Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Nationalism and immigration Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the option to a nationality “ and no one will be discretionarily denied of his nationality nor denied the privilege to change his nationality.” However, the article is not clear on the subject of citizenship, which addresses a particular legitimate connection between a state and an individual. Citizenship gives people certain rights and obligations. The connection between nationality and citizenship can be in arrangement or at fluctuation (Erez, 2018). Nationality is, generally, a social idea which ties individuals based on where they are born. It defines a person to a particular state while citizenship is a political idea based on individuals’ relationship to the state. Citizenship is provided to citizens by the state.
The idea of Nationalism is becoming progressively confusing, given exceptional dimensions of human portability and removal, regardless of whether driven by aspiration, brutality, or destitution. Numerous vagrants end up reexamining homes and countries, thus, making numerous of people become immigrants. Needless to say, exclusionary forms of nationalism, which can be seen in certain countries, is what creates negative perceptions towards migrants and makes it harder for them to integrate in new societies. In countries such as the United States and Europe, we can see that they have a strong sense of nationalism and at the same time their population is also growing while at the same time inequality and social exclusion also increases.
“ Us-Versus-Them” Scenario
These growing inequalities can cause tension among the people which makes people less open to receiving migrants into their country. Many western states have accepted the “difference” which immigrants bring to the country and have also given them rights and freedoms even as noncitizens. Regardless, these states have not made efforts to protect those immigrants as much as they should be. They have set restrictive migration and border policies which has made a major impact in immigration. A starting point to fixing this issue of nationalism and the way it creates a, “ us-versus-them” scenario, would be for political leaders to stop portraying immigrants as though they will come and still natives’ jobs.
Doing so will make their country more welcoming and more inclusive. Immigration is a very positive phenomenon, yet some people- and the media- have instilled this negative view on the subject. Anti- migrant narratives state that migrants come to other people’s countries and take away their jobs and their money. They are so consumed with their culture that they believe that if they let other people in, they will lose pieces of themselves. This gives the impression that natives have nothing to gain from immigrants. Yet, research shows that migration helps the economy and development of societies. Nonetheless, we can see why this would create closed borders. When people show signs of xenophobia, they are less likely to accept immigrants into their country.
Argument of Reciprocal Obligation
Nationalism claims that the people who are from that state deserve more privileges, they have special obligations and rights because of how much they contribute to their country such as paying taxes, voting, and producing goods and services. Nationalism creates closed borders because it gives the people the sovereign right to decide who has the right to enter the country and who does not. Nationalism serves the interests of the citizens which in turn excludes the needs of others. This argument of reciprocal obligation is false in particular for the United States because research proves that many native-born American don’t produce goods and services or any type of political contributions.
