Migrant workers and xenophobia in the

UK labour movement
There as been a growing climate of xenophobia towards migrant
workers in the UK in recent years. Unfortunately, parts of the labour
movement have been complicit in it.

The UK Labour Party leadership has been receiving a lot of criticism for its
handling of Brexit. In its defence, a significant number of people in
constituencies in its traditional heartlands of Wales, the midlands and the
north voted to leave the European Union in 2016. Less defensible is
Labour’s failure to support EU migrants in the UK. The prime minister,
Theresa May, has introduced an incredibly bureaucratic and arbitrary
‘settlement scheme’, which, in practice, creates different categories of
guest workers, yet opposition criticism has been muted and circumspect.

Labour’s apparent abandonment of EU freedom of movement has not been

driven by the party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, however disappointing his
response. Arguably, it represents a trend which has enveloped all aspects
of the UK labour movement in the last 20 years.

There are now around 3.7 million EU-born migrants living in the UK.
Around half are from the countries, in eastern and central Europe, which
acceded in or after 2004.

Net contributors
Generally, EU migrants have a higher employment rate than people born in
the UK. One in every four works in the retail, wholesale and hospitality
industries, with additionally large numbers in cleaning and housekeeping
(especially in health and social care). Most are in lower-waged and
deunionised jobs, which are likely to feature casualised conditions. For
many, this will only make any settlement criteria harder to verify. The vast
majority however contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits,
with a 2016-17 net gain to the Treasury of £4.7 billion—many EU migrants
are relatively young and tend not to have family responsibilities.

In advance of EU enlargement in 2004, the UK government chronically

underestimated the anticipated migrant workforce. And there is some
evidence inward migration depressed wages at the lower end of the labour
market before the financial crash hit the UK in 2008. But low-waged,
increasingly casualised employment had already become embedded in
many areas. This stems from much earlier—the abolition of the wages
councils under the government of Margaret Thatcher, part of its war against
organised labour, and the increasing use of no-guarantee contracts and
agency employment. The establishment of a national minimum wage in the
late 1990s under ‘new’ Labour was a halting, grudging move, with the
minimum pitched just low enough to suppress complaints from employers.

With rising costs of living, people on lower wages in the UK weren’t doing
well enough to feel secure. In addition, Labour began to introduce benefit
sanctions to pressurise welfare claimants. The very idea of social security
had been successfully challenged and the idea of ‘benefit scroungers’ had
become dominant in the party which had historically represented organised
labour. A casualised labour market will, by its nature, force workers to claim
benefits repeatedly—even for short periods. The working class in the UK
was, by the time of the crash, already being made to feel more insecure,
with or without migration. This was, and still is, reflected in huge household
debt.

There was no moratorium on inward migration, as there was in Germany.

As the credit crunch became a recession, Labour began its confused
tailspin. Attempting to assuage what was deemed to be a protectionist
mood, the prime minister, Gordon Brown, promised ‘British jobs for British
workers’. But the deeply-embedded, Thatcherite logic of the UK labour
market was to defy him. Employers were increasingly able to skip UK
recruitment entirely and bring in agency staff en bloc. In
2009, demonstrations emerged in protest against the use of foreign labour.

Brown was a significantly more receptive figure to trade-union concerns

than his predecessor, Tony Blair. A protracted set of negotiations led in
2010, the dying days of the Labour government, to some modifications to
casual labour markets, including more recognition of the rights of agency
staff and some light regulation of employment agencies.

Choking grip
But then came the coalition government—a mix of economic neoliberalism
and social liberalism, under the Conservative leadership of David Cameron
with the Liberal Democrats in tow. Austerity meant a long pay freeze for
everyone working in front-line public services, thousands of redundancies
across local authorities and increasingly fierce benefit sanctions, a choking
grip on anyone unlucky enough to find themselves in need. There was a
big fall in real wages and the pressure on the lower end of the labour
market intensified.

The mass media charged up increasingly vicious campaigns against the

very people most affected by austerity: those on disability benefits and
income support. But mostly the press focused on migrants. Labour, in
opposition, became divided between those who defended Brown-era
spending and those who thought it ‘over-generous’, between those who
saw immigration as important for one reason or another and those who
perceived it as a threat to purported cultural homogeneity.

