What is the meaning or reason for our existence? Is the objective to expand into a mountain or to diminish into a grain of sand? Is the purpose solely to sustain oneself or to empower the world to thrive more abundantly, with enhanced foresight, and a more refined sense of optimism and accomplishment? Dear colleagues, our purpose is to enhance the world, and we deprive ourselves when we neglect this mission. What is the purpose behind establishing the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘Them’ in our societies? What is the rationale behind segregation? I intend to discuss individuals who are currently referred to as foreigners.

The universal experience of being affected by migration compels us to rethink our treatment of individuals who are considered “foreign” to us. What is our reaction towards those whom we categorize as foreigners? Do we embrace and extend our warm hospitality towards them, or do we see them with profound aversion and apprehension, akin to vermin that must be eradicated? Recently, I listened to a presentation titled “Debunking the myths: Migration in the age of ISIL and Ebola”. The talk was delivered by Fr. David Holdcroft, SJ, an experienced Jesuit priest specializing in refugee and migrant affairs. I will concisely present my thoughts on his observations regarding what he referred to as the five prevalent misconceptions around migration.

The topic of migration is widely discussed and often sparks intense emotions, regardless of one’s stance on the matter. I am deeply compelled to contemplate this matter, as I believe it is a matter of utmost significance that warrants our collective attention and contemplation. As human beings, we are interconnected on a metaphysical level that is imperceptible. We are all part of the same kinship group and have a shared ancestry. We all share a common origin and any action you take towards others will ultimately affect yourself. We are merely under the illusion of being separate and distinct from one other. We are all travellers on this planet Earth. Whether driven by choice or compulsion, migration has been an inherent aspect of human existence over the course of history. It can be argued that it is inherently encoded in the genetic makeup of humanity. Individuals typically migrate due to two primary factors. Primarily, individuals engage in migration with the intention of enhancing their social, political, and economic opportunities for themselves, their families, and/or their communities. Furthermore, it is imperative to escape some situations that pose a potential harm to their present existence, as evaluated based on the minimum criteria for ensuring safety and survival. This typically occurs because to their affiliation with a specific social, cultural, religious, or ethnic community. The second factor can be seen as a subset of the first. Hence, it might be contended that we all possess an element of “foreignness”.

Numerous mythical assertions regarding migration are frequently seen in talks. The initial statement is that we are experiencing an overwhelming influx of migrants. Plato argues in the Republic that within each individual, there is typically a strong inclination to govern rather than be governed, to enjoy freedom rather than be subjected to authority. This identical longing engenders feelings of inferiority within us whenever an individual from another country seems to be dominating the situation. Consequently, individuals who are considered to be ‘natives’ assert that “immigrants”, namely refugees, seize the possibilities that belong to local residents, which is an unfounded belief. Research conducted in countries such as Uganda, Australia, and South Africa indicates that refugees and immigrants offer effective business models that provide services that are not easily accessible. Additionally, they contribute to the creation of jobs and revenue in the communities where they settle. Put simply, the economy as a whole benefits from the presence of migrants. If only every individual have a favourable disposition towards the ‘unfamiliar’ and possessed discerning eyes that recognize the worth of those marginalized by society.

Another fallacy is the notion that immigration fosters terrorism. Although I do not oppose this, I believe it is important to acknowledge that among the numerous terrorist operations that have occurred in various nations, only a small fraction have been perpetrated by individuals with refugee origins. The vast majority of terrorists consist of individuals residing in suburban areas or second-generation migrants, highlighting the necessity for a more thorough examination of this socioeconomic concern.

Another fallacy asserts that welcoming refugees and migrants dissuades them from returning to their own countries. Refugees, like other migrants, typically do not go back to their home countries once they have successfully integrated. However, they do contribute significantly to the development of their countries of origin through remittances, especially when they have family members still residing there. By doing so, individuals actively contribute to the establishment of enduring peace and various other advantageous outcomes.

Ultimately, proponents of the Post Hoc Argument contend that embracing immigrants poses a potential threat to a nation’s cultural heritage. The experiences of Australia and the United States provide valuable lessons. Both societies have a significant number of immigrants who have managed to make valuable contributions and, as a result, have influenced the identities of their host societies. Despite some conflicts, a sincere multi-cultural endeavour has made the countries more open to expanding trade with a wider range of partners than previously. I argue that a civilization that does not undergo evolution is one that is experiencing decline and eventual demise. A culture that is receptive to external influences and possesses the ability to adjust, in a way that individuals can assimilate, is a society that is cultivating resilience and fortitude.