Causes of Discrimination Towards Immigrants

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Parochialism
Cultural Threat
Immigration Policy
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Discrimination and intolerance against immigrants, and the implications of these inflammatory convictions and conduct, determine the sociocultural and economic destiny of welcoming nations and those who aspire to make these communities their new residence. In-group and out-group bias are principal components of social interaction that motivate different forms of antagonism and discrimination. Ultimately, these inclinations enhance intergroup rivalry between locals and immigrants in an age of rising transnational movement.

Parochialism

Hostility against others has the potential to escalate into needless aggression. The importance of mutual connections and trust in averting such catastrophes cannot be overstated. Parochialism, or the propensity to prefer in-group individuals over out-group members, is considered a central component of human behavior by exploratory and explanatory studies (Weisel 57; Klein and Bastian 14). In-group bias and out-group discrimination, major aspects of parochialism, are ubiquitous characteristics of intergroup interactions among societies and are associated with many disputes. These include employment discrimination, systemic racism in the judicial system, terrorist acts, and major crimes like genocide (Choi et al. 16274). Intergroup conflict results from a combination of factors, including a lack of trust across groups. The creation of cultural groups may be regarded as a means for a community of varied people to address cooperation challenges, compete for resources, and enhance their prospects of self-sufficiency. Indeed, war fostered a more profound sense of loyalty and compassion for one’s people among early humans. In modern times, disputes along ethnic and religious boundaries have consistently given rise to prominent national identities and divided people.

Disputes involving monetary wealth, political influence, or identity will make the distinction between in-group and out-group members more salient and breed parochialism. Similar disputes may be caused by cross-border mobility on a massive scale. While it may help fill labor sector gaps and create connections with other people spanning cultures, immigration equally puts native community values under pressure and pushes communities to adjust to fast population growth. Endless wars in volatile regions worldwide, such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria, have generated the world’s worst refugee crisis, resulting in a substantial increase in immigration from Muslim-majority nations to Europe (Sardar et al. 23). To organize opposition to immigration, mainstream politicians and media outlets in European countries have stressed the racial, religious, and cultural distinctions between newcomers and the natives in host nations.

Consequently, the economic competition hypothesis may effectively be used to explain parochialism. According to this view, resistance to immigration is the outcome of actual or imagined detrimental impacts of migrants on an individual’s or collective’s resource security. In effect, it is substantially influenced by ‘realistic conflict theory’ and ‘group conflict theory’ (Dennison and Geddes 543). According to these concepts, anti-immigration sentiment grows exponentially because of a surge in the out-population groups and worsening economic conditions.

Cultural Threat

In contrast to conflicting economic incentives between locals and newcomers, differences in culture are almost always at the center of anti-immigrant sentiments. Research examining this element of prejudice and discrimination against immigrants is based on ground-breaking theories of bias, identity formation, and ethnocentrism. Most of such analyses look at attitudes toward immigrants as an expression of the in-group identification of the native populations and the degree to which immigrant communities are seen as “different” and hence “non-belonging” to the majority group (Choi et al. 16274). This “otherness” of immigrants may cause natives to acquire biases and stereotypes that result in hostile attitudes and behaviors toward outsiders, whom they see as a threat to their community. This “othering” phenomenon can harm new immigrant populations and minority communities with non-native ancestry.

The above analysis indicates an agreement about the importance of cultural factors. However, there is a lack of research examining whether cultural differences between host nation communities and immigrant populations have the greatest impact on native sentiments about immigration. It is not uncommon for immigrant communities to exhibit a wide range of characteristics that set them apart from the native populations. The extent to which these immigrant characteristics add equally or at least comparably to the perception of the distinction between locals and immigrant communities remains unclear.

Individuals with conservative political and moral dispositions provide an additional basic rationale for supposing that the imagined likelihood of societal conflict can influence personal immigration inclinations. It has been demonstrated many times that these people are firmly against immigration (Krzyżanowski et al. 2). Conservatives view the preservation of societal order as crucial to well-being and advancement and fragile and incredibly hard to reestablish when compromised. Accordingly, conservatives put high importance on long-term social structures, especially the ethnic makeup of the population (Krzyżanowski et al. 6). This is in regards to social dispute settlement and, when required, reasonably amicable coordinated action.

Immigration Policy

The purpose of emphasizing the convergence of race and emigration is to have a deeper understanding of the influence on immigration regulations and policies. Racism and white privilege have impacted the immigration system of many developed countries. These factors continue to have similar impacts on the current immigration laws and implementation mechanism and have been adopted by some Arab countries. Racial segregation has been a recurring theme in the United States immigration policy history. Notably, from regulations exempting Chinese citizens in the 1880s to the 1924 national origins quotas, which were designed to separate individuals on racial and ethnic grounds (Bernstein et al. 6). The 1996 Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which strongly emphasizes enactment and continuing policing and deportation activities, is among the most notable examples.

