Imaginary Immigrants

The otherness of immigrants* is often exploited to channel the anxieties generated by the contradictions of the capitalist economy into a direction that will pose no danger to the preservation of this system of economic relations. An immigrant is imagined as a tireless worker bee who, instead of feeling disconcerted by the liquid flows of capital, interacts, gladly and easily, with the fluidity and exploits it for his or her own advantage.

Instead of questioning the economic system that expects workers to renounce any sort of rootedness and connectedness in favor of a constant displacement in search of employment, members of the growing precariat aim their anger at immigrants. The desperation that forces immigrants to accept subpar working conditions is easy to mistake for complicity with the system that insists on a constant increase in productivity amidst the erosion of the last vestiges of stability.

At the core of the fear of an unknowable stranger leas the terror of an opaque and incomprehensible future in a rapidly changing world.

———————-

* It’s very crucial to see the differences between a refugee and an immigrant because otherwise this particular discussion becomes confusing.

Rate this:

31 responses to “Imaginary Immigrants”

December 6, 2015

\ It’s very crucial to see the differences between a refugee and an immigrant because otherwise this particular discussion becomes confusing.

Today’s situation in Europe makes distinguishing between refugees and immigrants extremely hard. Many claim to be refugees, when they are in fact people from the 3rd world attempting to (illegally) immigrate to the few countries with largest welfare payments. Even real Syrians were already out of danger in Turkey or some other country before reaching Germany or other country of their choice.

The results of open borders to third world are already visible:

Marine Le Pen’s National Front leads in first round of French regional elections – exit poll
https://www.rt.com/news/324926-national-front-lead-france/

I don’t think it is only because that horrible terrorist act. I believe Europeans on the street don’t want millions from the 3rd world coming into their countries. Interesting what the election results in Germany will be. I read Germany may receive as many as 1 million per year and Germans don’t seem to be very happy about it, no matter what Merkel says.

Israel manages not to receive almost anybody so far:

200 Africans illegally enter Israel over fence
…
The new 220 kilometers-long fence, built across the border with Egypt from Kerem Shalom to the mountains of Eilat, was meant to stop the flow of Africans arriving in Israel every year, after over 10,000 managed to enter the country.

And, indeed, in the year following the completion of the fence, only a handful of migrants crossed the border. Despite that, African migrants continue their attempts to enter Israel, as it is much cheaper to cross into the country, than to Europe. Smugglers charge some $3,000 for Europe, and only $600-$1,500 to Israel.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4735534,00.html

LikeLike

Clarissa

December 6, 2015

Immigrants come to give; refugees come to get. I think this is a good, simple definition. There is an effort to push all immigration into the refugee model because that’s a situation that is highly exploitable.

Putin has been sponsoring Le Pen for years, and is now extatic about her great electoral prospects. Now his goal is to push somebody as anti-EU and pro-Russia into power in Germany. And there doesn’t seem anything likely to prevent this scenario.

LikeLike

Reply
1. valter07
  
  December 6, 2015
  
  —Immigrants come to give; refugees come to get.
  
  ??? Most immigrants I know came to get. Of course, most of them are decent human beings, so eventually they started giving as well. And perhaps eventually they have given back to the society more than they got. Do not see any reason why the same cannot be true for refugees.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    December 6, 2015
    
    Where precisely did they come and what were they hoping to get? I’m not aware of any immigration program that allows people into the US or Canada and provides them with anything. I actually signed paperwork renouncing all rights to any welfare in Canada for 10 years. The idea of the state providing me with as much as a sandwich – let alone room, board and cash payments – upon arrival in both of my immigrant experiences is quite outre.
    