By 2015, the idea of Labour imposing controls on immigration had become

a slogan on a mug in party merchandise. The assumption that migrant
workers were a bad thing had become absorbed as a central tenet across
the political spectrum, with the possible exception of the nationalists in
Scotland. ‘Blue’ Labour’s influence was reflected in a renewed focus on
people and place—family, flag and faith—which added an overt nativism to
Labour’s political palette. The 2015 party manifesto, product of an earnest
leadership trying to unite a disjointed political force, also promised
additional regulations on casualisation and agency work which would have
addressed some of the major questions at the lower end of the labour
market, such as the prevalence of zero-hours contracts. But these
promises received less attention.

Labour had, perhaps unwittingly, ceded space to the demonisation of

foreigners and foreign institutions by the British press. After the shock
Conservative victory in 2015, Cameron began negotiations with the EU in
advance of his promised ‘Brexit’ referendum and the Eton-educated prime
minister made migrants his main target. His negotiation stance reads like a
charge sheet against the migrant workers who had settled in the UK. He
demanded an ‘emergency brake’ on EU citizens receiving welfare benefits
and easier deportation of EU nationals deemed likely to represent a
threat—implying migrants were predisposed to ‘welfare tourism’ and/or
‘terrorism’.

Labour failed to challenge the unfairness of this—that any reduction of in-

work benefits to EU citizens would create two classes of worker—and
Cameron went on to lead a referendum campaign built almost entirely on
channelling anti-migrant sentiment whilc claiming the economic efficiency
of EU membership. From this perspective, the Remain campaign was
always anti-immigration and anti-freedom of movement. But the Tories
were increasingly caught between wanting to satiate capital with cheap
labour and exploiting the increasingly xenophobic political climate. The
drive towards stripping migrant workers of full citizenship, and assigning
them guest-worker status, can really be said to have started in 2016. Again,
the Labour Party, now led byCorbyn—a politician with a rare history of
standing up to bigotry and helping migrants—had little to say.

No commitment
The referendum result was almost universally interpreted as the end of
freedom of movement, despite this not being mentioned on the ballot. After
Cameron resigned, he was succeeded by May, who as home secretary had
sought to curb immigration. The end of freedom of movement was also,
arguably, tacitly accepted within Labour’s six conditions to support a Brexit
deal, which included ‘fair management of migration in the interests of the
economy and of communities’. There was no commitment to protect
migrant workers from losing their status as full citizens in the country where
they were working.

Some trade unions, including Unite, have adopted a pro-Brexit line. Official
efforts to incorporate migrant workers into formal or informal union
structures have been sporadic and unco-ordinated. Migrant workers are
almost entirely unrepresented in the media and the public sphere. Corbyn
and union leaders are quick to point to exploitation of low-paid migrants—
and there are cases of this. But this instrumentalises migrants, denying
them agency. And if there are instances of exploitation, this reflects on the
UK labour-market regime, rather than on migration or migrants.

May’s proposals for EU migrant workers are viciously discriminatory: they

strip current migrants of their unqualified right to stay and clamp down on
reuniting families, while reducing new arrivals to nothing more than guest
workers on temporary work visas. Her settlement scheme is a bureaucratic
nightmare, reflecting her lack of administrative competence. It imposes
arbitrary time conditions, which will lead to huge difficulties in producing the
required evidence for mobile and casual workers. The financial criteria to
be applied to future migrant workers are also set to devastate the health
service and social care.

Some sections of organised labour have partially succumbed to the

xenophobia which has begun to shroud social attitudes in the UK. Some of
the Brexit-supporting unions, and MPs on the right of the Labour Party, are
offering perspectives which are very unsympathetic to migrant workers. At
this late stage, it’s up to the internationalist left, and labour leaders with
some alternative vision, to take the lead.
The UK has a long history of eventually bringing people into the labour
movement. In the 19th century, Irish workers faced rampant discrimination
but eventually were to assume crucial leadership roles. Real political vision
is required, to stop the UK labour movement being complicit in a botched,
low-grade imitation of Singapore’s ruthless treatment of guest workers as
second-class human beings.

Maybe, however, Labour’s inability to handle the question of EU migrant

workers reflects a diminished capacity in British society to pursue social
goals in general. After all, the failure to fight for migrants follows directly
from a failure to fight for low-paid British workers in the 1990s and 2000s.
It’s tempting to think of this as indicative of a wider malaise—the declining
agency of organised labour, of politics itself, in a state sinking into post-
imperial gloom and inertia.

Why Xenophobia Happens In South

Africa
There is no section in any of our education system talking
about how Nigeria and Zimbabwe provided a safe haven for
some of our leaders.

