Remember, remember always, that all of us, you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.
– Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president of US
During his campaign trail for the US presidential election, Donald Trump had repeatedly sparked debates on his stance on immigration. He vowed to take tough measures against immigrants, particularly those involved in anti-Israel protests.
He specifically promised to deport foreign students who take part in protests against Israeli policies, a stance that has raised eyebrows across political groups. On one hand, this policy appeals to his base, many of whom are frustrated with what they perceive as unchecked immigration.
On the other hand, it risks overgeneralising the entire immigrant community as a threat. While there is merit to targeting extremist elements within immigrant populations, a broader, sweeping action against all immigrants would do more harm than good.
Anti-Israel protests in the US and Europe by some immigrants – particularly those from the Arab and Muslim communities – who have taken to the streets in support of Palestinian causes, sometimes using violent or disruptive means, often spiral into incidents of public unrest, property damage and clashes with law enforcement.
The rise of antisemitic rhetoric and actions at some of these protests has created tension in host countries, especially in the US, where communities of various faiths and ethnicities co-exist.
It is important to note that while these protests are alarming, they represent only a small group of the immigrant population. Immigrants as a whole – whether Muslim, Chinese or Indian – generally adhere to the laws of their adoptive countries. It is the extremists, those who incite violence or publicly challenge the values of their host societies, who should be targeted.
Deporting them could serve as a deterrent against future troublemakers, signalling that there are consequences for disrupting the social order. However, this action must be taken with caution.
The vast majority of immigrants are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who contribute positively to their host countries and should not be lumped together with a fringe element.
When considering the question of immigration, it is crucial to look at the broader context of integration. Historically, immigrant communities have faced challenges in adapting to their new homes, but many have done so successfully.
Take, for instance, the Chinese and Indian immigrant populations in Malaysia. Both communities, though still are labelled as pendatang (immigrants) by ultra-politicians, have successfully integrated into Malaysian society. They respect the laws of the land, contribute to the economy and support national stability.
They have learned to navigate the complexities of Malaysian society without antagonising the majority Malay population. This level of integration has fostered harmony, despite the inherent challenges of cultural differences.
In contrast, some of the immigrant communities in the US and Europe have not been as successful in their integration. Particularly within certain Muslim communities, there are elements that challenge the values of their host countries, advocating for strict adherence to their own religious practices and opposing the cultures they are now a part of.
While the majority of Muslims in these countries are peaceful and law-abiding, the actions of a few extremist individuals or groups risk tarnishing the reputation of an entire community.
This brings us to the crux of the issue: should immigrants, particularly Muslims, follow the example set by earlier immigrant groups like the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia? These groups did not seek to impose their religious beliefs on the majority but integrated into society, showing sensitivity to local customs and traditions.
Immigrants in the US and Europe should, in turn, be expected to respect the laws and cultural norms of their host countries. It is not unreasonable to expect that they adopt a similar attitude of cultural sensitivity. Those who do not comply should face the consequences, as Trump has proposed.
While it is easy to criticise immigrants for not assimilating or for challenging their host countries’ policies, it is equally important to recognise the role that western nations, particularly the US, have played in shaping the migration crisis.
The Middle East and North Africa region has been destabilised by decades of European intervention, from the fall of the Shah of Iran and the toppling of Gaddafi in Libya to the invasion of Iraq and the sponsorship of the Taliban in Afghanistan. These actions have directly contributed to the political and economic instability in the region, creating a push for migration to the West.
In many cases, the very governments responsible for destabilising these regions are now grappling with the consequences of mass migration. Refugees fleeing war and persecution have been welcomed into European and American cities, but their arrival has also brought tensions.
While most immigrants come in search of a better life, some are radicalised by the conditions they face – alienation, discrimination and economic hardship. This radicalisation has contributed to a rise in protests, clashes with police, and in some cases, violent extremism.
The irony is undeniable. The US and European governments, which once justified their interventions in the Middle East as a means of promoting democracy and stability, are now facing the unintended consequences of those actions in the form of migration crises and social unrest.
The people who were forced to flee their homelands as a result of these interventions are now being blamed for the problems they did not create.
While President-elect Trump’s tough stance on deportation may be popular among some Americans, it unfairly punishes the innocent. Peace-loving immigrants who are law-abiding citizens should not be grouped together with extremists who engage in violence or civil disobedience.
By focusing on deporting troublemakers, the US and Europe can avoid creating an atmosphere of suspicion and resentment towards entire immigrant communities. The challenge is to ensure that policies are fair and targeted, rather than indiscriminate.
Perhaps, the US and European governments grappling with immigrant issues should reach out to Putrajaya to understand how Malaysia manages its immigration issues effectively.
The immigrant experience in the US and Europe is a complex one. Many immigrants are grateful for the opportunities they have been given and have no desire to impose their beliefs or culture on their adoptive countries.
These individuals work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to the prosperity of their new home. However, when extremists within their communities act out, it tarnishes the reputation of all immigrants and fuels the rise of populist, anti-immigrant sentiment.
Trump’s tough rhetoric on immigration should not be dismissed outright. Targeting extremists, particularly those who engage in protests that disrupt public order, is a necessary measure to protect national security and social cohesion.
However, this action must be taken selectively and fairly, with a clear distinction between peaceful, law-abiding immigrants and those who seek to undermine the values of their host nations.
The West must remember that many of the problems they face today – rising tensions with immigrant populations – are a direct result of their past interventions in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Immigrants, including Muslims, should be given the opportunity to integrate, provided they respect the laws and cultures of their host countries.
The challenge lies in striking a balance between national security and protecting the rights of peaceful, law-abiding immigrants. As the global migration crisis continues to unfold, the focus must remain on identifying and removing extremists, not demonising entire communities.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
