Hinduism, Nation-State and Immigration

Modern Nation-States and Immigration

Now let’s take a look at the modern Nation-State and how it affects immigration.

The modern nation-state is the product of centuries of Monotheist Eurocentric culture. Europe also started out very similarly to Hindu kingdoms in this respect. In Greco-Roman times, borders were fluid, kingdoms competed for productive people, the State did very little, there prevailed religious, racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity within kingdoms and so on and so forth. However, after Christianity took strong roots in the region, the diversity of European religious beliefs took a major hit. After Constantine declared Christianity to be the State religion in circa 300AD, this process accelerated and by the end of the millennium, religious diversity had disappeared since the States favored one religious belief over the other. This favoritism soon spread to language, race and ethnicity, and Europe divided itself into many small kingdoms each of which had the people practicing one religion, speaking one language and belonging to one race. The Church-State got involved in intimate details of the populace’s personal life. Society was gradually weakened and the individual had a stronger relationship with the Church-State. In a belief system where the Soul had one life, it made perfect sense to restrict the body. After Enlightenment, the individual broke free of the Church-State, and Europeans successfully created Secularism and separated the State from the Church. However, the idea of a nation-state along the lines of religion, language and race was still very strong, even during and after the Industrial revolution. Borders slowly started becoming distinct, and the freedom of people to move from one nation-state to another became increasingly difficult. After the two World Wars, this idea spread rapidly through the rest of the world, and there was not a single square yard of soil on Earth that did not belong to one Nation-State or the other.

Once this stage was reached, the Nation-States clearly outlined what their immigration policy would be, down to the last detail. This was also the time when developed countries started getting more and more involved with providing services to its population, thus playing the role that family had played since the beginning of human civilization. Hence, the immigration policy had to bear in mind that the incoming populace would not be a burden to state. Also, throughout the history of Europe (since Constantine), the since the State was majoritarian in structure, minorities were at a receiving end, sometimes to the point of being decimated. Thus a policy was adopted to safeguard the minorities, sometimes at the expense of the majority. This was slowly extended to immigrants as well, and this affected the immigration policy further.

In a nutshell, the nation-state has strengthened the minority-majority divide, and weakened personal responsibility and Society by strengthening the State. The following examples illustrate the effect of this on immigration.

In America, the citizens are up in arms against illegal immigration from Latin American countries because they use State provided facilities like free schooling and Medicaid to the detriment of the taxpayer. Moreover, the politicians coddle illegals with promises of bi-lingual education (at majority’s expense), amnesty etc so that they could get their votes. Human rights groups and leftists (who are more often than not anti-America in their outlook) routinely demand more benefits to be given to illegals, and also are against limiting immigration by measures like erecting walls, increasing border security etc. This has the effect of turning the majority against not only illegal immigrants, but also legal immigrants. Lou Dobbs and a host of others constantly harp as to how Indians are stealing American jobs.

Europe, where the State provides more generous benefits, has had a hard time assimilating its Arab Muslim immigrants who were brought in earlier to do tasks which Europeans would no longer do. It has created an alienated, angry section of population which will probably seriously threaten Europe’s security in the coming decades. Unlike America, Europe’s immigration policies were not geared towards getting qualified, productive workers from India or Asia, because the Nation-State feared that a minority from a different race, language or culture would end up displacing its majority from the workforce.

In India, a large Bangladeshi influx has threatened locals because the politicians given them voting cards and benefits (land, ration cards etc) at the expense of the taxpayer. Moreover, they are becoming a security threat because they are seen to sympathize with Muslim causes like Kashmir, Palestine etc, rather than Indian causes like poverty, infrastructure etc.

In an ideal world, any Mexican should be able to work any where in America without a permit, Bangladeshis should be free to move into Bangalore with minimum paperwork and red-tape, and Arab Muslims should be free to work and live anywhere in Europe. In general, anyone should be able to live and work anywhere without being denied by the Nation-State. The world should be free-global village where anyone can work and live anywhere which is determined only by work-ethic, productivity and talent. For that to happen, the nature of the Nation-State and individual’s relationship with it must change.

More posts by this author:

Please follow and like us:

Co Authors :

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.