Over the past few years South Africa has going through heavy traffic of xenophobic
attacks of foreigners who are looking for a better life in the country and it seems as
though it is getting worse every time.

Xenophobic attacks usually surface at the beginning of every financial year because
South Africans are looking for job opportunities in order to put food on the table.

The government in power doesn't seem to be doing much about these horrendous
attacks of foreigners that are making a successful living for themselves in the
country.

These are some of the reasons why these attacks happen:

- South Africans aren't educated at school level of what other African countries
provided for our country during apartheid. There is no section in any of our education
system talking about how Nigeria and Zimbabwe provided a safe haven for some of
our leaders.

This means that some South Africans do not know why we're helping out other
foreign internationals. Ignorance takes over and we hurt natives who helped our fight
for freedom.
- Graduates, new job opportunity seekers and people who are looking to get on with
their lives feel the brunt of not getting a job because a foreigner who works just as
hard or harder then them gets the job post ahead of them.

- Some foreign drug lords live in South Africa and make business from selling illegal
drugs to young kids and therefore local people feel they need to take care of these
people if law enforcement act too slow.

Education at a very young age implemented at school level plays a vital part in how
you see foreign internationals, more especially other African brothers.

In the current system we learn a lot about America and how great they are. We aren't
taught much about how amazing other African countries have been towards South
Africa over the past few decades of struggle.

Some of our people don't know so, we just do things according to emotions we feel.

Is xenophobia a natural human behavior?

Yes
Let's be intellectually honest

Xenophobia is absolutely biological and it definitely has learned aspects in today's

society. Racism is pretty much learned, Babies do not hate other babies from other
races, No reaction to someone looking different. The babies learn it from parents
who react strongly to what ever situation. That being said, When you have a
migration crisis in a gigantic scale like in Europe, Where millions of people from a
completely different culture, Values, Beliefs, Language and behavior suddenly drops
on your head, Quite literally, Of course there will be a reaction, Which is not based
on hate or racism. This kind of situation will absolutely have complicated reactions
from millions of people! Xenophobia is genetic because humans are social animals,
We desire a pack, Our group where we belong. This is a fact. Through this there will
be my group and your group. Actually this whole discussion in politics proves it! My
group is right, You are wrong! That is exactly what I mean. We have a need to unify
and a need to have our own group which means there will always be the other
group which may possibly try to take my stuff even by force. Completely natural
with some learned behavior mixed in it. Why can't we just be intellectually honest
about this?

A natural instinct.

As humans we’ve worked hard to create our own territories, cultures and societies.
For something different to come along and potentially undermine that instills a
natural sense of protection. Our instincts tell us that the alien culture has potential
to errode our own values to the affect of our children, family and friends. Many
animals are protective of their own space. Surely we are the same. Some may argue
that children aren’t interested in colour of skin and therefore it is learned but I would
pose on that note that actually, none of us particularly care about the colour of
someone’s skin and can even love some of those attributes. But; would you want
anything alien to come directly into your home and change stuff around? No! It’s
nothing to do with colour. It’s territorial instinct. This needs to be recognised and
defined properly.

It's human nature.

All animals are somewhat territorial. And humans are animals, we act territorial, and
we are territorial. We are raised with the attitude that what is ours is ours (some are
taught better than others that sharing is good). Humans are instinctive just as
animals are. Think of China and India, They have borders and are territorial about it.

Xenophobia is an adaptive evolutionary trait.

Xenophobia is completely natural from an evolutionary perspective and would have

helped to keep an individual organism safe in more dangerous times. Neighbouring
tribes and individuals could well be dangerous and the trepidation caused by what
we now call xenophobia would've created an arousal of the central nervous system
and prepare an organism for 'fight or flight'.

It would be much less of a problem to treat strangers as dangerous by default, and

get it wrong, than to treat all strangers as safe until reason to believe otherwise (as
today's PC, tin foil hat brigade would have us doing). I'm this way xenophobia is as
natural and here to stay as our natural urges towards procreation and avoidance of
pain etc.

Xenophobia isn't all bad or good for modern, first world, living but I'm afraid it's here
to stay until we evolve otherwise or, more likely, the human race becomes
extinct....I'm afraid the bleeding hearts will just have to put up with it.

It is completely natural Fearing people or things that are strange, foreign, weird,
bizarre, etc. is a completely natural instinctive reaction. It's a form of self-protection
for ourselves as well as the protection of our offspring (no normal person wants
themselves or especially their kids being approached by someone or something
strange or weird).

