leo burghaus

Discussions about immigration usually center around two topics: less safety and stability, and higher costs of living for locals. The first one is attributed mostly to immigration from African or South American countries, arguing that they commit crimes at a higher rate than locals. The latter refers mostly to immigration from richer countries in Northern Europe or North America, who have a significant difference in income and end up driving prices of homes and services up. Mass immigration, and gentrification.

These claims have roots sometimes in real facts, sometimes in racism, sometimes in sentiment. But if you listen carefully, you will realize that a lot of the discussion is rooted in social class.

With gentrification, it is obvious. Allow more people with higher purchasing power into a neighborhood, zone, or country, and eventually the local standard of living becomes harder to maintain without a higher income. A generation that grew up seeing homeownership as normal now finds it out of reach. They notice who is buying: people from abroad, earning far more. A new class has entered the scene, and with it, a shift in who belongs where. People lose overall status, and feel they lose the ability to live at home.

It is, no doubt, a tricky situation. On moral grounds, because the question of who has a right to live where is not easily answered with “whoever was there first” (or is it?). But also on practical grounds, because if someone wants to sell their property, they should be able to sell it to whoever offers more, no matter where that person is from. It’s no person’s fault; it’s just something that happens. It eventually becomes a responsibility of the state, but by the time it is, it might be too late. And how can they intervene? Should they intervene?

What’s clear is that it has an effect on the social status of the people living in a certain place.

With mass immigration, it works differently. It seems, at first, that it should elevate the status of locals. And to some level, it might. There are small business owners who now have access to a cheaper workforce, especially in professions many locals stopped doing. But bigger business owners will also profit from this, and overall its not clear that it helps the economy of the workers long-term.

I argue that it is also rooted in class because socio-economic disruptions manifest first and hardest in already vulnerable groups. In other words, the effects of rapid demographic change (whether in crime statistics, school crowding, or public space tensions) tend to be felt most in lower-income areas. Often, these same classes have been accused of voting anti-immigration because they are “poorly educated” and “easily manipulated,” which is an easy accusation from privileged circles. Rather, it is a sign that certain parts of society are being left alone in confronting those parts of mass immigration that are more dangerous. It’s not that it’s a lie that 95%, 98%, or 99% (depending on the source) of immigrants are not criminals, and that they are (or should be) welcome. It is that the percentage who might turn to criminality will be felt by, basically, the same part of society that is left with most of our shortcomings. It is not the politicians or the academics or the movie stars who are left with the small number of dangerous individuals. Rather, it’s the working-class neighborhoods that are already in precarious situations.

This is not to say that there is no racism in the discourse. There is – often hidden, often in plain sight. But there is also many voices out there who don’t care about skin color or religious beliefs, but feel (legitimately) that they are victims of rapidly changing shifts in population that redistribute comfort, opportunity, and security across the social hierarchy.

We won’t solve this in a day, but that’s precisely why we should be more open to other voices and opinions. Empathy goes a long way, but that means being empathetic with everyone. If we continue to look at immigration exclusively through a single lens, we risk fracturing society by fracturing the discussion itself. Maybe what we need, instead of simply adding more voices, facts, or arguments, is a deeper understanding of who is affected, and in what way.