IN SEPTEMBER 2014, the US faced a crisis. Tens of thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America had crossed the Mexican border illegally and were being held in detention centres. There were polarised, angry debates on how to respond. President Obama called the issue a “humanitarian crisis” and worked to house and feed the children. Others opposed using US resources to care for them.
Around the same time, a row erupted in Europe over migrant ships in the Mediterranean. Italy suspended its rescue missions and the UK refused to support a new European Union search and rescue operation, claiming it would encourage more migrants to attempt the crossing. Aid agencies and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees retorted that such operations were necessary to save lives.
International migration is one of the major social issues of the day. More people live outside their country of birth than at any other time in history – 232 million in 2013 – and this number is expected to carry on rising.
More people live outside their country of birth than at any time and the number will carry on rising
The swell in migration is the result of many global trends, including growing inequalities between nations, demand for labour in countries with a falling birth rate and a rise in the number of refugees and asylum seekers.
Opposition to immigration is widespread in many Western nations. Anti-immigration activists, the media and political elites have created a crisis mentality in which immigrants are portrayed as “enemies at the gate”. Immigrants – particularly non-whites – are blamed for all of society’s woes. Such depictions encourage support for more extreme political platforms.
Even legal immigration has become controversial, with groups such as the UK Independence Party proposing stricter controls on migrants from certain parts of the EU.
Psychologists have much to contribute to the understanding of what may be driving these attitudes and behaviours. Yet, with a few exceptions, we have been slow to enter the field.
We are not starting from scratch. Attitudes and prejudices have been studied for decades, and there are experimental methods for probing their underlying causes.
One especially pertinent area of research looks at the perceived role of competition in intergroup relations. Psychologists have been debating this for many years. In the context of immigration, it turns out to be very important.
As a rule, members of socially dominant groups tend to believe that their group is superior and hence entitled to resources and privileges. To maintain their dominance, they must fend off “invading” groups who are seen as competing with them for finite resources including jobs, political power and cultural and religious influence. This can occur irrespective of whether there are indeed limited resources and actual competition over them.
This belief in zero-sum competition is central to attitudes about immigration. There is a widespread belief that any gains immigrants make must be at the expense of members of the host society. This belief is deeply embedded in Western society, even though it is seldom justified.
The upshot of these attitudes is hostility toward immigrants, self-aggrandisement – often in the form of nationalism – and support for the exclusion of immigrants and refugees.
When migrants are allowed to settle in a new country, they are often faced with a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” dilemma. If they are economically successful, they are seen as having taken jobs or opportunities away from local people; if they are not successful, they are seen as a drain on the system.
Refugees and asylum seekers are especially likely to be treated with hostility. Research has shown that common themes in the media – including claims that asylum-seekers are “bogus” and associated with criminals, terrorists and disease – leads to dehumanisation. This perception allows some in the host nations to assert that refugees deserve the unfair and inhumane treatment they receive.
These reactions ebb and flow depending on external factors that increase uncertainty and anxiety, and challenge the status quo. Economic recession, natural disasters and demands for equal rights for migrants can exacerbate perceptions of zero-sum competition and threat from outsiders. The Ebola outbreak, for example, helped to fan the flames of anti-immigration sentiment against Hispanics in the US, even though there were no cases of Ebola in Latin American countries.
Changing these attitudes is not easy. We know that just telling people that immigrants are not taking resources can backfire. This may occur because zero-sum beliefs are so deeply embedded and well defended.
Change may be easier in nations built on immigration, such as Canada, the US and Australia. Focusing on their history, on what today’s immigrants have in common with yesterday’s, and on the benefits that immigrants bring can help forge a common identity and more positive attitudes.
However, this will not work in nations, such as the UK, that do not see themselves as being built on immigration. In these countries, attempting to describe immigrants as part of the national in-group may simply reinforce negative attitudes.
What is abundantly clear is that immigration and asylum-seeking are not going away. Countries that integrate immigrants successfully are less likely to feel the stress and more likely to reap the benefits. Many have recently come to this realisation and are implementing new policies: President Obama’s Task Force on New Americans is an example. Those countries that simply try to slam the door shut are asking for trouble.
This article appeared in print under the headline “Siege mentality”