The opponents of immigration argue that continual dwindling of material resources and ever mounting growth of local population are paramount reasons for strict immigration rules. They suggest it is the right of already settled people of a region to enjoy native resources. The argument is valid only if it gets an endorsement from global bodies such as UN and International Organization for Migration (IOM). A biased or micro approach towards migration is against basic human rights. Moreover, it gives an impetus to human trafficking and massive exploitation of immigrants by natives.
Historically, due to the ever-flying and incessant time, human race, period after period, branched into multiple ethnic and topographical groups. Also, till there developed the principle of religious tolerance, time steadily introduced religions which played the role of directing people. But by no means, shall we comprehend “differences”, be they racial, regional, or religious, as a stimulus to criticism and disintegration. The slant of believing that a particular group is superior to the other is against the concept of right civilization. Egotistic thoughts inclined to one’s group refer to ethnocentricity. The very narcissistic way of evaluating or looking down upon other groups is, unfortunately, getting commonplace day by day. Ethnocentricity by natives, victimizing the immigrants, also induces violation of the latter’s human rights.
The point here is to ask ourselves a question: if we all, at least at some point in our lives, believe in humanitarian thoughts of equality, integrity, and openness then why should we submit our thoughts to anthropological disparity over mere geographical, topographical and ethnic differences?
Click here to read the entire article on Ezine.