New enemy in the West is the illegal migrant
In 1992, the American political strategist James Carville coined the catchphrase, 'It's the economy, stupid'. It conveyed that the singular issue which mattered the most to voters in the US was the condition of the economy and how it impacted on their personal finances. Today, economic considerations continue to remain crucial determinants of voter choice, but the other issue which has risen to the fore is immigration. Record numbers of people moving past national borders are also ensuring that the word migrant has an edgy and controversial connotation. (AFP)
During the 2024 US presidential election, concerns about high levels of inflation (a proxy for the economy) and fears of humongous inflows of migrants from the southern border with Mexico combined to ensure the stunning return to power of President Donald Trump for a second term. Trump's bare-knuckles election campaign rhetoric against migrants galvanised a large segment of Americans to rally around him as the last saviour who can regain control over their country and harden what they perceived to be dangerously loose borders.
Although Trump's allegation that his predecessor President Joe Biden had 'allowed 21 million illegals to pour in from all over the world' may not be accurate, the message of keeping America safe from unwanted hordes echoed deeply among conservatives and boosted the appeal of his Right-wing populism, which combines economic anxieties over losing out to other countries through foreign trade and globalisation with cultural insecurities about erosion of the social fabric and core racial identity due to opening the floodgates to migrants by liberals.
The recent disturbances in California involving a crackdown by the Trump administration to conduct mass arrests and deportations of immigrants, and street protests and running battles of targeted Latino communities with law enforcement officials, were a reiteration of the same electoral political wedge between the Right-wing and Left-wing on the fundamental questions of who is an American and what an ideal American society should look like.
Trump's historic move to deploy US military troops and the National Guard to quell 'a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the US', and vehement opposition to this step as an authoritarian violation of State sovereignty and fundamental human rights of innocent Americans by the liberal Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, was a demonstration of the deep divide which has polarised the US into two hostile ideological tribes that are at each other's throats.
Such extreme confrontational theatre is not limited to the US. Over the past decade, immigration has emerged as a red-meat issue across Europe following the massive influx of refugees fleeing wars in Syria and Iraq and economic collapse in Africa. Trump-like politicians in Europe have been declaring do-or-die wars and calling for national emergencies to tackle illegal immigration.
While the far-Right has not managed to sweep all elections and win office throughout Europe, it has succeeded in mainstreaming radical anti-immigrant attitudes and values, compelling traditional incumbent parties to co-opt them. In most western democracies which are struggling to sustain their liberal multicultural models from being overrun, the very concept of national security threat has been reformulated to refer to illegal immigration rather than to any revisionist foreign enemy like Russia or China. Defence and foreign ministries still worry and plan about how to prevent World War III with Russia backed by China, but the political mood on the streets is to defend borders against refugees and migrants.
In the present zeitgeist, the rejection of open borders and mass mobilisation to block undesirable people is not limited to the West. Anti-immigrant threat perceptions have grown in large developing countries like Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia and India too. In parts of the Global South, animosity against immigrants and asylum seekers has an economic logic, with local citizens fretting that the already limited resources and jobs they have will be stolen by foreigners who slip across their borders.
In India, where over 20 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are estimated to have entered through the eastern border, there is widespread unease about demographic alteration and exclusive enclaves that could become hotbeds of Islamist extremism and terrorism. Even though anti-immigrant feelings may not determine the overall national electoral calculus in India, the lines are clearly drawn between 'secular' political parties, which sound similar to liberals in the West, and Right-wing parties which present a Trump-style doomsday scenario of losing the country to a silent invasion.
Even as migrants are in the eye of the storm globally in terms of politics, they do perform economically useful functions in recipient countries. The demographic decline in rich nations and consequent labour shortages pose existential challenges to the long-term viability of their economies. Numerous studies by economists show that allowing in more migrants through legal and institutional channels will benefit host nations and enhance their economic growth prospects.
Still, with political emotions running high, the distinctions between authorised and unauthorised migrants, as well as between refugees who flee war and political persecution and economic migrants who chase dollar dreams, are blurring. Record numbers of people moving past national borders are also ensuring that the word migrant has an edgy and controversial connotation. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there were over 281 million international migrants in 2020, which was 128 million more than in 1990 and over three times greater than in 1970.
The pressure of these numbers, which get further exaggerated by politicians, means that this ballooning global crisis will worsen. Solutions for orderly and legitimate migration, wherein supply of labour is matched with demand, do exist on paper. But politics will likely override economics on this issue, which means the struggle over immigration is going to be prolonged, irrational and violent.
