the madness surrounding reports on a migration wave being called all sorts of bad words you can think of. It’s no surprise that you might be a bit fed up with all of that – this is why this series will suit you. We’re not trying to paint a pretty picture, nor an ugly one – we’ll just go have a chat about all things international migration. Check this out.

In all relationships, messing things up is not a question of “if” but about the very timing of the event which will turn all that’s been built up into a mad circus.

Except if you’re Switzerland, then it won’t happen so much. Why? Because when Switzerland communicates as representatives for an idea, they usually believe that idea to be true. That’s the difference.

Whereas, in other circumstances involving more than one party on an international level, strategies are being heavily pushed from all sides and all parties. As you know by now, the whole win-win thing isn’t really what anyone is looking for but the rhetoric very much likes to be set in quite a nice tone, a human rights kind of voice.


When shit happens, as the educated call it

Now, just as individuals, state representatives really don’t like to admit fucking things up on purpose, not even when they really didn’t mean to do (that much of) a bad job. Usually, during these occasions someone will most likely be fired after being forced to make some sort of statement.

That’s the way the story goes, the examples being endless in modern history of international politics. That’s where the issue is, within the policies written in order to benefit one particular place over all else – it’s what foreign policy is about today.

As a consequence of making a whole lot of bad international decisions and pulling through with stunningly stupid initiatives, people are today fleeing from their (often destroyed) homes in order to find peace somewhere.

Take the story back to the previously mentioned article in this series, and it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of migrants today aren’t refugees nor fleeing from immediate armed conflict. They are fleeing from poverty, from lack of opportunities, lack of education, lack of any reason to stay in a place where they struggle to survive so badly, we should all be ashamed for letting it happen on our planet.

In other words, fully legit reasons for getting out of there.


How states F things up badly – An eloquent model having been tried before

Now, let’s not start deliberating on who is responsible for all of this because at the end of the day, international issues are so complex and so far up their own asses that it would take forever to try to understand them.

Instead, let’s focus on how the route for these people is being restricted by those partly responsible for them fleeing in the first place. Several European countries have not only proposed to imply restriction for immigration, but they’ve actually built walls about it.

As in the good old days.

Then there’s the paperwork aimed at further restricting the inflow of people if they don’t possess identification documents proving for what reason they are fleeing. Even writing this down here dumbs the internet down a pitch. The idea is that since current citizens aren’t too happy about the immigration as it looks today, some restrictions like this is a good idea.

Except this won’t help the people being restricted from entering a country, or the families being sent back into poverty and madness. Furthermore, it won’t at all be a nice marketing thing for the countries insisting on keeping these actions taken in an international context.

World peace and human rights doesn’t rhyme well with “GET THE F OUT OF HERE, PEOPLE!”


The failed integration argument vs. the need for population growth

Right-wing extremists and newly self-proclaimed experts often enjoy referring to these measures being taken by countries as a great idea due to the already failed integration projects. In these arguments, statistics on criminal activity, education, employment, religious belief, culture and traditions are all heavily mutilated and chopped into a dish of insisting on prejudice before all reason. Emphasis on the female/male ratio of migrants “pouring in” as they say also seem highly relevant, along with the need to say things like “these men take our women”.

Nevertheless, a failed integration is a fact in many cities around the world, in particular due to a total lack of knowledge on what it implies to actually integrate someone. Soft approaches and fear of insulting people along with its opposites insulting everything and everyone, all work together in making this failure possible.

Protesting against something bad is a good idea. However, doing so by insisting on instead implementing the opposite measures of that bad bunch of things is just about politics. It’s a political strategy and it is empty, both in terms of information, knowledge and actual substance of any form.

Rhetoric aimed at blaming and distancing doesn’t require much brains, especially when these words are combined with a great timing of induced fear and anger. Which is, by the way, the same thing extremists of all sorts thrive upon. Hm.

The need for population growth on the other hand, is a hands-on need that at least Europe has had since the past decade, if not more. The growth declined so badly that scientists actually started to worry about the very existence of Europe as a region.

“Now, migrants actually solve that issue pretty easily, simply by showing up – it could be a win-win thing“

Of course, all events involving more than one party are a bit difficult and soon become pretty complex, with many aspects to take into account before making any decisions. Ignoring challenges has never ever been a good idea though, and the reactions often take the shape of extremism.

To solve both these extreme tendencies, the building of walls and the restrictions being implemented along with the in some cases failed integration processes, there needs to be an honest intention. A real wish to make that happen. It all starts there, and from this state of mind countries could actually sit down and hold a conversation on the best strategy to integrate and help people.

Now, there are a lot of awesome things going on in the international migration context as well, and if you are interested in finding out more about that – be sure to check in here next Tuesday.

We hope that you have enjoyed this third article in our series on international migration. Hopefully, you didn’t fall find it dead boring but actually a bit interesting, maybe even a little, you know, fun. Or not. Maybe a little. Did you check out part 1 and part 2? Stay tuned for next week and the fourth and final episode of making International Relations and international migration great again!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *