Migrants to take US to another Civil War
American sociologist and political scientist Samuel Huntington predicted serious internal conflict for the U.S. - up to a Civil War - because of problems with the migrants. Perhaps, it will not come to a war, but the situation is getting worse every year. Soon the white population of the United States will be in the minority
American sociologist and political scientist Samuel Huntington predicted serious internal conflict for the U.S. - up to a Civil War - because of problems with the migrants. Perhaps, it will not come to a war, but the situation is getting worse every year. Soon the white population of the United States will be in the minority.
The country does not intend to close its doors to immigrants, and even tries to help them move to the country. The Americans do not like when their country is compared with Russia. But in some ways similar parallels are inevitable. This is primarily a vast territory and multi-ethnic composition. Recently the problems of migrants have been added as well. The migrants have a serious impact on the lives and economies of both countries. In particular, in the United States the structure of the population is seriously changing under the influx of visitors: white immigrants from European countries in the near future will be a minority.
The representatives of the Hispanic population are increasing in numbers: in 1900 the population was approximately 500,000, now it is nearly 50 million. Over the past few years the U.S. population has been growing by three million a year, two million - the natural increase, another is added by migrants. Their national structure has also undergone major changes.
Immigrants from Eastern Europe and the European continent in general have long been in the minority. The backbone of the newcomers is immigrants from Mexico, China, India, the Philippines, and Vietnam. All these facts were mentioned in the report of Andrew Korobkov from the University of Tennessee presented at an international conference on migration, organized by the Higher School of Economics. In his opinion, another specificity shared by Russia and the United States that provokes the growth of migration flows is their borders with third countries. In the case of Russia it is the Central Asian republics, in the case of U.S.
In Russia, they amount to approximately 11-12 million. Despite its original purpose to become a "melting pot" for the people, the United States did not always welcome the immigrants. In late 19th century people of Southeast Asia and China were completely blocked from entering there. In 1910, when the proportion of migrants exceeded 14 percent, the limitations spread to the rest of the country. After the Second World War, the situation changed to the opposite. In 1950s the immigration laws liberalized significantly.
In particular, the famous Marshall Plan was designed also to allow tens of thousands of Europeans to move to the States and stay there. In 1965 there was already a real revolution in immigration policy: regional quotas were lifted on foreign labor and family reunification was allowed. It is because of this decision the ethnic composition of migrants has radically changed. If earlier 90 percent were immigrants from Europe, after 1965, 90 percent of the flow was populations of color from the third world countries. This could not but affect the population structure: the so-called white people from the core of Europe could no longer dominate, and the advantage began to shift toward the people of color. In the 1980, a massive migration from Mexico began. In 1986, over six million illegal Mexican workers resided in the country.
Having discovered this, the U.S. government, according to Andrew Korobkov, "has decided to relax and have fun" since there was no way to stop the process. Under President Reagan it was much easier to obtain a green card, so nearly half of illegal immigrants have naturalized. First penalties for hiring illegal immigrants were introduced for employers. However, such actions had little effect since the authorities of various states were reluctant to open cases against local businesses. The number of illegal immigrants continued to grow. In recent years, according to Andrew Korobkov, every American president was trying to develop their concept of migration policy that would satisfy everyone: employers who are interested in cheap labor and ordinary citizens who are not willing to cede their territory to "strangers." So far a compromise could not be found.
For example, George W. Bush suggested a very liberal reform - virtually an amnesty for migrants. They were asked only to pay a fine and become legal. However, the Republicans from Bush's party have "drowned" this project in the Senate. Barack Obama has also made suggestions on the issue of migration.
As befits a Democrat with liberal positions, he suggested simplifying the process of legalization. Obama did not have time to make this into a law during his first term in office. Perhaps, it will be done in the case of his re-election. Why the United States that does not have a demographic problem like Russia is yet striving to promote the flow of immigrants? Andrei Korobkov thinks there are two reasons.
First - a rapid economic development is impossible without a constant supply of fresh labor. The second lies in the ideology of the state: the country, created by the labor of immigrants, should continue to provide equal opportunities for all. Of course, this approach is very advantageous for businesses that have the ability to choose the best: the more skilled and less expensive workers. For example, the U.S. quota for highly skilled professionals is 140,000 people a year. But that does not mean that anyone with a degree immediately receives equal opportunities with a local specialist. For example, doctors from Russia will have 10 years to confirm their status working in a lab for as long as their colleagues find it possible to confirm their qualification.
Andrei Korobkov calls it "a cynical exploitation of the system for each new generation of migrant workers by the previous one". The local population forced to fight for a place under the sun with migrants is not happy. "Today, the topic is perceived in the U.S. as very painful, and the economic crisis only exacerbates it," said Andrei Korobkov.
For example, an attempt to hold a referendum on the official recognition of the English language (the United States has no official state language) was recently made in Tennessee. The attempt has failed. In other states, local authorities are trying in their own way to counteract federal immigration policy, adopting restrictive laws. For example, in the 1990s California attempted to restrict the access of migrants and their children to social services.
But the law was immediately challenged in court. The current candidates from the Republican Party who participated in the primaries are also firmly opposed to the liberalization of the immigration policy. In concluding his report, Andrew Korobkov referred to the findings of an American political scientist and sociologist Samuel Huntington. In 1992 he wrote a book in which he declared that after the fall of the Soviet Union the world will develop according to one model. In 2002, his opinion has changed: the scientist saw deep divisions between civilizations - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim and others - and predicted a war between them. Shortly before his death in 2008, Huntington wrote his third book, in which he identified the main conflict to be the one between the two civilizations: the Catholic and Protestant within the United States.
The cause of the conflict is a huge flow of migrants. At the conference, another definition of a modern migration policy was suggested: the laws that try to manage this process - a dam designed to stop the flood. No one doubts that the threat of "flood" is real. Svetlana Smetanina Pravda.Ru Read the original in Russian.