In contemporary discourse, a pervasive narrative often frames immigrants as inherently ‘undesirable’. This sweeping generalisation forms the bedrock of much anti-immigration sentiment, portraying newcomers as burdens on society, threats to culture, or simply unwelcome presences. Yet, a closer examination reveals this attitude to be not only factually incorrect but also a symptom of a deeper, often uncomfortable truth: a fundamental dislike of perceived ‘difference’.
The assertion that vast swathes of people, simply by virtue of having crossed a border, are ‘undesirable’ is a fallacy rooted in prejudice rather than reality. The term ‘undesirable’ suggests a person who is harmful, detrimental, or lacking value. While, like any population group, a tiny minority of immigrants may fit this description due to criminal behaviour or genuinely destructive intent, applying it wholesale to millions based purely on their origin is illogical and unfair.
The lived experience and economic realities paint a starkly different picture. Many immigrants fill essential roles that established residents are unwilling or unable to do. Recent news reports in the UK, citing evidence like that presented by Graham Cowley to the Lords’ social mobility policy committee, highlight this disparity. Cowley noted that some young people spend much of their days online and are unprepared to enter the workforce for jobs paying less than £40,000 per annum. This attitude is fundamentally flawed; achieving a high salary typically requires gaining qualifications and significant experience, often starting at more moderate pay scales. By setting unrealistic entry requirements for themselves, these individuals effectively disqualify themselves from the very jobs that could lead to career progression. Into this gap step immigrants, often willing and eager to take on vital roles in sectors like healthcare, agriculture, hospitality, and logistics – jobs crucial for the functioning of society but frequently eschewed by others.
Conversely, many immigrants arrive with high qualifications, skills, and a powerful motivation to succeed and contribute. Doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists – individuals who enrich the cultural, intellectual, and economic landscape. To label such contributors as ‘undesirable’ is not merely inaccurate; it is a wilful blindness to the valuable human capital and diverse perspectives that immigration brings.
Moreover, the historical context of many nations often at the forefront of anti-immigration rhetoric exposes a profound irony. Britain itself is a nation forged through successive waves of migration and conquest. The early inhabitants, like the Celts and Picts, were displaced or assimilated by Angles, Saxons, and Danes, followed by Normans and later arrivals from across the globe. The very tapestry of British identity is woven from these layered histories. Similarly, the indigenous peoples of North and South America were largely displaced by European settlers. The populations of Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania were fundamentally altered by European migration. Even within the British Isles, the population of Northern Ireland has deep historical roots in migration from Scotland during the plantation period. To claim a pure, unchanging indigenous identity against which immigrants are ‘undesirable’ is to ignore the foundational migrations that shaped these nations in the first place.
Instead of the illogical and prejudiced stance of barring individuals based on their ‘otherness’, a more rational approach would focus on genuine threats to society. If the concern is truly about undesirability in the sense of posing a danger or being a criminal element, then policy should target individuals who demonstrate such characteristics regardless of their origin. Deporting individuals – immigrant or otherwise – who are convicted of serious crimes such as murder, rape, child molestation, serious fraud, or inciting hate is a logical, targeted measure against genuinely undesirable actions. Contrast this with the sweeping net of anti-immigrant sentiment that seeks to exclude based on nationality, ethnicity, or cultural background – a stance divorced from individual merit or behaviour.
Perhaps the most profound irony lies in the actions of extreme anti-immigrant proponents themselves. Those who engage in violent attacks against people from other cultures and ethnicities, who vandalise immigration hostels, or commit arson on hotels housing asylum seekers or immigrants, by their very actions make themselves genuinely undesirable members of a civilised society. Such acts of hate and destruction are far more detrimental to the social fabric and public safety than the vast majority of immigrant arrivals. In committing these heinous acts, they arguably provide a strong moral case for their own exclusion and potential deportation from the society they claim to protect.
The blanket condemnation of immigrants as ‘undesirable’ is a misguided attitude rooted in fear and prejudice, not reality or historical understanding. It represents a failure to distinguish between individual behaviour and collective identity, and a discomfort with the inevitable diversity that characterises a connected world. Ultimately, how a society treats its newcomers is a measure of its own character.
The parable of the Good Samaritan and the ancient exhortations found in texts like Leviticus 19:34 (“The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt…”) and Deuteronomy 10:19 (“And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt”) offer timeless wisdom: compassion, kindness, and treating others as we ourselves would wish to be treated are not merely moral ideals, but essential components of a just and desirable society.
Worldwide Temple of Aurora 