There are two contrasting styles of debating an issue: those who prefer normative arguments, and those who choose a more descriptive line of reasoning. Most intellectuals nowadays adopt the former approach, but the truth unfortunately is generally bitter. The right way to tackle the immigration problem is to discourage it by reducing the incentive for prospective immigrants to permanently abandon their homes, families and communities to find a better job in a foreign country and a radically different culture, where they might be materially better off but could find themselves socially isolated and emotionally desolate. In order to minimise the incentive for immigration, we need to revamp the global economic order which makes the rich nations get richer and the poor poorer. Once the relative imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing world is narrowed down, then there will be no need for the people of one region and culture to relocate to another, except on a temporary basis for education, travelling and cultural exchange. Notwithstanding, throughout our anthropological evolution, from our nomado-pastoral, hunting-gathering phase to the golden era of agriculture, humans have never lived as individuals, but as social groups, clans and tribes. The ‘individual’ is only an modern construct that has been conceived to suit the needs of urbanised, industrial economies. There can be no two views about the fact that individuals must have intellectual autonomy and freedom of investigation and information. However, ‘individualism’ as an ideology with complete disregard for the innate social nature of human beings only nurtures lost souls who sometimes find solace in existential acrobatics and sometimes in alcoholism and drug addictions. In order to minimise the incentive for immigration, we need to revamp the global economic order which makes the rich nations get richer and the poor poorer Humanism only implies that we should be just and fair in our approach: that we should try to understand that subaltern people and cultures also have their legitimate material, moral and social needs and aspirations. Instead of imposing our Orientalist ‘vision’ on them, we should let them choose and facilitate and expedite their choice and vision. The human mindset, attitudes and behaviours are structured and conditioned by their respective cultures and environments. A person born and bred in Pakistan or India generally has more in common with the people of the subcontinent. For instance, when the first generation Indo-Pakistani immigrants relocated to foreign countries, they find it hard to adjust in a radically different culture initially. It would be unwise to generalise, however, because it depends upon the disposition and inclination of immigrants, their level of education and the value system which they have internalised during their formative years. There are many sub-cultures within cultures and numerous family cultures within those sub-cultures. Educated Indo-Pakistani liberals generally integrate well into the Western societies, but many conservative Pakistani and Indian immigrants, particularly from backward rural areas, find it hard to adjust in a radically different Western culture. On the other hand, many immigrants from underprivileged backgrounds find the conservative societies of the Gulf countries more conducive to their individual and familial integration and well-being. Regardless, the rise of Trump in America, Brexit in the UK and anti-immigration protests all over Europe, North America and Australia are the manifestation of the underlying sentiment against the globalists’ normative approach toward the issue of immigration, which generally goes against the interests of the working classes in developed countries. For instance, while joining the European Union, Britain compromised on the rights of its working class in order to protect the interests of its bankers and industrialists, because free trade with the rest of the EU countries spurred British exports. The British working classes overwhelmingly voted in favour of Brexit because after Britain’s entry into the EU and when the agreements on abolishing internal border checks between the EU member states became effective, the cheaper labour force from the Eastern and Central Europe flooded the markets of Western Europe, and consequently the wages of native British workers dropped. It also became difficult for them to find jobs, because foreigners were willing to do the same job for less money, in effect raising the level of unemployment among the British workers and consequent discontentment with the EU. The subsequent lifting of restrictions on the Romanians and Bulgarians to work in the European Union in January 2014 further exacerbated the problem, and consequently the majority of the British electorate voted in a June 2016 referendum to opt out of the EU. The biggest incentive for the British working class to vote for Brexit is that the East European workers will have to leave Britain after its exit from the EU, and the jobs will once again become available with better wages to the native British workforce. Finally, instead of offering band aid solutions, we need to revise the prevailing global economic order and formulate prudent and far-reaching economic and trade policies that can reduce the imbalance of wealth distribution between the developed and the developing nations. In effect, reducing the incentive for immigrants to seek employment in developed countries. The writer is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism Published in Daily Times, December 21st 2017.