Introduction

As an immigrant to America, a voter of a nation-state and as a practicing Hindu, I observe no contradiction in these three identities. I am however, dismayed at how many people view these issues with mutual exclusiveness, and expect people to be on one side of the fence or the other. Those on the “right” root for strong borders with strict immigration restrictions, deportation of illegals and the like. Those on the “left” root for open borders, free immigration, citizenship for illegals and the like. America is building a wall on the Mexican border, India and a host of other countries are erecting fences. Bush is thinking of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants and is facing opposition from his own party.

This article seeks to analyze why both camps are right on some counts for the wrong reasons, and wrong on most other counts.

Hinduism, Nation-States and Immigration -- Historic Perspective

If one looks at the definition of “Immigrant” from Wikipedia: “immigration in the modern sense refers to movement of people from one nation-state to another. Immigration implies long-term permanent residence (and often eventual citizenship ) by the immigrants”. This means that the term immigration is strongly linked to the concept of a Nation-State, and one cannot exist without the other. This behooves us to take a closer look at the nature of State in ancient India until the takeover of British.

If one goes by the accounts of Hindu epics, Jataka tales, Samhitas, Chanakya and Tiruvalluvar’s writings all the way down to Shivaji’s or Vijayanagara’s time, it is clear that there were no clear cut boundaries for any kingdom. Mountains, rivers and lakes acted as natural markers. The king or emperor was the owner of everything in the kingdom, and he ran it just like successful entrepreneurs run their businesses in modern times. He chose his subjects not on the basis of religion, faith, language, race or caste, but solely on the basis of productivity. “How much revenue and taxes will this person generate for me” was the sole consideration. As a consequence, the king ensured that the State did not do much for the citizen apart from providing very basic security, infrastructure (roads etc) and an atmosphere free from hatred of a section of people from another. The citizen did more for the State, and in return the State left him alone in matters of religion and other personal issues. Border conflicts were rare. Wars were basically a way of kings to gain one-upmanship over other kings. When a king won a war against another, he did not annex the other kingdom. The king who lost merely ended up paying a one-time tribute to the winner and life went on as usual.

When a king resorted to nepotism or reduced meritocracy in any other way, eventually the kingdom crumbled like today’s businesses. People moved across kingdoms for personal and business reasons all the time. Indeed, a king was more worried that people would move out of his kingdom rather than being worried that people would move in – unlike what happens in Nation-States today. He made all effort to woo artists, artisans, philosophers and a diversity of religious clergy to ensure that the common man would follow. He encouraged grass-roots democracy to ensure that small units of men could manage their affairs themselves without his interference. He ensured that the State would be weak so that Society could be strong. Indeed, Society was so strong that a passing comment by a washer man could land the king or queen in severe trouble. The king also knew that forcibly keeping people out from the kingdom based on race or faith or ethnicity was futile since a person who is born in the Gupta Empire today could be reborn into the Maurya Empire tomorrow. In a belief system where the atman moves freely, it made no sense to physically restrict the movement of the body.

Punishment for actions against the citizens of the State was much stronger than punishment for actions against the State itself. Thieves, robbers and murderers usually paid with their life, but people who evaded taxes, bad-mouthed the policies of the king, spread rumors and the like were simply banished from the kingdom, a lot like being fired from a modern company. This too is in complete contrast with the modern Nation-State, where punishment for going against the State is far more severe than punishment for committing crimes against the common man.

Since the Society was the building block, a person who came into the kingdom from outside had to fit into the society he was coming into, sometimes at the expense of giving up his personal privacy and freedom. It was impossible to survive without Society’s approval, and the State did nothing to help individuals to survive on their own. The only way to evade Society was to become a hermit.

Since the State did not nothing to prevent people from other kingdoms coming in, there was a free flow of people across the sub-continent. People went wherever there was a market for their skills. Since the State did very little and was not majoritarian in structure and outlook, everyone was a minority. For example, the Marathi speaking people who migrated to the South during Shivaji’s rule did not get any special benefits, and neither did they face any discrimination from the Tamil majority. Since the State was the same to all (which was very little), such conflicts did not arise at all.

There is no equivalent word for immigrant in Sanskrit or any other Indian language.

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.

Suggestions for Immigration Policies for the Modern Nation-States

Here are some suggestions that could aid in that process. None of them are easy, and some of them will face stiff opposition. The implementation should be slow and could take decades to complete. But in the end, it will be worth it.

Nation-State should stop classifying people based on group-characteristics like race, religion, caste, ethnicity etc. All group benefits and group responsibilities should be done away gradually.

Nation-State should do away with all State-sponsored benefits like Social Security, Free Healthcare, etc. A Mexican immigrant to America is on his own when he or a member of his family falls sick. If he cannot afford to pay for their healthcare, he will be at the mercy of charity or death.

Nation-State should remove all barriers to movement for those who are not from the respective countries, with a system of monitoring their movement. All immigrants should be made to pay taxes from day one. The underground “cash” labor market should be exterminated ruthlessly.

Nation-States should be based on a common ideology of Individualism, where no person should expect others to take care of him/her. Just as Hinduism stresses that we are individually responsible by our own actions to get out of the cycle of rebirth, people should be individually responsible to get out of the cycle of poverty.

Individuals should treat countries just like we treat our employers. If another employer offers us a lot more, we switch without much thought. Patriotism, and its evil cousin Nationalism, should be a thing of the past. I’ve never read about patriotic songs of Vijayanagara Empire or Gupta Empire. The individual should view the State as a person whose job is to provide limited services: Basic security, infrastructure, rule of law, property rights etc. The State should be treated no different from the grocer or the plumber. Have seen anyone singing songs of praise for their grocer? Then why should there be national anthems, national birds, national fruit etc?

Once the individual is at the mercy of himself and all group identities will be useless to him, he will concentrate more on catching the 7:18 to work rather than demand more rights for Muslims or special category for Dalits or free medicines for poor Mexicans. People will move back to the system of extended family as a support structure rather than depend on the State.

With these simple, but difficult to implement, steps, the people of the world can go about their business to help themselves live comfortably and peacefully anywhere they wish. When a baby is born, it does not know or care that it is born as a German or Sri Lankan. When a person dies, he or she should die in the same state.