    I know there’s something provided for elderly Jewish immigrants to Canada but that comes through JIAS and not through the state.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. valter07
      
      December 6, 2015
      
      I meant “to get” in a broader sense of the word. To get new opportunities, for example. And not just material ones. Which for me is worth more than the amounts the refugees may be getting. Some chances one cannot get in his/her own country. In many cases – getting to live in a civilized country (again, definitions of civilized may be different, and include, for example, less nationalist) without putting effort into turning one’s own country into more civilized one…
      And speaking of Canada or perhaps Quebec in particular – I know immigrants who have been here for less than 10 years and whose children were getting hundreds of dollars per month. One may have to renounce the right for welfare for oneself (I do not remember if I had to sign something like that, but I first came on a work visa and did not lose my job, so I did not care), but that definitely does not include one’s children. Who get state support based on the income of the parents. Or on lack thereof. In fact, our daughter was getting something too. But very little, based on the family income. But, on the other hand, after just three years in Canada. I think if we came to Canada as immigrants, not on a work visa, she would be getting something from day one.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Clarissa
        
        December 6, 2015
        
        I, on the other hand, was speaking in strictly literal terms. Emotional and psychological bonuses are all highly individual and impossible to track.
        
        We came to Canada as immigrants and not on work visas and never got anything. To the contrary, we couldn’t have come without depositing quite a hefty amount of money into a Canadian bank before crossing the border.
        
        Trudeau, by the way, has now taken away all child benefits for people like my sister. She’ll now get nothing for her kids because, apparently, women like her are a lot less valuable to the country than the shrouded creatures.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        valter07
        
        December 6, 2015
        
        As I remember, you’ve gotten superior education, including some scholarships, funded by Canadian taxpayers. 🙂 🙂
        
        And concerning the “shrouded creatures”… I once have written a very long comment about your obsession with them, but in the last moment decided against posting it. So here goes the short summary: those “shrouded creatures” are exactly as human as you are.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        December 6, 2015
        
        I didn’t emigrate for that purpose, given that I had no idea scholarships existed. And at the time I got my scholarship, I’d been a Canadian taxpayer for 4 years.
        
        As for the shrouded, everybody is human but that doesn’t mean one can’t have opinions about them. People are not likely to understand forms of oppression and dehumanization that cannot affect them in the same way as those who are affected. And it might, indeed, look like an obsession from the outside. But it might not be entirely misplaced to say, for instance, “Hey, maybe black people / the disabled / women / PTSD sufferers, etc know something about this that I don’t. Maybe what seems trivial to me has a different and more destructive meaning to them.”
        
        LikeLike
        
        valter07
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        Please, look back at our conversation. It was me who said that one could immigrate in order to get some immaterial benefits. And as far as I know, that is exactly why you immigrated. Now I am simply surprised that you are deliberately focusing on the social assistance the refugees are getting that you did not get. And I find your position inconsistent.
        Otherwise – please do not take my comment about scholarships as black or white. I obviously am not implying that you contributed nothing at all to the Canadian society. However, I live in Montreal and work at a university, so I know how much money one needs to earn for living in Montreal modestly, how much taxes one would pay from that modest amount, how large is Quebec tuition, how large is the taxpayers’ contribution to educating a regular student and how large was your scholarship. Thus, unless you secretly were a pretty wealthy taxpayer, you still owe something to the Canadian people. While a refugee may actually end up contributing more than he/she is initially given. So please get off the moral high horse.
        
        As for “shrouded creatures” – who of us two is a literary critic, trained to analyze the meaning of the words people are using? So tell me, please, from a professional perspective, what does it mean when one is repeatedly calling members of a certain human group “creatures” and focuses on (one aspect of) the symbolism of their attire to the detriment of everything else? Actually, do not tell me. But be honest with yourself.
        
        And by the way, I do not buy the arguments a la “you did not experience that, therefore you cannot understand”. I consider them the last resort when one does not have rational arguments any more. And in this particular case – you do not have an experience of being forced to wear a hijab, exactly like I don’t have it.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        “It was me who said that one could immigrate in order to get some immaterial benefits. And as far as I know, that is exactly why you immigrated. ”
        
        As I said, my definition is strictly literal. It did not include anything immaterial because that can’t be quantified. Let’s change “something” to “some tangible goodies or money” in the definition if that will help.
        