Sreeram Chaulia is Dean, Jindal School of International Affairs. The views expressed are personal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Mahmoud Khalil ICE detention case: Federal judge orders release of Columbia protester
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Friday ordered the U.S. government to free former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from the immigration detention center where he has been held since early March while the Trump administration sought to deport him over his role in pro-Palestinian protests. Federal judge has ordered the release of Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil.(REUTERS) Ruling from the bench in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual" for the government to continue to detain a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn't been accused of any violence. 'Petitioner is not a flight risk and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,' he said. 'Period, full stop.' Later in the hourlong hearing, which took place by phone, the judge said the government had 'clearly not met' the standards for detention. Khalil could walk out of the detention center in rural Louisiana by Friday evening, which is when lawyers for the Trump administration said they expect to release him. He must surrender his passport and can't travel internationally, but he will get his green card back and be given official documents permitting limited travel within the country, including New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress. Khalil was the first person arrested under President Donald Trump 's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's devastating war in Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy. Farbiarz had ruled earlier that the government couldn't deport Khalil on those grounds, but gave it leeway to continue pursuing a potential deportation based on allegations that he lied on his green card application. Trump administration lawyers repeated that accusation at Friday's court hearing. It's an accusation Khalil disputes. In issuing his ruling Friday, the judge agreed with Khalil's lawyers that the protest leader was being prevented from exercising his free speech and due process rights despite no obvious reason for his continued detention. The judge noted that Khalil is now clearly a public figure. Khalil's lawyers had asked that he either be freed on bail or, at the very least, moved from Louisiana to New Jersey so he can be closer to his wife and newborn son, who are both U.S. citizens. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, said she can finally 'breathe a sigh of relief' after her husband's three months in detention. 'We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others,' she said in a statement provided by Khalil's lawyers. 'But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family.' The judge's decision comes after several other scholars targeted for their activism have been released from custody, including another former Palestinian student at Columbia, Mohsen Mahdawi; a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Ozturk; and a Georgetown University scholar, Badar Khan Suri. Khalil was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The international affairs graduate student isn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. He served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists and wasn't among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics. The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump hints at Israel-Iran ceasefire, warns Iran has ‘maximum' two weeks
President Donald Trump on Friday indicated he may support a ceasefire in the ongoing aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, now in its second week, but said it would depend on how events unfold. US President Donald Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the ongoing Israel Iran conflict.(Bloomberg) Asked by reporters if he would back a truce while diplomatic talks continue, Trump replied, "I might, depending on the circumstances." He also warned that Iran has a limited timeframe to avoid possible U.S. military action. "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," Trump said, hinting that a decision could come sooner. Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the conflict. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one," he said. On the same day, Iran's foreign minister held talks with British, French, German, and EU counterparts in Geneva to discuss restarting diplomatic efforts on its nuclear program. European leaders urged Tehran to engage directly with Washington, but the discussions ended without a breakthrough. When asked whether U.S. ground troops would be required if conflict escalates, Trump said, "Well, I'm not going to talk about ground forces, because the last thing you want to do is ground forces." The Israel-Iran air war began on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory, claiming the goal was to stop Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons capability. Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, is a member of the NPT and responded with retaliatory strikes. According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, Israel's attacks have killed 639 people in Iran. Meanwhile, Israel has reported 24 civilian deaths from Iranian strikes. Trump and the White House have said a decision on US involvement in the conflict will be made within two weeks. So far, Trump's stance has ranged from promoting a diplomatic resolution to signalling potential military support for Israel, leaving global observers uncertain about the US course of action. Europe joins Tehran talks as two-week clock ticks President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed the prospects of European diplomacy resolving the Israel-Iran conflict, reiterating that Iran is uninterested in engaging with European leaders. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said upon arriving in Morristown, New Jersey. He also played down the possibility of urging Israel to pause its military actions, responding to Iran's demand that Israel cease its strikes before Tehran resumes dialogue with Washington. When asked if he would press Israel to halt attacks, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now," adding, "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens." Addressing the timeline for a potential US military response, Trump said, "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," explaining that the goal was to "see whether or not people come to their senses." A day earlier, Trump had said he would "make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks" because of a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. That statement was interpreted as opening a short diplomatic window, prompting European leaders to meet with Iran's foreign minister in Geneva. However, Trump said the discussions "didn't help," and his latest remarks suggest he may act sooner if there's no progress on Iran's nuclear programme. (With inputs from agencies)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Said no to Trump invite as I had to visit land of Lord Jagannath: Modi
1 2 Bhubaneswar: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday finally explained the reason for declining US President Donald Trump 's recent invite for a stopover in Washington on his way back from Canada. Addressing a gathering in Bhubaneswar on Friday, PM Modi said he had to say no to Trump's invite as he did not want to miss his scheduled visit to the "land of Lord Jagannath". Speaking at an event to mark one year of Mohan Charan Majhi-led BJP govt in Odisha, Modi said, "The President of the United States called me, saying, 'Since you are in Canada, please come over. We will have a meal together and talk.' He extended a warm invitation. I thanked him for the invitation and politely declined, expressing that visiting the land of Mahaprabhu was essential for me. The devotion for Mahaprabhu and your love drew me here. " The explanation puts to rest speculations that had built up ever since foreign secretary Vikram Misri put on record that PM Modi had to skip the Trump meeting due to "prior commitments". While Majhi's first anniversary as CM was on June 12, the Odisha govt timed the main celebration on Friday to accommodate the PM's schedule. Any change in plan could have put the govt in an awkward position in a state where the BJP swept the Lok Sabha polls, winning 20 of the 21 seats, and stormed to power by winning 78 of the 147 assembly seats. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stunning 2-Bed Senior Houses: Take A Peek Inside! GoSearches | Search Ads Undo In what was Modi's sixth visit to the state in the past one year, the PM praised Odisha's progress under the BJP govt, emphasizing the state's role in India's cultural and economic development. He highlighted various initiatives aimed at improving infrastructure, healthcare, and economic opportunities for the people of Odisha, particularly tribal communities. The PM also highlighted the significant role of eastern India in the country's growth trajectory and underscored the region's potential as a catalyst for India's progress in the 21st century. "The development of 21st century India will gain momentum from eastern India. This is the era of Purvodaya," the PM said.
