Economically, many European countries have struggled to recover after the 2008 financial crisis and the European debt crisis, with the job market remaining sluggish. Take Greece as an example; its youth unemployment rate has long remained above 50%. Similar predicaments are faced by other Southern European countries such as Spain and Italy. Against this backdrop, some people view immigrants as “resource plunderers”, believing that they have taken away local people’s jobs and social welfare. This sentiment is particularly pronounced in regions where manufacturing has declined. Immigrant workers are favored by employers due to their lower labor costs, further intensifying the dissatisfaction of local workers.

The transformation predicament of the Ruhr region in Germany is a typical case. As a traditional industrial area, the Ruhr region faced massive unemployment after the decline of the coal and steel industries. Meanwhile, the influx of Middle Eastern immigrants earned income by taking low-skilled jobs. This “rise and fall” contrast made the local unemployed workers feel strongly deprived. In 2019, protests broke out in several cities in the Ruhr region, with people holding signs that read “Employ locals first”, demanding the government to restrict immigrant employment.

Cultural Collision: A Deep Crisis of Identity Recognition

The clash between cultures and religions is a more profound contradiction. The influx of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa has brought values and lifestyles that are completely different from Christian culture. From dietary habits (such as the popularity of halal food) to religious ceremonies (such as the construction of mosques), cultural differences are constantly emerging in daily life, and some people are worried that “the local culture will be diluted”.

What is more complicated is that some extreme events have exacerbated prejudice. In the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and the 2016 Brussels bombings, many of the perpetrators had immigrant backgrounds. This has led some people to simply associate immigrants with terrorism and rising crime rates. Although data shows that the crime rate among immigrants is not significantly different from that of local residents, the algorithms of social media often amplify negative cases, forming a stereotype that “immigrants = danger”. The French National Front (later renamed the National Rally) once used images of “an immigrant wave flooding Europe” in its election advertisements to stir up emotions and gained a lot of support.

Political manipulation: The fueling of the populist forces

The influence of political forces cannot be ignored either. Some far-right political parties have made anti-immigration a core campaign platform, using the incitement of populist sentiments to gain votes. Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán proposed the concept of “Christian Europe”, refusing to accept refugees; the Law and Justice Party in Poland passed legislation to restrict refugee resettlement, catering to the localist sentiment. These parties promised “tightening borders” and “prioritizing the protection of the interests of the native population”, precisely hitting the anxiety of some people, directly leading to the continuous tightening of immigration policies in many European countries.

Since 2020, Denmark has passed amendments to the “Foreign Citizens Law”, allowing the government to confiscate valuable items carried by refugees to cover resettlement costs; Austria has reduced the annual refugee reception quota to the lowest level in history; Sweden has shifted from being a “refugee haven” to imposing strict restrictions. All these policies have been driven by far-right forces.

Chain Reaction: Social Division and Cooperation Dilemma

The impact of these events has gradually become apparent: at the social level, the rifts between different ethnic groups have deepened, and community divisions have intensified. In the suburbs of Paris, France, immigrant communities have formed a “parallel society” with the local communities. Children attend different schools, and adults have little interaction, leading to potential conflicts. At the economic level, the supplementary role of immigrants in the labor market has been overlooked – Germany’s agriculture and care industries rely heavily on immigrant labor, but policy restrictions have led to a shortage of workers, which in turn has affected economic vitality.

At the political level, the rise of the far-right forces has disrupted the traditional party system. The Alternative for Germany party became the third-largest party in the 2021 federal election, and the National Front of France received 23.15% of the votes in the 2022 presidential election. Traditional left-right political parties have been forced to shift to the right in order to attract votes. Within the EU, the differences on issues such as immigration quota allocation have become increasingly evident. Conflicts have erupted multiple times between Hungary, Poland and Germany, France, weakening the foundation of regional cooperation.

The anti-immigration incidents in Australia have taken on a different appearance. The anti-immigration protests initiated by the “Australia First” organization, the discriminatory remarks targeting Asian immigrants, and the ethnic conflicts in the suburbs of Sydney, among other events, have shattered the image of Australia as a “melting pot of cultures”. Behind these incidents lies a unique social context and real predicaments.

The contradiction between population and resources is the direct cause. Although Australia has a vast territory, its habitable areas are concentrated in cities such as Sydney and Melbourne in the southeast coast. These areas account for over 70% of the national population. In recent years, the rapid growth in the number of immigrants (with an annual net immigration of approximately 230,000 people from 2016 to 2019) has led to housing shortages, traffic congestion, and increased pressure on educational and medical resources in some cities.

The housing price issue in Sydney is particularly prominent. From 2010 to 2020, the housing prices in Sydney rose by 140%, far exceeding the growth rate of residents’ income. Many locals pointed the finger at immigrants – they believed that immigrants’ purchase houses activities pushed up housing prices，and the government’s housing security policies favored immigrants. In 2018， protests broke out in the western part of Sydney， with people demanding “to suspend immigration to alleviate housing pressure”. Although the data showed that the housing demand of immigrants only accounted for 15% of the total market， the outburst of emotions could not be quelled by data.

The lingering racial concepts from the past also play a role in this. Although the “White Australia Policy” was officially abolished in 1973, the remnants of racism have not completely disappeared. Some people have a natural aversion to non-European immigrants and view them as “foreign invaders”. This sentiment is more likely to be intensified during economic fluctuations – in the early days of the 2020 pandemic, incidents of discrimination against Chinese people in Australia increased sharply, and some people blamed the spread of the virus on Asian immigrants, even resorting to violent attacks against Chinese people.

What is more concealed is institutional discrimination. In the Australian workplace, the promotion rate of immigrants with non-English backgrounds is significantly lower than that of local residents. Even with the same educational qualifications, the average salary of immigrants is 8% lower than that of local people. This “hidden exclusion” makes it difficult for the immigrant group to truly integrate, and also leads some local people to have the misunderstanding that “immigrants take resources without contributing anything.”

The one-sided reporting by the media has further exacerbated the conflict. Some media outlets have overly focused on individual cases such as immigration-related crimes and welfare fraud. For instance, the “Australian Daily Mail” continuously reported on “immigrants abusing welfare” for a week. However, in reality, the proportion of immigrants receiving welfare is 12% lower than that of local residents. On the contrary, the contribution of immigrants to the development of the Australian economy has been overlooked – data shows that the entrepreneurial rate among the immigrant population (15%) is higher than that of local residents (10%), and they are also an important source of talent in fields such as technology and healthcare. Among the top 20 technology companies in Australia, 12 were founded by immigrants.

This unbalanced narrative has led the public’s perception of immigration to gradually deviate from objectivity. A 2023 Australian poll showed that 62% of respondents believed that “there are too many immigrants”, but only 31% could name the specific economic contributions of immigrants, and the information gap exacerbated the sense of exclusion.

When we examine the anti-immigration incidents in Europe and Australia together, we can not only identify commonalities but also discover differences.

Commonality: The underlying logic of the emergence of contradictions

The similarity between the two lies in that both economic pressures act as catalysts for conflicts. When there is a shortage of resources, immigrants often become the targets of criticism. This “scapegoat effect” has occurred many times in history. The problem of cultural integration also exists. How to enable the immigrant community to maintain their own characteristics while integrating into the local society is a common challenge faced by both regions – the religious differences in Europe and the racial barriers in Australia are essentially conflicts of “other perception”.

Furthermore, the exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiments by political forces has also become an important factor in exacerbating the conflict. European far-right parties, the “One Nation Party” in Australia, and others have gained political benefits by simplifying the immigration issue into an “either-or” dichotomy, while this simplification often masks the complexity of the problem.

Differences: Immigration Structure and Policy Space

The differences lie in the structure of immigration and the policy responses. Among European immigrants, refugees from war-torn regions account for a relatively high proportion (refugees accounted for 30% of the total immigrant population from 2015 to 2020), which makes the immigration settlement more urgent and complex, and the integration process of refugees is longer and more costly; while Australian immigrants are mainly technical immigrants and international students (accounting for 75%), with a more prominent economic attribute, and the difficulty of integration is relatively lower.

At the policy level, due to the existence of the EU framework, the immigration policies in Europe need to take into account regional coordination. Countries like Germany and France want to accept refugees, while countries like Hungary and Poland refuse. This divergence leads to inefficient policies. As a sovereign country, Australia has more flexible immigration policy adjustments, often responding to social pressure by changing quotas and selection criteria. For example, in 2022, Australia increased the technical immigration quota to 190,000 and tightened family reunification immigration to balance economic needs and social sentiments.

To address the issue of anti-immigration, efforts need to be made from multiple dimensions and a balance should be struck between inclusiveness and governance.

For Europe, the first step is to strengthen economic recovery by creating more job opportunities to alleviate the pressure of competition. The “dual education system” model in Germany is worth promoting – the government and enterprises work together to provide training for immigrants and local youth, helping them enter high-end manufacturing and service industries and reducing competition for low-skilled positions.

Secondly, more effective policies for cultural integration should be promoted. The “Republican Assimilation” model in France emphasizes that immigrants need to adopt French values, but it neglects cultural diversity; the “Multiculturalism” model in the Netherlands, due to the lack of integration requirements, leads to community isolation. A feasible approach is “Diversity Integration”: carry out multicultural education in schools, encourage immigrants to learn the local language, and support cross-cultural activities at the community level, such as the “Neighborhood Festival” in Berlin, Germany, where immigrants and locals jointly organize activities to enhance understanding.

Furthermore, within the EU, there is a need to enhance coordination and establish unified standards for refugee reception and resettlement. The “responsibility sharing” mechanism can be adopted: economically powerful countries should bear more of the responsibility for receiving refugees and receive financial compensation in return; while Central and Eastern European countries can participate by providing employment training and language education, thus avoiding the “free-rider” phenomenon.

Australia needs to scientifically plan its immigration policy and dynamically adjust the number and structure of immigrants based on the carrying capacity of cities. A “migration impact assessment system” can be established, linking resource data such as housing, transportation, and education with the immigration quotas to avoid blind expansion. At the same time, more investment should be made in infrastructure, such as the “Western Metro Project” in Sydney and the “Second Airport Construction” in Melbourne, to enhance the carrying capacity of cities.

The media should also assume their responsibility. The government can establish a “multicultural media fund” to support content that objectively reports on the contributions of immigrants; at the same time, an “immigrant facts database” can be established to use data to break down biases – such as regularly releasing “immigrant tax contribution reports” and “lists of immigrant industry contributions”, allowing the public to see the actual value of immigrants.

The government can also enhance understanding and trust among different groups by funding cross-ethnic community projects. The “Multicultural Week” in Australia has been held for many years, but its participation has been limited. Innovative approaches could be adopted, such as organizing “Cross-Ethnic Family Exchange” activities, where local families and immigrant families spend the weekend together, thereby eliminating barriers through daily life details.

The frequent occurrence of anti-immigration incidents reflects the deep challenges in the multi-ethnic governance in the era of globalization. Whether in Europe or Australia, the immigration issue cannot be simply resolved by “acceptance” or “rejection”. It requires the joint efforts of the government, society, media and the immigrant community – through reasonable policy design to balance the interests of all parties, through continuous communication to eliminate misunderstandings, and through an inclusive mindset to accept differences.

Immigration was once an important driving force for the development of Europe and the United States: the post-war reconstruction of Europe relied on immigrant labor, and the mining boom in Australia was inseparable from skilled immigrants. Nowadays, in the face of issues such as population aging and labor shortages, the value of immigration has become increasingly prominent. Only by establishing a “cooperative and symbiotic” governance framework can immigrants truly become the driving force of social development, rather than a focal point of conflicts, and achieve harmonious coexistence in a multicultural society.

By Zhao Xi