How socially mobile are immigrants? What is the 'immigrant's penalty'? How long does it take for an immigrant to become the social and economic equal of a native? What is education's role in promoting equality? Some very interesting questions of this kind were raised and discussed during a recent seminar. While no happy answers were available for the 1st generation of immigrants (it takes them about 20-25 years or a full generation to become the 'equals' of natives), the news was much more positive for the 2nd generation. Although it could be said that the research findings are in line with common sense, I think it is about time that issues of social justice with reference to the rights of immigrants are debated more openly and without the ever present sense of 'controversy'. Clearly, if there is an 'immigrant's penalty', there needs to be a debate as to what constitutes it in the British society. Is it a matter of cultural differences or is it discrimination disguised as market selection? More importantly, why on earth are we not talking about these issues?
To highlight the dismal situation of this end of the human rights debate in the British context, the organisation that presented its research findings was a US-based migration think tank. There is no such similar organisation in the UK. Over a more general discussion about community cohesion in Britain, some of my friends strongly believed that racism does not exist in the UK and that it is a more American phenomenon to talk of social integration. How can we say, when we haven't even made the effort to find out? Research may validate your hypothesis or throw up surprising results, but is it not important to explore?
4 comments:
An opportunity presents a problem in itself. And that opportunity is known as the free market. Having said that, there is no such thing as a free market in the "labour industry". People and people's movements from one country to another are perhaps the most regulated phenomenon after nuclear warheads. Why, even money can move in and out of countries faster than you can say Johnny Walker!!But yes, a free market is a means to achieving that labour movement and cannot be underestimated. But it is the same free market that will dictate who gets paid what. And it is the immigrant who needs a job more than the employer needs him or her. Chakra of life....
My understanding was that immigration was promoted because there was a scarcity of qualified professionals in certain sectors. Obviously the market will try to take the maximum out of the individual without the best returns - and that is why there is the need for regulation. If things are left to the market then we may as well go back to the 18-hour work day. My point is that this imbalance is not self-correcting and market will never correct it unless forced to. That is why we need first a debate, then some rigorous research and policy making for the rights of the immigrants.
A debate is definitely necessary because it is a forum to highlight the anomaly that exists. However, regulation is a different matter altogether. How can one say that an Indian Chartered Accountant is more valuable than a Polish mason or berry picker? You are looking at immigrants across the whole spectrum of job profiles and it is impossible, actually unfair, to say who is more deserving of a higher remuneration. The free market will decide that. Unfortunately, it comes with a price and that price is the immigrant's penalty.
I definitely did not mean to say that a CA is equal to a fruit picker. What I meant by regulation was that an immigrant CA should have parity with a native CA, just as an immigrant fruit picker should be the equal of a native fruit picker.
Post a Comment