The European migrant crisis revealed deep divisions over the issue of immigration – divisions that are particularly apparent when viewed geographically. On one side are Western European countries that are open to accepting at least some refugees, while on the other are Eastern European countries that are resisting any efforts at migrant redistribution.
A brief review of recent history brings the divide into sharper focus. After World War II, Western European countries took in large numbers of non-Christian migrants, particularly from their former colonies. For example, France saw an influx of Algerians fleeing that country’s civil war, while in Britain, immigrants arrived in great numbers from the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean.
By contrast, the post-Soviet countries of Eastern Europe have historically absorbed fewer migrants of diverse ethnicities, religions and cultures.
That Eastern Europeans have had less interaction with people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds has made it much easier for populist leaders there to paint them as a national threat.
This is why anti-immigration parties have had a much stronger presence in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland and Hungary. (The Hungarian government has consistently framed the immigration debate as a choice between a multicultural EU and a Europe based on Christian values.)
The bottom line is there’s little chance that the countries of Eastern and Western Europe will see eye to eye on the immigration issue any time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment