The Best Immigrants
[I wrote this blog a long time back , 2009 to be exact, and posted it on a blogging site which i don't believe exists now. When it ceased to exist it took away all my blogs with it, and I was aghast, natuarally, but coiuold do nothing about it. Then, very recently and miraculously I found this blog on my facebook page. How it came there -- don't ask me]
I am in the US now on a private visit to see my daughter’s family, and had been to Canada for a few days to see an old friend. In 2007 I had come on a similar visit to Switzerland and had also visited Austria, Germany and Belgium. In 2006 I visited the United kingdom. Every time, everywhere in the first world, there is one feature that strikes you : the sheer number of old men and women. The baby boomers of the mid-and late-1940s are now into their sixties, retired or about to retire. And the young men and women are not having enough children, despite incentives by a number of countries, to replace the baby boomers. With the result that the average age is going up. Now each such country requires young men and women to run the economic and technical engine in the country and to fill the armed forces. As a result, each such country is faced with the need to bring in immigrants.
Now, no country wants to do this, because immigrants mean trouble. Immigrants do not assimilate. Immigrants stick out like a sore thumb. Immigrants live in ghettoes, do not try to absorb the culture of the country, get into fight with ethnic bhumiputras (Malay word of Sanskrit origin, meaning ’son of the soil’). Yet immigrants are required. Hence the question : who make the best immigrants?
Certain countries in the world have sent out more immigrants than the others. Out of these, the Western European countries and Israel can be counted out today for purposes of getting immigrants from. The English, the Scots, the Irish, the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Italians, the Swedes, the Jews — in short Western Europeans, plus the Jews — who had made the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa prosperous are prospering in their own countries now, which are themselves short of manpower. They will not emigrate. Ditto for Spaniards and Portuguese to Latin America. Arabs from oil-rich countries will obviously not emigrate. So who does it leave?
It leaves the following groups :
(1) Eastern and Southern Europeans from relatively less prosperous, especially non-EU countries : Belarus, Albanians, Bulgarians, Moldovians, Bosnians, Turks.
(2) Arabs from non-oil producing countries, like Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians.
(3) Christian Africans, e.g. Kenyans, Southern Nigerians, Ghanaians.
(4) Muslim Africans, e.g. Moroccans, Sudanese, Somalis.
(5) People of African descent, mostly Christian, from developing countries, e.g. Carribeans
(6) South Asians, mainly Indians, professing Hinduism or other religions of South Asian origin, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists
(7) South Asian Muslims, mainly Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis.
(8) South-east Asians from developing countries, like Cambodians, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Myanmarese.
We may now examine these categories one by one. In this examination, it has to be remembered, perception plays as big a role as facts. But, it is also to be remembered that perception owes its origin to at least one set of facts, though very often not to the entire set of facts.
Category 1, i.e. Eastern and Southern Europeans from EU countries are welcome in the highly developed economies of Western Europe which have a EU-imposed requirement to employ them to the exclusion of other immigrants. So they need not go anywhere else. Even for these Western European countries, however, it is doubtful whether their manpower requirements can be fulfilled by the EU-member Eastern and Southern Europeans alone. So more immigrants would be needed by them -- and also by North America, Australia and New Zealand. Citizens of non EU European countries would be welcome in these countries, primarily because of the colour of their skin (though no first world country would admit this), but they would have two major problems: First, they do not speak English, French or German; and secondly, they are educationally backward. .
Category 2, that is Arabs from non-oil producing countries, like Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians; category 4, that is Muslim Africans, e.g. Moroccans, Sudanese, Somalis; and category 7, that is South Asian Muslims, mainly Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis — let’s face it — would be unwelcome anywhere other than the oil-rich Arab countries, simply because they are Muslims, and 9/11 (together with 7/7 of london and 26/11 of Mumbai) is a reality today. Muslims multiply fast, because they do not believe in small families. Muslims do not assimilate AT ALL but after a while they demand separate schools, separate dress codes, even separate Laws. Add to that the duties of Jehad, that is waging war on non-Muslims — imposed on every Muslim, and the promise of virgins in heaven after they have killed non-Muslims, and you have damn good reasons for there being unwelcome.
They are not all the same, of course. The Arabs and South Asian Muslims learn fast, are less likely to make a nuisance of themselves and are culturally more advanced than the African Muslims. The Bangladeshis are moreover not particularly orthodox or crime-prone, and work hard. But few countries will make such fine distinctions, and prefer one group of Muslims over others.
Category 3, that is Christian Africans, e.g. Kenyans, Southern Nigerians, Ghanaians, Congolese, etc. and category 5, that is People of African descent, mostly Christian, from developing countries, e.g. Carribeans, do not pose a religious problem, but they do pose a law and order problem. Again there are distinctions among them, and it is not as if they create law and order problems everywhere or others do not create law and order problems. But this is all a question of perception, based to an extent on gross facts, and to an extent (let’s face it) on prejudice.
Category 8, that is South-east Asians from developing countries, like Cambodians, Vietnamese, Filipinos and Category 9 that is the Chinese are often lumped together because of facial and racial resemblances. They are largely free from the problems with which the earlier mentioned categories are associated — that is to say they are not religious fanatics and they do not create law and order problems, nor are they likely to make a nuisance of themselves in petty ways. However some complaints persist against them. They do not assimilate well — the presence of Chinatowns in cities ranging from New York to Kolkata is enough proof of that. They are also said to be secretive and inscrutable. In these respects the Cambodians, Vietnamese or Filipinos fare better than the Chinese, and the countries that do appreciate these differences are likely to be more welcoming to them than to the Chinese.
That leaves the Hindus, including Sikhs and Jains — mainly from India, but also other countries where the Hindus have lived or migrated to, such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Trinidad, Guyana, Fiji or Surinam. Sri Lanka Buddhists are in this respect in the same category, as they are ethnically the same as Indians and religiously close, just as the Sikhs and Jains are. ‘Close’ of course does not mean they are not different — but not all that different. Are the Hindus religious or ethnic fanatics? Of course not — they are essentially pluralists and bear no ill-will against any other religion or ethnicity. But more than that, they assimilate like no one else does. True, there are ‘Little Indias’ in Southall (a suburb of London) and Toronto — but Indians want to move out of there as soon as they can and live where the ethnic British and majority Canadians live. They will never dream of demanding separate areas, dress codes or laws. They are hard-working and law-abiding. One never hears of Hindu criminal gangs or ‘Secret Societies’ (a Chinese speciality). And they bring credit to the nations they migrate to — look at the Nobel Laureates Hargobind Khurana (US), Subramanyam Chandrasekhar (US), Sir Vidia Naipaul (Trinidad and Tobago), and the latest, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (US). Look at the statesmen Sir Sewoosagur Ramgoolam of Mauritius, Chhedi Jagan of Guyana, Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana (later converted to Christianity), Ujjal Dosanjh, the Premier of British Columbia. Look at the British industrialist Lord Swraj Paul, the economist Lord Meghnad Desai (an atheist though, but a Hindu all the same). This capacity to assimilate has been a trend with Hindus right through the ages. The Hindus of Bali (Indonesia) or of Trinidad, Mauritius or Fiji do not look back at New Delhi for succour. To them home is Denpassar, Port of Spain, Port Louis or Suva.
What does all this lead us to? To the conclusion that Hindus make the best immigrants in the world, and every nation short of manpower should welcome them.
This has to be got across to the rulers of the first world nations in need of manpower.