It is completely natural Fearing people or things that are strange, foreign, weird,
bizarre, etc. is a completely natural instinctive reaction. It's a form of self-protection
for ourselves as well as the protection of our offspring (no normal person wants
themselves or especially their kids being approached by someone or something
strange or weird).

Xenophobia is a legitimate phobia Xenophobia, an instinctive mechanism of survival,

has been viewed as less of a phobia and more of a crime or an act of violence. One
has to concede that xenophobia is but a phobia. It is on the basis of this perspective
that I believe that xenophobia natural human behaviour. So if one is to oppose this
phenomen, one should first understand then judge xenophobia for what it REALLY
IS, nothing but a phobia, a natural human behaviour.

People fear the unknown Xenophobia is rooted in our ignorance of other cultures
and peoples just as our fear of space is rooted in our lack of understanding it and
knowing what is actually out there. Notice, the idea of space aliens. The idea can be
traced back, millenniums. We fear what is not known and other places, other
cultures are not known to us.

Deep natural instinct

Xenophobia and racism are a natural part of humanity because it ensures that we
remain regionally diverse. At least 96% of humanity has brown eyes and dark hair.
2% are natural blondes, 1.5-2% are natural redheads and 4% are non- brown eyed.
If all of humanity completely lost all of its racism and xenophobic instinct, and all of
humanity became one huge mixed race worldwide, then that would lead to no more
regional diversity. Everyone would eventually have brown skin, brown eyes and dark
hair. All the natural blondes/redheads and non-brown eyed people would become
bred out into extinction. People would complain about not having anymore racial and
cultural diversity. The world would become a boring brown eyed and dark haired
form of humanity. Of course, extreme racism and xenophobia are not a good
practice, but having mild to moderate forms of racism and xenophobia is fine as it
helps to keep humanity regionally diverse. Mild to moderate racism and xenophobia
translates as a people who deeply respect and care about their unique
ethnicity/race, culture, heritage and land, and want to keep it all alive and preserved
for their future generations. It keeps the world of humanity interesting and colourful.
If racism and xenophobia were not meant to be a part of human nature at all, it
wouldn't exist in the first place.

Deep evolutionary instinct

Xenophobia and racism is a deep, natural instinct to ensure that humanity retains its
regional diversity. If it wasn't meant to be a part of human nature at all, it wouldn't
exist! 96% of humanity is brown eyed and dark haired. If we all completely lost all
of our racism and xenophobia, and humanity became one huge mixed race and
culture, then there would be no more natural blondes/redheads and non-brown eyed
people left. The world would become a boring single race, single cultured world.
People would complain about the lack of racial and cultural diversity. Regional
diversity would die out. Of course, extreme racism and xenophobia are not a good
practice, but some mild to moderate racism and xenophobia is fine, as it keeps
humanity regionally diverse. It translates as a people who deeply care and respect
their unique ethnic/race and cultural heritage and land, and want to keep it alive and
preserved for future generations. It helps keep the world of humanity interesting
and colourful.
Deep natural instinct

Xenophobia and racism are a natural part of humanity because it ensures that we
remain regionally diverse. At least 96% of humanity has brown eyes and dark hair.
2% are natural blondes, 1.5-2% are natural redheads and 4% are non- brown eyed.
If all of humanity completely lost all of its racism and xenophobic instinct, and all of
humanity became one huge mixed race worldwide, then that would lead to no more
regional diversity. Everyone would eventually have brown skin, brown eyes and dark
hair. All the natural blondes/redheads and non-brown eyed people would become
bred out into extinction. People would complain about not having anymore racial and
cultural diversity. The world would become a boring brown eyed and dark haired
form of humanity. Of course, extreme racism and xenophobia are not a good
practice, but having mild to moderate forms of racism and xenophobia is fine as it
helps to keep humanity regionally diverse. Mild to moderate racism and xenophobia
translates as a people who deeply respect and care about their unique
ethnicity/race, culture, heritage and land, and want to keep it all alive and preserved
for their future generations. It keeps the world of humanity interesting and colourful.
If racism and xenophobia were not meant to be a part of human nature at all, it
wouldn't exist in the first place.

