The immigration policies of countries around the world are fast becoming the approved knee-jerk method to evaluate how that place stands in global moral and social order. From the racist to the paranoid to the odd, countries that impose new border tightening measures tend to attract scorn from the rest of the ‘free’ world, while being generally accepted by the occupying ‘native’ population.
At one time immigration policies seem to have been drawn up by governments keen on expanding their skilled workforce and/or their cheap labour and were dutifully accepted by voters on this premise. Without these economical issues to guide ‘free-thinking’ thought, would cultural migration have come anywhere near as far as it has? Some people think not, leaving us with the concept that world markets have actually contributed to emotional-society in a positive manner? Hmm.
Anyway, even in countries with supposedly forward thinking policies, things seem far from harmonious. Where has mass generational migration of a culture ever really resulted in workable, lasting integration? Maybe the single, global understanding we are all supposed to strive for is being driven at a speed dictated by the economy’s lust for a generic consumer, instead of by something more in tune with its delicate nature?
Two extreme examples of culture mixing could be: the marginalisation of Native American and Aboriginal cultures (newcomers destroying culture), and immigrant quarters/enclaves (newcomers living outside of national culture through choice or society-imposed segregation). Neither of these methods are championed by the collective conscious, but why is this result so common in practise?