        “However, I live in Montreal and work at a university, so I know how much money one needs to earn for living in Montreal modestly, how much taxes one would pay from that modest amount, how large is Quebec tuition, how large is the taxpayers’ contribution to educating a regular student and how large was your scholarship.”
        
        But I didn’t live and work in Montreal when I emigrated. I had no idea about any of these things. I was 22, and sadly, very ignorant. I had no idea how the Canadian system of higher education worked. The purpose of my emigration was never to get scholarships or anything of the kind. I didn’t even know the word “scholarship.” When we emigrated, we all knew we’d be looking for jobs from day one. Some of us got jobs before arriving. There is an obvious difference between that and somebody who goes someplace with a specific goal of getting a higher payout and knowing full well he will not be able to work for quite a while.
        
        “While a refugee may actually end up contributing more than he/she is initially given.”
        
        My definition is not about outcomes but about purposes. Outcomes come much later. Although it is true that people who come hoping for welfare payments rarely get off those payments.
        
        “So tell me, please, from a professional perspective, what does it mean when one is repeatedly calling members of a certain human group “creatures” and focuses on (one aspect of) the symbolism of their attire to the detriment of everything else”
        
        There are other aspects than degradation of women? Let’s be serious here. There are no other aspects. That’s the only one.
        
        “And by the way, I do not buy the arguments a la “you did not experience that, therefore you cannot understand”. I consider them the last resort when one does not have rational arguments any more.”
        
        My students saw their colleagues perform in blackface and had a very intense reaction to it. I don’t feel the same way. Actually, I don’t feel anything on the subject. I only very vaguely know what the historical connotations of blackface are. But I have decided that I don’t need to understand or feel it in the same way. I can simply accept that this extremely hurtful. I’m not sure if they have “rational arguments” for this hurt and I don’t think I need to keep searching for those arguments. There is some pain that is connected to blackface that I can’t feel but can respect. And it’s the same thing with, say, the Confederate flag. It would be great if non-Jews could believe Jews when they say that anti-semitism exists and it hurts them. It would be great if non-black people could just trust that black people are not inventing the damage that racism does to them. And it would be an impossible dream if men could accept that misogyny exists and hurts women in the way that men will never feel or experience or understand.
        
        “And in this particular case – you do not have an experience of being forced to wear a hijab, exactly like I don’t have it.”
        
        I have the greatest compassion towards women who are forced into this barbarity. But I’m not very supported in my compassion, as we have seen from my post about a girl who was beaten for not wearing the hijab.
        
        LikeLike
        
        valter07
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        Ok, I agree, the intent is important. Still, IMHO one should judge the final results and not fear-and hate-monger too early… Canada can digest extras 25000. Germany, however, is another matter. I do not understand why they are doing it… I even have a conspiracy theory: see, all the achievements of the labor movement were implemented when the demographic situation was very different. By now the system became unsustainable. But it is very difficult to make people of the socialist democracies to vote against their social benefits. So maybe they decided to use an opportunity, bring in masses of immigrants, and then blame the necessary adjustments of the welfare system on them.
        
        About the rest – if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I should just accept, without questioning why, the fact that for you seeing a hijab in any context is the same as for an Afro-American person is seeing a Confederate flag. Right? Despite the fact that one waving a confederate flag is likely an oppressor, while the woman in hijab is likely the oppressed?
        And, for the record, the freak beating his niece should be punished.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        “About the rest – if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that I should just accept, without questioning why, the fact that for you seeing a hijab in any context is the same as for an Afro-American person is seeing a Confederate flag. Right?”
        
        Exactly.
        
        “Despite the fact that one waving a confederate flag is likely an oppressor, while the woman in hijab is likely the oppressed?”
        
        In her relationship with whom is she oppressed? Because we are discussing her relationship with me. In that relationship, she is the oppressor. Just like the Confederate-flag-waver might be an oppressed, semi-literate poor schmuck from Alabama who, in his relationship with the black people, turns into an oppressor. His life probably sucks in many ways, he is for sure downtrodden economically but to black people he is an oppressor.
        