Deep evolutionry instinct Xenophobia and racism is a deep, natural instinct to ensure
that humanity retains its regional diversity. If it wasn't meant to be a part of human
nature at all, it wouldn't exist! 96% of humanity is brown eyed and dark haired. If
we all completely lost all of our racism and xenophobia, and humanity became one
huge mixed race and culture, then there would be no more natural
blondes/redheads and non-brown eyed people left. The world would become a
boring single race, single cultured world. People would complain about the lack of
racial and cultural diversity. Regional diversity would die out. Of course, extreme
racism and xenophobia are not a good practice, but some mild to moderate racism
and xenophobia is fine, as it keeps humanity regionally diverse. It translates as a
people who deeply care and respect their unique ethnic/race and cultural heritage
and land, and want to keep it alive and preserved for future generations. It helps
keep the world of humanity interesting and colourful.

We Are Territorial Our instincts from surviving the wild are still there. Other humans
outside of one's social circle/family are competition for food and resources. It
something that should be nurtured (not violently if can be avoided) as it's completely
healthy behavior. No different from a dog barking or Prides of Lions battling over
turf. We are an animal with instinct to feed ourselves first, others later if at all. It will
always manifest itself, whether it be in power, greed or food.

People naturally club together into groups When you put a number of people
together, they will automatically polarise into groups, this demonstrates a
fundamental human nature. We may wish for a world where race, religion and
colour do not affect choices, regrettably such an ideal world only exists in the minds
of the idealist. The world needs idealism, but it has severe limitations.
Xenophobia in evolution Yes, xenophobia is a natural behavior that has evolved
within humans. Look at this, when the humans first saw a dangerous animal, say a
grizzly bear, and just went and straight out hugged it, then most probably humanity
wouldn't exist anymore, at least not in the numbers we have today.

The subject of that picture is stupid It's one thing to fear what you don't know. Or to
have curiosity of races you don't know. That's hardly anything to be mad about. It's
when you go on to hate that race and treat them like garbage that it's a problem.
But because one naturally is fear of what they don't know. Come on that doesn't
make them bad!

Natural To Fear I believe xenophobia, an irrational or unreasoned fear of the foreign

or unknown, is more than likely a natural human behavior. If you look back to our
past as hunter gathers this was probably a very important trait to allow humans to
first examine new things they encounter so they can take the time to make a
reasonable guess as to whether or not they should remain cautious about
something.

Xenophobia is natural, if socially abhorrent Xenophobia if left to consume ones

rational self will most certainly lead to racism; this would tarnish any human and
certainly be detrimental to our collective survival. However as a parent of
homogenous children, albeit personal preference, I lean towards the feeling that my
expectations and aspirations for them include having homogenous children of their
own. Having parents that are of different nationalities although both European I am
aware of the prejudice my father experienced during his younger years; I do find it
troubling that this does seem to be my over riding opinion. I am therefore lead to
see that xenophobia is not only mechanism to protect ones own family unit but a
narcissistic need to carry on ones own characteristics...

For these reasons it seems necessary to define xenophobia as a natural human

behaviour, but let us also consider that we are only human, while natural human
behaviour may not be right but natural: society prevailing fears and vanity may be
overcome for the good of us all.

I think yes To get used to with a person who is strange to need a very long time and
a careful thought so I think xenophobia , the irrational or unreasoned fear of that
which is perceived to be foreign or strange , is a normal behavior of human . When
we met a person for first time , we may don't know who he is , where they comes
from or he is a good person or bad ones . For that reason , in my opinion , I think
we should be alert with a strange person who we first met .The fear that we feel
when we met them can only stop only we know them pretty well as to make sure
they are not strange to us any more . Many people from shy person to optimistic or
extrovert ones will have this normal feeling .The fear that come to us strongly make
us become aggressive to an uncostumary person.

To look carefully on this situation , I can confirm that the way normal people will
react when a strange person try to get familiar with us . To put things in a nutshell ,
xenophibia is a normal behavior that everyone will behave when they met an
unwonted person .

Xenophobia is a natural human behavior To get used to with a person who is

strange to need a very long time and a careful thought so I think xenophobia , the
irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange , is a
normal behavior of human .When we met a person for first time , we may don't
know who he is , where they comes from or he is a good person or bad ones . For
that reason , in my opinion , I think we should be alert with a strange person who
we first met .The fear that we feel when we met them can only stop only we know
them pretty well as to make sure they are not strange to us any more . Many people
from shy person to optimistic or extrovert ones will have this normal feeling .The
fear that come to us strongly make us become aggressive to an uncostumary
person.

To look carefully on this situation , I can confirm that the way normal people will
react when a strange person try to get familiar with us . To put things in a nutshell ,
xenophibia is a normal behavior that everyone will behave when they met an
unwonted person .

