Languages and mores, Part III

Part II discussed stratification of society and Part I culture and communication: Let's extend this further re: migrating populations. This stems from chatting with a non-status south Korean in England as a conscientious objector, whom Quakers have support before re: social justice.  Follow on next post here.

flickr & medium, click to enlarge

This a print, colorized by my late fave gran, of me boarding a jet in Tahiti en-route to Brisbane, Austrlia early 1963. That was my first economic migration after my parents' original political migration to France from Hungary 8 mo. pregnant with me: it was the worst time to arrive among a tide of returnees from collapsing French colonies, especially from Indochina... Then I'd emigrate to Calgary 15 yrs. later as a student, and now I plan to return stateside via a sponsor 45 yrs. after that! Last but not least, as a student I had to deal with French military service, which I got exempt from, but not after an emergency visit to France 4 yrs. in my stay in Canada and the year before I acquired citizenship. 

It was therefore natural that I meet up with this South Korean coscientious objector in Cambridge for studies who turned to Quakers for refugee help - as Quakers do - but who worried about being deported. There resuted and afternoon discussion over coffee comparing and contrasting post-WWII migration and current ones.

medium, click to enlarge

Then it struck me from the previous post on medium about Brexit (caption above) detailing the economic backdrop to migration, that there were two pairs of regimes:

- the source countries were in the fifties from Turkey and S Europe and offer low skills, and they were economical migrants seekig a better living

- whereas the sources countries now are Africa & Middle-East with no skills, and are largely political migrants fleeing persecution

Secondly:

- current source countries are also very much tribal and merit based as discussed in Part I: this is where hosting is considered a social obligation, and Common Law hadn't been developed yet

- the destination countries were western Europe where Common Law had been well developed: where not merit as much as absolute norms on truth and ownership were well established (same as the source countries in the fifties, by the way)

The issue therefore is that migrants today expect to be hosted, whereas hosts expect migrants to pull their weight as soon as possible. The latter was okay mid last century with a relative trickle, legal and filling jobs the hosts were unwilling to do. Whereas that breaks down when numbers become  overwhelming and migrants are illegal - plus they have no skills to offer as they come from wore-torn countries with little or no economic or educational infrastructure - meaning they offer would-be hosts no usable skill. 

Note: this started when I was in S France in the seventies: migrants similar to today from Africa & Middle-East but as a trickle and mostly economic, also expected to be hosted and went straight to social services... That created bad feelings among hosts who had paid for their social services!