In a way, risk and propensity toward the same determine the ‘success’ of a given society. While this may amount to stating the obvious, risk taking and orientation regarding it may be factor that account for the predominance of the West since the Industrial Revolution. Be it capitalism, scientific progress, advancement industrial or postindustrial organization, advances in knowledge and production of the same, international relations and world politics, and so on, risk is central to these.
In all these domains, it has been the West that has reigned supreme; others have merely played catch-up. (Deep Seek may be either an aberration or the recognition of risk and innovation by China to stay ahead in the tech game of the 21st century). If risk and risk taking are central to the success and development of societies, then these have great relevance to illegal immigration and illegal immigrants thereof.
An issue of immense salience - one that has determined the locus of United States politics and constitutes one centre piece of the President Donald Trump’s policy reviews - illegal immigration is propelled by risk and risk taking. While the determinative and causative factors are poverty and the quest for a ‘good life’, the element of risk in these massive people movements cannot be overemphasized enough.
To illustrate this, consider the Bollywood movie, ‘Dunki’ - a euphemism for taking the extremely dangerous and risky (but illegal) route into the West. In the movie, the main characters- all poor, barely educated young men and women from the Indian state of Punjab after various convolutions and failed attempts to legally move into Britain, pool their resources and choose the extremely dangerous route (Dunki).
Traversing through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran and some European countries, only three make it to Britain. They face natural disasters, predators, killers and great odds to make it to the United Kingdom.
Once in the country, another set of challenges and issues face the group. But determined and highly motivated, given their circumstances back home, except the main protagonist, Shahrukh Khan, the troika of friends which includes the star female character end up in Britain.
After ‘making it’ in the country, the troika, yearn to return home, with their burning wish to seek their roots and die in their homeland, Punjab. While multiple themes can be culled from the story and plot, the one that stands out is risk and risk taking by these illegal immigrants.
In an ideal world, the risk taking by these indefatigable men and women must be commensurately rewarded. But, alas, the real word, is a different one - a ruthless world where law, at times, only works for the few but militates against the deserving risk takers.
In this real world, our risk takers are held to be deportees to be returned to their home countries. Instead of the recognition of the great risks, our immigrants take, the great dangers they face, states engage in quid pro quos- privileging elitist immigration of the few - college grads, tech geeks and wealthy elites – into the developed world.
All this is not to suggest that illegal immigration should become the norm and that the developed west should welcome all and sundry into their shores. The point that is sought to be made here is a limited one: the mass of humanity that illegally traverses borders, in the quest of the ‘good life’ are risk takers par excellence.
They are also determined men and women whose courage smells of roses. Again, in an ideal world, they should be welcome with open arms by ‘recipient countries’. But the real world does not countenance this.
There are other issues: the absorptive capacities of recipient countries, their tax and welfare systems, and above all perhaps cultural issues between the newcomers and their ‘host societies’. (An immigrant cohort can jar with the cultural sensibilities and societal norms of a given recipient country).
Generally, this aspect of immigration is framed as a humanitarian one. But I have reframed it as one of risk, courage, and determination - themes that are the hallmarks of healthy, vibrant and dynamic societies. As an argument, while it may not be neat, but surely it is an appealing one that can be buttressed by examples.
Here Australia serves as the classic examples.
The ‘deportables’ of Australia - the ‘unwanted subalterns of the then Britain, pretty criminals, or criminals with serious charges, paupers and so on - were deported to Australia. A quasi-colonial policy that sought to deplete Britain of these ‘undesirables’ and populate the vast lands of Australia – a penal colony then- the ‘deportables’ rendered Australia what it is.
Of course there were blemishes, the treatment of the ‘deportables’ and the aborigines of the country, but all in all these were and are the people who made Australia. This is not to state that all illegal immigrants of the world can make ‘new worlds’ like Australia. But that their doughtiness, risk taking and indomitable courage must be recognized.
This must have a policy ingress, implications and consequences. What these are no one knows. Finding the golden mean where this immigration problem is resolved in a non-zero sum, non-brutal way is the challenge. But preferring educated, tech geeks and the investing classes of the world over the doughty, courageous women who put everything at stake for the ‘good life’ surely constitutes the ‘unfairest of trades’.
Is there an optimal solution or a prudent trade off? We don’t know. But a good starting point would be to understand the wellsprings, motivations and determination of the ‘illegals’ in a non-partisan, and humane way that sees this movement of humanity for what it is.
Given the high stakes and energy that Donald Trump has devoted to this particular issue, he is central to devising what economists would call a ‘pareto optimal solution’.
Maybe watching the Bollywood movie,’ Dunki’ with English subtitles would be a good start for the 47th president of the United States?
Have you liked the news article?