Since the origins of humanity, the possible movement of different human groups has been conditioned mainly by the presence or absence of resources essential for its survival, especially food resources. Nomadism was more prevalent in desert, semi-arid or periodically snow-covered areas. The others had a more sedentary life. Large migrations or invasions could also be caused by some leaders eager to seize foreign resources. For one or two centuries, the discovery of new energy resources and the creation of new means of transport based on energy-intensive engines have favored a new trend: tourist travel, models of waste in an idle and irresponsible society.
Along with the excessive consumption of energy and food in the West, particularly through excessive maritime and air trade (the product of massive industrial relocations in the East), countries are seeing their populations hungry or in the grip of war. If they do not want to die, they have little choice but to seek salvation in countries known to have a more comfortable life, often also those who are at the root of their misery. What would we do in their place? Would we die of hunger? Or would we try everything, if necessary on tubs?
Who is the immigrant who comes – what a nerve! – to invade the peoples comfortably settled for centuries in Europe and having decimated the Amerindians to live even more comfortably in North America? Who is this child of …? This immigrant is us! He is us, if we had the misfortune to be born in his place. His mother is ours if she too had the misfortune to live in these countries rich in oil, gas or other resources, but poor in their ability to defend themselves against the violence and the absence of conscience, empathy and compassion of those who come to steal, rape, starve and kill them.
What can the immigrant do to save his life and that of his surviving children? What else can he do than seek refuge in countries that do not know war or hunger for the time being? What would we do instead of this brother who did not have a chance?
Now, in our countries that we feel invaded by miscreants or dangerous terrorists, what can we do to repair the wrongs that our passivity has largely contributed to creating? What can we do about the phenomenon of immigration visibly maintained by our governments or by those who finance them via the debt system?
Until now, the reaction of the Western peoples has been fueled by fear, cleverly stimulated by our media, which are nevertheless models of journalism and not propaganda. And we can understand them at least partially (the people, not the media) when we see that just arrived home, immigrants, these foreigners generally not welcome at all, are parked in concentration camps (or that look like to such camps). How would we feel in their place? Would we be delighted with the warm welcome we received? Or rather, somewhat … angry? Or ready for anything to receive the gifts of the promised land?
The solution to be sought should ideally not hurt either one or the other. One of the simplest of these would be to provide immigrants with the opportunity to return home and find their roots, rather than imagine that they will live better with us when more and more of us are sinking below the poverty line while our elites get rich to billions. However, for that to happen, it may be necessary to start by stopping destroying their country to appropriate its resources. The only little power we have left for such a direction, the only ounce of sovereignty that we usually have in our “democratic” countries is the vote of our representatives, or at least those who are supposed to represent us. The most difficult thing then is to find a candidate who really cares for the good of the people and not only on the material side. It is here that discernment becomes indispensable.
Another solution is to strive to better integrate the newcomers, so that they feel as quickly as possible at home, or at least as an integral part of what for them will be like a new host family. Would we want anything other than one of these two ways if the situation were reversed?
Immigration is a phenomenon of friction between a movement – that of those fleeing death – and resistance to this movement, even only by inertia or non-action. And any friction generates physical, emotional or social heat, depending on the type of friction. A good way to reduce friction is to use a lubricant, such as oil or butter on a physical level, or as emotional or societal love. Such love can be manifested in different ways, such as the search for conciliation and harmony. In this case, conciliator-type individuals have a role to play. However, the situation created by immigration has become complex enough that its full resolution requires the goodwill and cooperation of all types of individuals (see the seven groups).
Now, what do we prefer? Let the friction continue at the risk of setting fire to our different countries and bringing bloody revolutions or civil wars? Or, at our small level, directing our actions and choices towards the use of lubricants, love and compassion, to promote either the assimilation of immigrants or their return home in the best conditions?