I suppose that the first thing I should do is define my categories, as there are often grey areas, some of which may become apparent later.
A social migrant is someone who moves from one country to another for social reasons, most commonly so be with family. This is not always the case, as with the many migrants moving to Spain in search of better weather or to Australia and New Zeeland in search of a better "way of life" The point of the definition is that they have no compulsion to move for either financial or reasons of safety . I am a social migrant.
An economic migrant moves country for financial reasons, be this Eastern Europeans moving to the west in search of work or an oil worker moving for career enhancement, the motivation is essentially the same, financial.
Refugees are, as I'm sure all are aware, those poor souls who feel that their very safety is threatened by remaining in their mother country, they flee in search of a worthwhile life and protection.
Your average Daily Mail reader would probably expel economic migrants from the UK as would many an FRP voter expel them from Norway. Cries of, "they are taking our jobs" and, "they don't understand our culture" or, "they can't be trusted" are often to be heard and repeated from the fearful and the ignorant. I'd like to think that my own experiences have given me a somewhat different perspective on this issue.
Social migrants are often accepted........but only if they fit in. As a person moving from one wealthy European country to another I have not struggled with social acceptance however the same can not always be said for those moving from poorer countries for social reasons, family reunification for example, especially those who stand out, in particular those of a different skin colour.
Refugees are almost always accepted........as long as "I don't have to pay". Very few are so callous as to not want those in harms way to be protected but just who should take responsibility is a question that many seem either unable or unwilling to answer.
Norway is a classic example of a country that likes to be seen to take its responsibility to the less fortunate very seriously, it's not without reason that Alfred Nobel's famous peace prize is awarded, not by his native Sweden, but by Norway. Norway has a reputation of old to uphold and every Norwegian politician all too aware of this. The problem is, despite large amounts of money being thrown in all directions and an outward facade of social responsibility the most important factor in the whole equation is often forgotten, we are talking about people with real lives, needs, fears and emotions, people who have gone to extreme lengths in order to secure their physical and emotional safety.
I could go on about Norway's treatment of refugees, much of it positive and in equal measure negative. Indeed the same can be said for many countries around the world but that would be getting away from the point of this article.
I am fully aware of the fact that a certain number of social migrants hold so tightly on to their parent culture that they ghettoise themselves, I am also aware that a number of economic migrants are "just in it for the money" in the respect that they are unreliable or untrustworthy workers and in the same vein some refugees carry their "baggage" with them which can be anything from female circumcision to gang loyalties. In no way would I ever dream of defending any of these antisocial behaviours but I will try to understand them. I agree that "we don't want these people in our country" (not that it's the people that are the problem but the habits they bring with them) and I agree that "we shouldn't have to put up with this in our own country".
I also know how difficult it can be moving to another country with a new culture and new social norms, new societal rules, a new language, new laws and new expectations of me. I know how scary it can be to buy a loaf of bread or take a bus to a destination that has been vaguely described in a tongue barely comprehensible to me let alone having to navigate officialdom and a bureaucracy that locals often struggle to comprehend. I know the challenging process of opening a bank account, acquiring accepted identification and starting a telephone subscription. I know how all this feels in a country that many would see as similar to my home nation, indeed the majority here under the age of 50 have a command of the English language that resolves many issues........and still these things were a big deal for me, still I struggled, made errors, frustration grew as did my feelings of helplessness, my shortcomings were only too apparent! And remember, I had my wife to help and guide me.
Given the challenges that I faced, how do we expect a refugee to cope, or the Polish worker, so poor in his own country that he sees putting himself through the upheaval of starting again in a new country and all challenges inherent as a better, even easier, option.
In my mind it goes without saying that, when moving to a new country, the onus is on the migrant to do what they must to adapt to the society that they adopt but it is wise to remember that they are not the ones complaining about us, it is we that are the complainants. What do we really want or indeed expect from our new countrymen? Is it reasonable to expect them to relinquish their past, their culture, their heritage because of our desires?
We have a choice, we can either close all boarders or we can embrace, guide and help to facilitate what, for some, can be a quite traumatic transition.
Of course, we could always follow the example of Pontius Pilate in washing our hands of whatever social or moral obligation we might otherwise feel. It would certainly simplify matters within our own borders, giving rise to further complications outside them, no doubt the preferable option for many. Before making such a bold decision I think it wise to remember that we are all immigrants of one sort or another, some many centuries ago others more recently and each and every one of these migrations has changed and enriched our culture and heritage. Remember this next time you are tucking in to your chicken balti or Peeking duck, spare a thought for the pioneering family members who moved to the Europe (or indeed any wealthy western society) in the last 50 years and the transition they navigated the next time you are basking in the reflected glory of the triumph of athletes like Jessica Ennis, Anthony Joshua ad Mo Farah. When filling your car spare a thought for the oil workers bringing their expertise to Stavanger and Aberdeen. Take things a step further and consider your favourite sporting team without its foreign stars.
I'm not suggesting that immigration should proceed unfettered or indeed that the current situation is desirable. It is clear that we need restrictions, perhaps stricter than those in place today, guidelines that should be regularly reviewed to adapt for changing conditions. However, through all the complexities of the situation it is vitally important to remember that only we can welcome a guest into our home, if we don't tell them that it's a house rule to remove their shoes on entering and show them where they can hang their coat we can hardly complain when they leave dirty footprints on the Axminster and watermarks on the Chesterfield from their rain soaked jacket.