When I say "xenophobic" I meant "why do people fear animals that normally
wouldn't hurt us". But still, I probably have the answer to this. During the Ice Age,
when this species first crawled out of its hidey-hole, there was only one rule: eat it
before it eats you. That forced us to fear what we do not understand, because we
don't know its intents. Unfortunately, that is still in us, magnified to fearing what we
see or hear. Take sharks, for example. Only 2% of all deaths at sea are by sharks,
yet people are still super-afraid of sharks because of what we see (movies) and what
we hear (the news). Media are making the human race more paranoid and
xenophobic than they already are. This is proof because, with animals who have an
instinctive fear, they will never lose it, but constant exposure will strengthen it. They
are turning us into Daleks. Humans are naturally xenophobic because that was a
necessary behaviour to survive, and has not left us because all our technologies are
not allowing us to evolve and adapt. Mother Nature thinks she is improving our
ability to survive, but she is destroying us.

Case in point: humans are xenophobic because it used to be a necessity.

True, some people are not xenophobic (me, a 12-year-old boy, for example) but
with all animal species that have a natural fear, some are born without it.

Fear of "The Different" is a Survival Instinct It's an instinct that many would argue
has outlived its function but for most of human history, xenophobia (fear of those
who are different) was a vital tool for survival. We lived in tribes and clans which, if
not otherwise distinctive, adopted unique styles of dress and behavior that allowed
those units to distinguish one (mine) from another (yours). These contrived
differences enabled individuals to discern potential threats. And since the relations
between groups often were predator/prey, it was a vital distinction to make.
As with all other instincts, it can be countered only after it is recognized for what it is
and neither denied not demonized, but rather thought through and overcome with
rationalism and willful changes in behavior. We must realize, too, that in many parts
of the world today, life remains very hazardous in this regard and that fear itself is
essential to survival.

It is not irrational to fear being run over while crossing a city street, but it almost
certainly is irrational to fear being struck by a bus in your living room. The key
discernment is whether my apprehensions have any reasonable basis in reality - in
genuine threat. If not, only a consistent adjustment in thinking (a process which
may entail seeking help and guidance from others) can deliver me from the grip of
baseless fear.

Xenophobia is not racism - the latter is a rationalization of the former. But where
fear of the different has become more of a hindrance than a help in human society
and may itself lessen chances of survival, it must be supplanted with openness and
tolerance through changes in attitude and behavior.

Evolving a sense of spiritual connection between human beings has, in my

experience, been vital to making those changes. It is far more difficult to fear and
feel hostile toward someone whom I consider my "brother/sister beneath the skin."

No
Xenophobia is not a natural human behaviour

it's a modified human behaviour This is because we were born and created as
innocent as no vessels but as the tend to grow up we get to be influenced by
different factors in our societies that can determine how you are shaped by your
environment and tend to be exposed to various things, that at the end will lead you
to confusion about your environment and you can't even be able to identify what is
good or bad or what to be afraid of or what not to fear. Fear is the natural action,
but in terms of xenophobia it's a human shaped behaviour that they made it a habit
in fearing other even they are not as strange as the term defined. In the context of
todays world, we people are confused and we don't want to live in diverse areas
anymore, but rather introduce the term apartheid that was common in Namibia
before independence, and this is totally the leading term in defining xenophobia in
conjunction with the killing of innocent people (Foreigners), even they are the one
boosting up our economies... Xenophobia definition must be changes to " the act of
killing the innocent invaders or the immigrant or the foreigners with the intention of
living in a free area with no interruption of foreigners or immigrants"

I say no Nobody has the right to take the life of another person.

How can someone say that he is against of violence if he thinks that xenophobia is a
natural human behavior?
Would you like if your family go to another country for a holidays or for better
opportunities and than you find out that they are dead?

Does not make sense, we are all human,we should love and take care of each other
even if we do not have the same culture, do not do what you do not like to another
people, that is ugly .

We all have feelings, we are all God"s son, the two only differences between us is
the way we think and the colors but it is not a problem , let"s live in peace.

Xenophobia Derived from Ignorance

Humans are naturally afraid of the unknown. However, people who are xenophobic
had to learn such behavior from somewhere. In today's modern society, there is no
excuse for xenophobia. Humans are more mobile than ever thanks to airplanes, the
Internet and cell phones. Xenophobia is an antiquated fear from 200 years ago that
led to human bondage in America. Although fear is natural, teaching a fellow human
being to be afraid doesn't help.