The Newcomer Paradox

Social capital research has often found that when an area experiences an influx of new people, there tends to be a drop in the general levels of trust. This may suggest that people are unsettled by the arrival of strangers, and the uncertainty of what to make of them leads many to wish that they could be left as they were previously. Some have indeed interpreted this as why there is always going to be resistance to immigration.

However, other studies have found that the less static a community is – i.e., it receives newcomers who in time become part of that community – the more at ease it is about who live amongst them. Notably, in the EU Referendum in the UK in 2016, there was a clear correlation between areas with a higher proportion of migrant population and areas that voted to stay in the EU. That was not down to the migrant votes in those areas tipping the balance, but the UK born citizens in those areas being better disposed towards living in a multicultural society.

So, do having more newcomers in an area make current residents more, or less trusting, relaxed, open-minded about the idea of newcomers? The answer depends on how those newcomers are brought in. If the process is well managed and explained, with current residents given the understanding of why people are coming and how it would enhance rather than diminish their overall wellbeing (through the contributions they make as workers and neighbours), and everyone supported in getting to know one another through social events – then the likelihood is that people will soon overcome the initial sense of unfamiliarity, appreciate others as fellow residents, discover what they have in common, and value what they gain from new experiences.

By contrast, if the process is chaotic, with a sudden surge of newcomers arriving with accommodation, transport, and other issues disrupted with no plan for normality, or worse, if negative propaganda is layered on top to present the arrival of kind, thoughtful people as an existential threat posed by ‘aliens’ who should be shunned, then initial distrust can easily be escalated to fear, anger and even hate.

Anyone who has had direct experience – usually in cosmopolitan cities, or learnt through historical accounts, of areas developing over time with newcomers joining the native population, would know that as diverse elements come together to form new connections, more powerful networks and richer relationships would emerge.

Unfortunately, although natural human tendencies are to move from cautious welcoming of strangers to embracing new social bonds, those tendencies can be severely undermined by people who want to further their political ambitions by radicalising the natives against scapegoated newcomers. Indeed, it has become one of the standard formulas of right-wing demagoguery – pump out media reports of every conceivable problem that can be linked to refugees, immigrants, aliens with the wrong faith, etc; blame bad news on the people who “shouldn’t be allowed here”; announce proposals using language that would help dehumanise those who are to be detained, demeaned, deported.

The vast majority of people are not racist. But many can be manipulated by racist con-politicians. Instead of playing into the hands of those con-politicians and alienate people with the ‘racist’ label, we should help them engage with others as fellow human beings. It is telling that many of those who might be superficially taken in by the racist rhetoric of demagogues, are often the first to say categorically that whatever negative terms are used about all those newcomers, they do not apply to the ones they have come to know well – the ones they know, regardless of their colour, religion, country of origin, are good people.