Sharply contrasting is a comment at a coffee bar near the weekly Saturday market, when one non-indigenous inhabitant of Pézenas remarked audibly, and even more so paradoxically to another that there were rather “too many foreigners in the town these days.” Further, reminding us that children may also be blinded by their stereotypical perceptions of others, when the very young Forest Gump climbs reluctantly onto the school bus for the first time he is immediately subjected to peer discrimination not only because he is a new arrival but also due to his calipered braced legs, until, that is, a young pretty girl offers him a welcome seat on the bus next to her. The scene foretells us of familiar social situations to come. What appears to us initially as socially unacceptable may well yet prove to be a much valued and deeper source of running water.
  When faced with the complex task of writing about immigration my immediate sociological reaction is statistical. However, intermixed with a socio-historical perspective, numbers alone are incapable of dealing with what is at heart a human issue and not merely quantitative.
  In this regard,German sociologist Max Weber indirectly provided us with some useful tools for rationalising immigration in its
contemporary environment. Among his social interactionist theories about society, economics and politics, he preferred to emphasise the meaning that we as individuals attach to our own actions. Of course, this does have ethical and spiritual dimensions. Therefore, when conducting research about any trend in society he suggested we apply what he called a “verstehen” approach. Put simply, we need to be able to place ourselves in someone else’s shoes in order to be able to understand the object of our research. Personally, it appears impossible to interpret immigration any other way.
  Bearing in mind Weber was particularly interested in the eventual predominance of bureaucracy in human historical development, he was able to make what I consider to be a very poignant observation of current relevance here in his work, “Politics as a Vocation” where, in the growth and evolution of government the state would develop to the extent of claiming “a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence”.
  Debate over gun ownership in the USA as a constitutional right or not is a graphic example of this statist trend today. This brings me naturally to the point about immigration. It is a matter which has been politicised (bureaucratised) to the extent that we are
almost no longer able to understand its intrinsic human nature. In our voting democracies almost everywhere we have allowed successive governments to hijack the debate which swings from apparent laisser-faire to what appears absolute regulation.
 The official mass media seems to run alongside this political rhythm with indifference apart from infrequent reports on people-smuggling and the most sensational of the dangerous journeys some economic migrants make to access wealthier economies. Watching TV programmes on “Border Security” which gives a stilted Australian perspective on immigration processes, is as far as many are prepared to go on what is today an extremely sensitive issue.
  Because our affluent western economic model is looking somewhat fragile and vulnerable today, once again, this heightens the
statistical nature of immigration and the imagined mediatised threat to our daily lives. Politicians also exploit this situation to personal advantage depending on which aspect is likely to win more votes.
  Similarly, closer to home, we find in our vibrant, colourful and ethnically diverse community a microcosm of the same issue
afflicting national politics and the popular mind throughout the developed world.
  Amidst the brouhaha of mostly irrational sentiments about cultural differences and stereotypes inherent in the immigration debate, where can we find positive and trustworthy solutions? At this juncture, and rightly so, I have to look across toward Franklin
D Roosevelt who stated to the American people, “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are
descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” Any telephone or business directory demonstrates the objective reality of his viewpoint. The wide variety of surnames illustrates vividly the social reality. In like mind, Alexander de Tocqueville, claimed that people who are essentially contented do not go into exile but only those who experience economic (or political) misfortune. Moreover, awareness of the history of humankind is to be aware at the same time of this incessant movement of humanity in search of knowledge, economic fortune or survival in cultural nomadism. We should not be ignorant of the fact that many of us work overseas to create a better quality of life for ourselves and our families. In addition, many of us travel afar out of a time-honoured
sense of curiosity about other places beyond our own limited horizons. Further, natural and man-made disasters have been an all too regular feature of human migration. Reassuringly, it is in this latter context of human suffering the strongest sense of mutual empathy and material response is aroused.
  Max Frisch, the Swiss journalist and writer once said in relation to this vexed problem of immigration, “We asked for workers. We got people instead.”
Such a need, exacerbated by tragic war losses; economic growth models dictated by multi-national corporations and rapidly declining fertility rates in our wealthy societies, have all contributed to the dehumanisation of immigration as a subject for discussion. The historical perspective has also been conveniently lost.
  Therefore, in view of these factors it is important to emphasise that in our own local community we are all people too: diverse in our
backgrounds; interesting in our individuality; constantly on the move and intricately interdependent.
 Both culturally and historically, may it always be so.