        LikeLike
        
        valter07
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        Hmm… the “relationship” you are describing is similar to a “relationship” between a Pro-life fundamentalist and the Planned Parenthood clinic that offends the fundamentalist… While not being even aware of his existence. (I mean, of course the existence of a particular pro-life person, not the existence of pro-life activists in general.)
        Anyway, anybody being offended by anything meaningful and speaking up does not bother me. It was your particular and repeated choice of words that implies that the women in question are sub-human… To me it sounds from the same opera as “Colorado beetle larvae”… (I occasionally read the blogs of extreme Ukrainian and Russian… patriots. This parallel is not accidental here. Lately I could predict your comments on Ukraine, Russia and migrants with nearly 100% accuracy by reading blogs and friends’ walls of characters like Evhen Tsybulenko and Yuri Nesterenko… Way too much “fog of war”, for my taste… Makes me sad. Reminds me of a certain Russian forum…)
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        “It was your particular and repeated choice of words that implies that the women in question are sub-human”
        
        I only mirror the self image they project with those coverings. A person who agrees to exist without a public face chooses to mark herself as not fully human. And it’s not my place to dispute that.
        
        “Lately I could predict your comments on Ukraine, Russia and migrants with nearly 100% accuracy by reading blogs and friends’ walls of characters like Evhen Tsybulenko and Yuri Nesterenko”
        
        You keep mentioning this Nesterenko fellow. Maybe I should finally check him out. 🙂
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        “Hmm… the “relationship” you are describing is similar to a “relationship” between a Pro-life fundamentalist and the Planned Parenthood clinic that offends the fundamentalist”
        
        Blackface is a much better analogy because it involves somebody covering their face in a way that another person finds offensive and painful. The analogy between people and institutions is too forced.
        
        LikeLike
        
        valter07
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        Glad I did not offend you… Because Nesterenko is quite a character… Claims to be a writer / political refugee from Russia, living somewhere in Florida. Apparently he is such a great writer that working to earn a living in other ways is beneath him. So periodically he begs his readers for money. Not only for his books, but for his photo reports from car shows and such…. Asks to apply for some credit cards and name him as a referral. Militant asexual. And a hardcore pro-Ukrainian sofa-warrior. 🙂 Enjoy.
        http://yury-nesterenko.livejournal.com/
        
        Evhen Tsybulenko -prof-eug.livejournal.com – seems to be a more reasonable fellow 🙂 He is a law scholar, originally a specialist in land mine issues who found a job in a small private university in Estonia. No crime here – there is not much sun in Canada, but I am doing research on photosynthesis. 🙂 In a couple of years he becomes a citizen of Estonia “for special services to the country”. That’s where Wikipidia article about him magically ends. His special services – being a tireless propaganda warrior. Known for his public appeal to Ukrainian Air Force to join the Maydan… by striking at Yanukovich supporters’ positions… By military jets. In the middle of Kyev. He also wrote that it is good that in Estonia “vatniki” do not have citizenship. Of course he was further promoted to a Director of the… Human Rights Center of Tallinn Law School. He is the source of my ideas that some factions of Maydan actually wanted to model Ukraine on Baltic States (or on Quebec, for our North-American friends).
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        Fascinating! I just added these people to my blogroll on your recommendation. You will bear responsibility for any and all consequences of my possible radicalization at their hands. 🙂 🙂 (KIDDING.)
        
        LikeLike
        
        valter07
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        I fully agree to bear the responsibility. Luckily for me, there is not much risk involved.
        
        LikeLike
2. Jones
  
  December 7, 2015
  
  And expats come to get away … 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

Vic Crain

December 6, 2015

For those old enough to remember, the US has a legacy from Vietnam. The people involved worked with the US during that war and were able to flee the country to avoid the hardships that followed. They were refugees who became immigrants and in the cases of which I have personal knowledge, made significant contributions to this society.

We now have a new immigrant model with Mexican workers. Some come here, work for a few years, save money, and then return home. The money they can make here serves them well in a lower-cost-of-living environment that they have at home.