In recent years, the federal government’s actions have shown that unlawful immigration from Mexico is the country’s top immigration problem. Indeed, President Trump maintained his pledge to construct a wall between the U.S.-Mexico Border. According to The White House, “by implementing immigration rules, President Trump helped solve the humanitarian catastrophe at the border, keep criminals, terrorists, and narcotics out of the nation, and safeguard American workers and taxpayers from job loss and welfare abuse.” Although this may be the case, recent studies have indicated that the “insurmountable” border wall has escalated the number of migrant fatalities and catastrophic fall injuries (Liepert et al. 633). This exacerbates the immigration crisis along the southern border and casts a negative light on U.S. immigration policy. Further, racial tensions and hate crimes have risen in the United States due to the country’s strict immigration restrictions and pervasive racism.

Whereas immigration restrictions may include nationality-based discrimination, they should not culminate in racism or discrimination. A deterrent effect is typically achieved by making the immigration procedure as difficult as possible to discourage people from entering the country. The pervasive application of detention tends to target certain nationals or communities disproportionately. Undoubtedly, preventative strategies increase the costs and dangers associated with entering target nations. Many individuals, nevertheless, are highly driven or desirous that they would attempt to evade border procedures by being stowaways. As a result, most migrants are forced to use the illegal entrance, mainly done through smugglers. However, they run the danger of having whatever asylum application they make be negatively impacted by crossing the border illegally. Migrants who do not follow immigration policies when entering a country are typically seen as ‘illegals’ and consequently felons in the larger context.

Seldom are immigration policy conversations separated from broader concerns of racial dynamics inside host enclaves. Some people believe that stringent border controls are necessary for the majority of society to integrate cultural, racial, or ethnic minorities (Rüegger 44). Nonetheless, disparities in admittance predicated on ethnic or racial considerations may distinguish some types of refugees and migrants from other minorities and the majority population. Refugees and foreign laborers, for instance, are less likely to integrate if they have temporary status. With no legal identity, migrants and refugees are more vulnerable to abuse and prejudice since they are not visible to social services and other governments. In addition to isolating and stigmatizing migrant populations, extended imprisonment of refugees and undocumented migrants may help to alienate and ostracize them.

Conclusion

To conclude, parochialism, perceived cultural threat, and immigration policy are the main causes of discrimination toward immigrants. Despite this fact, migration must be examined from a human rights perspective. A paradigm based on human rights may aid in determining instances in which racism and prejudice lead to encouraging or inspiring migration. This approach additionally includes parameters for identifying and quantifying the extent to which discrimination and racism impact handling refugees and migrants.

Works Cited

Bernstein, Hamutal, et al. “Centering Race and Structural Racism in Immigration Policy Research.”Urban Institute, 2021.

‌Choi, Donghyun Danny et al. “Parochialism, Social Norms, and Discrimination Against Immigrants.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 116, no. 33, 2019, pp. 16274-16302.

Dennison, James, and Andrew Geddes. “Thinking Globally About Attitudes to Immigration: Concerns About Social Conflict, Economic Competition and Cultural Threat.”The Political Quarterly, vol. 92, no. 3, 2021, pp. 541-551.

Klein, Jack W., and Brock Bastian. “The Fusion-Secure Base Hypothesis.”Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2022, pp. 1-22.

Krzyżanowski, Michał, et al. “The Mediatization and The Politicization of The “Refugee Crisis” In Europe.”Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, vol. 16, vol.1-2, 2018, pp. 1-14.

Liepert, Amy E et al. “Association of 30-ft US-Mexico Border Wall in San Diego with Increased Migrant Deaths, Trauma Center Admissions, and Injury Severity.”JAMA Surgery, vol. 157, no. 7, 2022, pp. 633-635.

Rüegger, Seraina. “Refugees, Ethnic Power Relations, and Civil Conflict in The Country Of Asylum.”Journal of Peace Research, vol. 56, no. 1, 2019, pp. 42-57.

Sardar, Ziauddin, et al. Muslim Societies in Postnormal Times: Foresights for Trends, Emerging Issues and Scenarios. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), 2019.

The White House. “Immigration”Archives.gov, The White House, 2019.

Weisel, Ori. “Perceptions of Conflict: Parochial Cooperation and Out-Group Spite Revisited.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 167, 2021, pp. 57-71.

Click Here To Order Now!