Opposition to immigration facts for kids

Opposition to immigration, also known as anti-immigration, is a political ideology that seeks to restrict immigration. In the modern sense, immigration refers to the entry of people from one state or territory into another state or territory in which they are not citizens. Illegal immigration occurs when people immigrate to a country without having official permission to do so. Opposition to immigration ranges from calls for various immigration reforms, to proposals to completely restrict immigration, to calls for repatriation of existing immigrants.

Anti-immigration arguments

National identity

Whether and how national identity affects attitudes toward immigration depends heavily on the meanings associated with a particular national identity. If a national identity is defined in an exclusionary way that targets ethnic or racial groups, or if an ethnic or racial majority dominates in the political structures of a nation, then that national identity is likely to be associated with attitudes against immigration. Research also suggests that people respond more strongly to appeals to national identity than they do to economic considerations when they are asked about issues relating to immigration. Both Americans and Europeans are likely to overestimate the number of immigrants in their countries and to favor lower immigration.

Where national identity is not defined in a way that conflicts with ethnic or racial identity, and where such groups are not excluded socio-economically, national identity can be compatible with ethnic or racial diversity. National identity can even be an important factor for social peace in cases where there are intra-national divides. For example, a 2015 study showed that educational content emphasizing the national unity of Indonesia was an important cause of improved inter-ethnic and inter-religious relationships in Suharto's Indonesia.

Isolation, separation and stability

Immigrants can be isolated in their own communities, forming self-organized communities, ghettos or parallel societies where they live according to their own culture, rather than assimilating to the native culture with a reduced or minimal spatial, social and cultural contact with the majority society into which they have immigrated. Such ethnic enclaves can be the result of humans naturally liking to be around people like themselves. They might not learn the local language and might eventually undermine the national unity, as well as the cultural and religious unity of the native country. Research by Jennifer Neal of Michigan State University suggests that ethnic enclaves promote social cohesion at the cost of decreasing tolerance between groups and that their size, autonomy and proximity are factors. Some also suggest to devolve more power to local communities.

Immigration may adversely affect social and political stability.

Increased competition

Economic arguments concentrate on competition for employment, and the higher burdens that some groups of immigrants may impose on social welfare systems, health systems, housing and public schools of the native state. For example, Denmark's strict immigration law reform has saved the country 6.7 billion euros compared to previous more permissive approach, according to a 2011 report from the Danish Integration Ministry.

Environmental space, quality and resource scarcity

Some people think there is a certain size of land needed to provide for a population ("environmental space"), e.g., to provide for the population's consumption, including absorption of waste products. Immigrants, in this logic, such as a newborn child, reduce the per-capita size of land of the native country.

Some are concerned about urban sprawl and congestion, alterations in the wildlife and natural environment of the state, and an expansive carbon footprint due to immigration. Furthermore, some are concerned over a state's scarce resources, dwindling water reserves, energy, pauperized soils and solid waste.

Diseases

Immigrants (and cross-border movements in general) can bring infectious diseases uncommon to the native population from their home countries which some perceive as a threat of significance in opposition to immigration.

There is a history of white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan exaggerating or fabricating a connection between immigrants and infectious disease in order to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment.

Military unity

Some concerns regarding immigration can be found in perceived military loyalty, especially if the country of emigration becomes involved in a war with the country of immigration or if a country finds itself to need conscription.

Dangerous journeys

Unauthorized or irregular migration can expose immigrants to many dangers, including exposure to harsh environments, lack of food and water, and violence from smugglers and authorities. Since 2014, over 4,000 people have died each year on migration routes around the world, and this is likely to be a low estimate since many deaths are never recorded.

Harshly restricting immigration and making these restrictions known to potential emigrants may prevent them from taking such dangerous journeys. In the United States, the border patrol policy of Prevention Through Deterrence has deliberately acted to divert migrants into remote areas where they are more likely to encounter life-threatening dangers.

Import of culture

Immigrants bring their culture with them. The immigrants' thinking, their norms, practices, customs and values shape, extend and influence the native country's culture (Leitkultur). Some such extensions and influences might not be desired by parts of the native population, for reasons that may include practises considered less civilized, restrictions as well as collisions with the native country's norms, laws and values in general.

