Why do people seek a better life in another country and to whom immigration is contraindicated
'14.07.2020'
I think that immigration is an internal contradiction expressed in spatial movement.
I wrote and thought ... is it possible to patent this expression somehow, so that everyone uses it, but for me the money flowed? Haha three times ...
Well, but seriously, everything really starts inside a person, right? And it's not at all that many borders are open and that the Internet today makes it possible for everyone to “go around the world” without getting up from the couch. You can look for a country, find friends in it, and ask questions. It is not very difficult to find immigration lawyers remotely and find out what are the prospects for moving and legalization. All this is there. But without inner anxiety, without constant itching in different places, without dissatisfaction with what is happening around you, I think no one will do this.
Let's deal.
There is a country, and in it a city or a village, and a person lives there who is dissatisfied with everything. Parents, school, university, work, people around. He is annoyed by animals on the ground and clouds in the sky. He is sick of TV shows, and of everyone, no matter what is broadcast. It feels like a fish partially washed up on land. You put your head in the water, breathe a little, and again into the air, and then there is a stench and rubbish, demonstrations, lack of money, dullness, boredom and continuous vegetation. This internal discrepancy does not occur for everyone, moreover, for very few. The majority of the people live in their country, and if they are not always happy, then they are satisfied with what is happening, they endure it. No, they are not against it being better, but they are not planning any revolutionary upheavals, and they are not going to leave the "old nest" either.
On the subject: Is it worth it to move to America and how to understand whether you have taken root or is it time to return
Immigration is the lot of the brave and desperate. This group does not include those who were simply “squeezed out”, forced to leave: Rostropovich, Sharansky, Nuriev, Brodsky ... and a hundred other names over the past hundred years. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those brave souls in whom the rejection of reality causes endless fermentation inside the body. The soup of discontent is boiling there and slowly, little by little, pushes the person to the door. I was “pushed” for fifteen years, no less. That is, it is a process. Today, however, young people are traveling, who "boil" faster and "boil away" easier. What are their benefits? Lack of fear. Reasons? You can always come back. With or without victory, but the doors of the “home” do not slam shut in front of your nose, as it was in mine and in many cases in those very seventies and eighties.
An important point. If the reason for the perceived dissatisfaction actually lies in the person himself, in his rejection of himself as a given, in the inability to live in society, if there are psychological deviations that prevent him from living and enjoying simple things such as a sandwich with sausage and a good movie ... - then immigration probably won't save him. It is not easy to understand and not immediately obvious, but moving to another country often only exacerbates these internal contradictions, and this journey does not always end well, and sometimes even tragically.
Immigration is the rebellion of one soul against the shackles of reality, put on it in the place of residence. And again, I will repeat, these chains are not physical, but nevertheless they are. They will object to me that many today simply go to earn money and return. They will say that they are not being pushed and that in their souls they have no fundamental disagreement with the system of which they are a part. May be. Although, if this is so, it is not clear why most of them never return home if there is no rejection of the environment in them. Well, yes, there is more fun abroad, more varied food and entertainment. Maybe, although I still think people are looking for a home. Not the homeland, not the country of residence, but the house. And what is the house? This is a place on the globe where a person feels good. And we will not delve into the semantics of the word “good” or discuss what is good and how “good” it is for everyone. There is too much mixed up and confused. We won't figure it out without half a liter ... I am for immigration. It brings fresh blood and resists the swampy stagnation of ideas, countries and systems. It also helps to improve the quality of the planetary gene pool through natural selection.
On the subject: A look into the future: what kind of specialists will be needed in the post-quarantine world and what to do with the rest
For example, there is no special immigration to Finland. You rarely meet a black or Asian there. On the other hand, they are the first in the world in terms of the incidence of diabetes mellitus. There is no inflow of fresh genetic material, so they are boiled “in their own juice”. Mother nature cannot choose something “fresh”. This is from the section “payment for the purity of the nation”.
If the goal of the newcomers is to test themselves, to conquer a new country, where they were blown by the wind, and they want to know if they will be able to find their home here, I am for. Go ahead, my friends, and fear nothing. Feel mild indigestion anywhere on your body? Do you attribute it to being in the wrong area? Hooray. We packed the suitcase and drove off. A student or not, a husband to his wife or just like that, to scout out the situation, or maybe with a strong desire to see the world and show oneself. Do you think so? Excellent, so there is something to show and the powder in the flasks is not damp. We will, therefore, shoot. In a good, universal sense of the word.
Good luck and fair wind to all travelers. You will certainly need it.
If you want to talk with me about it - go to my page in facebook.
ForumDaily Woman is not responsible for the content of blogs and may not share the views of the author.
