|
I believe the very premise of this debate is both false and extraordinarily common.
Culture does not equal country. Nation states had to be constructed across diverse populations to get people to call themselves members of that country, to pay taxes to it, ect. This is exponentially evident with expansive, more populous countries.
Since we're not talking about anyone specific, "us" is a fundamental political position. "Them" is a useful means to political ends. When we stop seeing 'culture' as static and natural, we can stop worrying about its protection and ask more relevant questions, like what is the range and scope of the impact of immigration in the first place? We apparently know the answer to that on a personal level, maybe a logical or ethical level, and vaguely on the level of the national economy - ie, we don't crap about it in my country. Yet we're ready to legislate on it and argue about it loudly on cable news. I most interested in who is benefitting from aggravating societal anxiety about foreigners into social mobilization and supporting anti-immigration policy. On the other side, who is operating, and in what ways to enact pro-immigration reform, and what are they gaining from it? I can think of some likely suspects, but the answers are generally surprising. In any case, this is the level I think is relevant - what is actually, factually happening (as far as our methods can tell us), what is SAID about what is happening, and who is saying and doing what in the context of immigration.
It takes the debate at least past the common argumentative paradigm about immigration, which naturally is rooted in one's sense nationalism and personal observation.
|