21.07.2015 Views

New Scientist Magazine - No. 3011

New Scientist Magazine - No. 3011

New Scientist Magazine - No. 3011

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

OPINIONSiege mentalityHostility to immigration has deep roots in human psychologythat will be difficult to overcome, says Victoria EssesIN SEPTEMBER 2014, the US faceda crisis. Tens of thousands ofunaccompanied children fromCentral America had crossed theMexican border illegally and werebeing held in detention centres.There were polarised, angrydebates on how to respond.President Obama called the issuea “humanitarian crisis” andworked to house and feed thechildren. Others opposed usingUS resources to care for them.Around the same time, a rowerupted in Europe over migrantships in the Mediterranean. Italysuspended its rescue missionsand the UK refused to supporta new European Union searchand rescue operation, claiming itwould encourage more migrantsto attempt the crossing. Aidagencies and the UN HighCommissioner for Refugeesretorted that such operationswere necessary to save lives.International migration is oneof the major social issues of theday. More people live outsidetheir country of birth than at anyother time in history – 232 millionin 2013 – and this number isexpected to carry on rising.The swell in migration is theresult of many global trends,including growing inequalitiesbetween nations, demand forlabour in countries with a fallingbirth rate and a rise in the numberof refugees and asylum seekers.Opposition to immigrationis widespread in many Westernnations. Anti-immigrationactivists, the media and politicalelites have created a crisismentality in which immigrantsare portrayed as “enemies at thegate”. Immigrants – particularlynon-whites – are blamed for all ofsociety’s woes. Such depictionsencourage support for moreextreme political platforms.Even legal immigrationhas become controversial,with groups such as the UKIndependence Party proposingstricter controls on migrantsfrom certain parts of the EU.Psychologists have much tocontribute to the understandingof what may be driving theseattitudes and behaviours. Yet,with a few exceptions, we havebeen slow to enter the field.We are not starting fromscratch. Attitudes and prejudiceshave been studied for decades,and there are experimentalmethods for probing theirunderlying causes.One especially pertinent areaof research looks at the perceivedrole of competition in intergrouprelations. Psychologists have beendebating this for many years. Inthe context of immigration, itturns out to be very important.As a rule, members of sociallydominant groups tend to believethat their group is superior andhence entitled to resources andprivileges. To maintain their“ More people live outsidetheir country of birth thanat any time and the numberwill carry on rising”dominance, they must fend off“invading” groups who are seenas competing with them for finiteresources including jobs, politicalpower and cultural and religiousinfluence. This can occurirrespective of whether thereare indeed limited resources andactual competition over them.This belief in zero-sumcompetition is central to attitudesabout immigration. There is awidespread belief that any gainsimmigrants make must be at theexpense of members of the hostsociety. This belief is deeplyembedded in Western society,even though it is seldom justified.The upshot of these attitudes ishostility toward immigrants, selfaggrandisement– often in theform of nationalism – andsupport for the exclusion ofimmigrants and refugees.When migrants are allowed tosettle in a new country, they areoften faced with a “damned ifthey do, damned if they don’t”dilemma. If they are economicallysuccessful, they are seen as havingtaken jobs or opportunities awayfrom local people; if they are notsuccessful, they are seen as a drainon the system.Refugees and asylum seekersare especially likely to be treatedwith hostility. Research hasshown that common themesin the media – including claimsthat asylum-seekers are “bogus”and associated with criminals,terrorists and disease – leads todehumanisation. This perceptionallows some in the host nations toassert that refugees deserve theunfair and inhumane treatmentthey receive.26 | <strong>New</strong><strong>Scientist</strong> | 7 March 2015

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!