MIGRATION A CONFLICT OF RHETORICS OMI – Fukuoka April 2, 2019

MIGRATION, VARIOUS DIMENSIONS Migration is a reality which touches on many persons: the migrants, their families, intermediaries, employers, policy makers, people in the place of origin, transit and destination. Like all realities, also migration is understood and interpreted in different ways. These interpretations originate different rhetorics. Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. Sometimes, it can lead to a distortion of reality. It is rather obvious that the public discourse on migration is very controversial because of the different interests involved. MIGRATION, VARIOUS DIMENSIONS

History Rhetorics are generated to serve a specific interest or objective, usually political or economic, or both. History is replete of such rhetorics: - for instance, the ship companies in Italy at the end of the 19th century wanted to increase migration toward the US and presented the US as a marvelous country, where streets were paved in gold. - On the other hand, the nativist movement in the US wanted to exclude migrants from Asia because of racial reasons and used the economic argument (declining wages) to outlaw Chinese workers, who were only 0.2%n of the workforce in the West Coast. This eventually led to the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) and the Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan. The same happened with the Italians (1921 and 1924 immigration laws). - History repeats itself and Albanians in Italy were portrayed as criminals and rapists

State or society security should be substituted with human security Nativist movements always considered migrations as a threat to the security of the state or the citizens. Migrants could be a security problem also for countries of origin, when they were supporting subversive movements (grey wolves) The attack to the twin towers in New York contributed to distort the perspective and to represent migrants as potential terrorists Samuel Huntington created the concept of security for society and the migrants as the greatest threat to that security. US created the Department of Homeland Security Everyone forgets that migrants migrate because they need security and they are the least insecure: in the migration process, in the country of destination, in their future. State or society security should be substituted with human security The security rhetoric

Migrants are considered a threat to the country of destination because they do not integrate and might one day modify the cultural background of that society This fear is based on some misunderstandings: that culture is something defined once and for all, that the culture we know now is the pure culture of the country and should remain always the same That migrants will not absorb the cultural values of the country These misconceptions need to be rectified The cultural rhetoric

Some axioms about culture Everyone one is born within a culture. Culture is there before us and it molds us. Language is very important. Everyone has more than one culture. The human being is pluricultural Every culture is a hybrid Every culture is under transformation. When a culture does not change, it is dad. Culture is always the result of a social construction Culture is essential for the link between the person and the community. Everyone should be free to choose his own cultural identity Cultures are dynamic and converge toward the horizon The state is not just and administrative entity. It must be a community in which not just he past, but also the future is shared. Migrants are asking to be part of the construction of the future.

The competition rhetoric Migrants are feared also at the economic level. They are perceived as competitors by the national workers. Most migrants do not play a substitute, but a complementary role in the labor market Some competition exists at the lowest level, where unskilled migrants compete with unskilled citizens, who are nonetheless protected by the clause to provide jobs for citizens before hiring migrants Migrants also create jobs, when they are allowed to integrate and become part of society The competition rhetoric

Rhetorics create myths Development in countries of origin will stop migration - In fact, development in the beginning increases migration Irregular migration can be reduced through development aid - Irregular migration is reduced by providing adequate regular ways to migrate Migration is detrimental to the country of origin - Migration can help economic development, but not just by itself Countries of destination do not benefit of migration - The macro analysis is complex, but in Italy migrants produce 8.8% of national wealth. And what would happen if migrants would stop working? Developed economies should admit only highly skilled migrants - In fact, the need of migrant labor is even higher for unskilled occupations Migration is an invasion in countries of destination - Actually, great inflow of migrants happen in the form of asyluim seekers and it happens between developing and emerging countries. Migrants are taking the jobs of natives, of citizens - Mostly, migration is complementary not substitutive to the national labor market Rhetorics create myths

SOME REGULARITIES FOR A CORRECT APPROACH TO MIGRATION Only three percent of the population migrate. To speak of invasion is usually incorrect. When given a chance, most people tend to remain in their own country Migration is a structural phenomenon of our time. Therefore, it should be considered an opportunity, not a disgrace Migration can be beneficial to all (win, win, win) if organized in the respect of the dignity and rights of people and according to law Migration is least problematic and most beneficial when it is the result of a choice rather than a necessity SOME REGULARITIES FOR A CORRECT APPROACH TO MIGRATION

Workshop What is the dominant rhetoric in the country where I work? What can be done to influence, rectify that rhetoric? What are the elements of the Church rhetoric? Workshop