Economic costs

Opponents of immigration often state that immigrants have a net negative effect on public coffers mainly due to the provisioning of medical care and welfare.

Various factors influence the impact of immigrants to a nation's public coffers and their use of welfare. While immigrants can improve a state's welfare system by for example counteracting trends of aging populations their net economic impact might also be negative. George Borjas, economics professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, states that "the more unskilled the immigrant, the more likely the immigrant will be a fiscal burden". High-skilled immigrants have better labor market prospects than those admitted based on kinship ties or for humanitarian reasons. It also depends on the tenures, wages and ages of the immigrants and the country's integration system.

Damage to migrants' home countries

Some opponents of immigration argue that immigration of highly skilled or well-educated individuals may hurt their home countries, which could otherwise benefit from them and build up their economy and improve their social and political system. However, that notion of "brain drain" remains largely unsupported in the academic literature. According to the economist Michael Clemens, it has not been shown that restrictions on high-skill emigration reduce shortages in the countries of origin. According to the development economist Justin Sandefur, "there is no study out there... showing any empirical evidence that migration restrictions have contributed to development." Hein de Haas, a professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam, describes brain drain as a "myth". Research suggests that emigration (both low- and high-skilled) is beneficial to the sending countries in terms of economy,(speculation) education, and liberal democracy.

Remittances have a major impact on the developing economies of the world with the majority of remittances, $441 billion in 2015, going to developing nations. This amount is nearly triple the $131 billion of global Official Development Assistance. For many developing nations, remittances received make up a significant portion of their economies often receiving over 10% of their GDP in remittances each year. From a macroeconomic perspective, there is no conclusive relationship between remittances and GDP growth. While remittances can boost aggregate demand and thereby spur economic activity, other research indicates that remittances may also have adverse macroeconomic impacts by increasing income inequality and reducing labour supply among recipient countries.

No solution to underlying problems

Immigration may be the outcome of problems in the migrants' countries of origin. Open immigration policies and efforts do not address the problems, but keeping borders closed does not address them either.

Jeanne Park of the Council on Foreign Relations recommends European leaders to address the root causes of migration such as helping to broker an end to the Syrian Civil War, restoring stability to Libya, and increasing aid to sub-Saharan Africa. According to her, a political solution to the regional crises can make Europe no longer struggle with migrant inflows. Concerning the migratory and refugee movements in and from the Horn of Africa, Günther Schröder noted that more efforts are needed to deal with its causes. A report by the German Caritasverband stated that only a long-term strategy that differentiates combating the causes for migration in the countries of origin and the development of an EU migration policy can find solutions. Responding to the root causes of illegal migration flows involves co-operation with third countries, including migrants' countries of origin and transit, and might manifest itself in conflict avoidance, peacekeeping and state building. It has been suggested that safe havens be created within the country of origin. It can be argued that immigration means that people "flee" of their country's problems instead of organizing, building up pressure, being involved in constructive foreign aid programs, or otherwise addressing them.

Opposition to immigration by country or region

In 2018, a survey of 27 countries around the world showed that a median of 45% wanted fewer or no immigrants, 36% wanted to keep the current immigration levels and only 14% wanted immigration to increase. The median of those opposing was the highest in countries receiving the most migrants, with 51% in European countries.

Respondents who indicated they wanted immigrants moving into their country

Country/territory	Fewer/none (%)	About the same (%)	More (%)
Greece	82	15	2
Israel	73	15	9
Hungary	72	22	2
Italy	71	18	5
Russia	67	23	7
South Africa	65	23	11
Argentina	61	28	6
Kenya	60	24	15
Germany	58	30	10
Indonesia	54	31	8
Sweden	52	33	14
Nigeria	50	26	20
Poland	49	36	9
India	45	11	13
Mexico	44	42	11
Tunisia	42	38	20
France	41	42	16
Netherlands	39	49	10
Australia	38	42	18
Brazil	37	44	14
United Kingdom	37	43	16
Philippines	32	46	19
Spain	30	39	28
United States	29	44	24
South Korea	28	52	18
Canada	27	53	19
Japan	13	58	23

See also