Pew has suggested that net immigration to the US from Mexico is now zero — people leaving are offsetting those coming in.

Americans are used to the notion that this country is so wonderful that anyone who comes here will want to stay here forever. While that statement might have been true 50 years ago, there is no truth in it now. The country isn’t that wonderful and people are quite willing to be here on a temporary basis.

LikeLike

Clarissa

December 6, 2015

This is a very important point that many people are missing. The numbers I know are that at least 80% of people who cross the border from Mexico neither want nor do stay. They simply do what their ancestors have done for generations, moving around for seasonal work. They are a big part of the existing economy and their goal is precisely to work and leave.

The only thing in the comment I can’t agree with is that this country was better 50 years ago. It was clearly worse. But migration patterns follow a logic of their own. Immigration is not about “let’s go where life is better.” It’s so much more complex than that.

LikeLike

Reply

cliff arroyo

December 7, 2015

What’s needed is a whole new vocabulary. “Immigration” has traditionally understood barely exists today.

If I had to start from scratch I’d start with migrant (anyone who moves to another country for an extended period of time for any reason).

Then the division I’d made would be between “contributing migrants” (whose presence is a net gain for the economy of the new country) and “extractive migrants” (who presence is an overall net economic loss for the new country).

The problem is that individuals may pass from one category and back again (and a family with a member or two who represent a loss can be offset by a member or two or represent a gain).

The bigger problem is that immigration policy in most countries is profoundly irrational but making it more rational is something no one wants to touch because it means collecting aggregate data at the group level (by race, ethnic group and religion) which is a very hot political potato.

LikeLike

valter07

December 7, 2015

And on top of that, many countries also evaluate the “net value” of the migrants not just in terms of taxes, but also in terms of their usefulness for some other aspects of nation-building. Quebec, for instance, has very strong preference for French-speaking immigrants. One can get so many points for knowing French that these can offset the need for education… And I hope all the participants know which countries used to be French colonies…

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  December 7, 2015
  “Quebec, for instance, has very strong preference for French-speaking immigrants. One can get so many points for knowing French that these can offset the need for education”
  
  And we all know how well Quebec’s linguistic policies work.
  
  LikeLike
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    December 7, 2015
    
    On the other hand, look at how intelligently this is framed from the receiving side: immigrants are coming to give us something crucial, the language. This is simply brilliant and tons better than “the refugees are escaping from something horrible and we need to give them mercy and sandwiches.”
    
    It’s all in the framing.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. jeff
      
      December 7, 2015
      
      But these are the same people, though. The refugees who come to Europe and the immigrants to Quebec you are talking about. Same people, from the same countries (or culturally close).
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Clarissa
        
        December 7, 2015
        
        Precisely. Yes! The exact same people but how different is the narrative?
        
        Imagine framing your relationship with your best friend as “You enriched my life in so many different ways” as opposed to “I enriched your life in so many different ways.” Which narrative will lead to a happier relationship?
        
        And how soon will the friend who keeps hearing how you enriched his life will want to lash out against you?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
  2. cliff arroyo
    
    December 7, 2015
    
    I’ve always said that I feel sorry for Quebecois (the people) as there’s no language they can use that doesn’t result in them being mocked.
    
    If they use French the French look down on them if they use English everyone else looks down on them….
    
    If I ever had to learn French I’d try to use a Quebecois accent since it drives the French crazy.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  3. valter07
    
    December 7, 2015
    
    Define “working”. If the actual goal is achieved, it is called “working”. The goal of Quebec was never effectiveness, or, god forbid, the comfort of the non-Francophones. The goal always was a socialist Francophone state…
    I meet my share of immigrants who only know French. Which is the goal of the PQ.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

cliff arroyo

December 7, 2015

“Germany, however, is another matter. I do not understand why they are doing it… I even have a conspiracy theory:”

Many people (including moi) have voiced roughly the same theory.

LikeLike

Clarissa

December 7, 2015

Absolutely. The destruction of the welfare state is an actively promoted goal. And then it will be blamed on the immigrants, and nobody will question this.

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog