What do you see as the major differences in the public responses to immigration between so-called “classic” lands of immigration, such as the U.S., and countries such as Germany, which has officially defined itself as “not an immigration land”?
Now, speaking in late 1996, the differences are probably not nearly as sharp as they have traditionally been. Only a few years ago, perhaps as late as 1993, one could have articulated rather precisely what the differences were. On the one hand, classic immigration lands have traditionally relied on formulas that selected immigrants to come into one s society, formulas that reflected their fundamental belief in the value of immigration for the future strength and economic robustness of the country. Immigration societies recognized that their countries, in a sense, literally grew with immigration not only in numbers, but also in dynamism, in ideas, in energy, etc. Coupled with this strong faith in the social and economic benefits of immigration, these societies also shared a distinct and proud commitment to meeting humanitarian needs as reflected in the admission of refugees. On the other hand, many of the European countries with some important exceptions basically saw immigration as a t
