Reading the title of this text, you will surely realize that the text is going to deal with the question of immigration
Firstly, it is important to point out humans should not be stripped out of their biological components. What I mean here is: humans just like other biological creatures consciously or subconsciously act in a way in which they have been programmed to by their genetics and the collision between these genetics and the environment which they have either decided to expose themselves to, or were forced to exposed themselves to.
One of the concepts that Darwin proposed is that tribalism of human beings is optimal. In his "Descent of Man", he stated that a tribe which includes many members who collude, aid, and were able to sacrifice would be flourish of other tribes without those tendencies. (p.132) This statement alone allows us to inquire as to whether the way we’ve become, and now exist, is a product of an in-group preference which was optimal for our survival.
Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the behavioral outcomes, have been shaped by biological evolution, just as human physiology has been shaped by evolution, and just as other animals have been shaped by the same processes of evolution as well. Different types of necessary adaptations necessitate different sociospatial geometries. [Douglas T. Kenrick, normal P. Li, and Jonathan Butner 2003]
There are a number of key findings which I would like to talk about here. The topic at hand is in vs outgroup preference, however, for the sake of this text and the argument that it makes, we ought to look at it through the lens of immigration.
"First, humans make spontaneous ingroup–outgroup categorizations and preferentially
help ingroup members over outgroup members. People sometimes perform quite costly
helping acts on behalf of ethnic groups, religious groups, businesses, or states (Van Vugt,
Snyder, Tyler, & Biel, 2000). In life-and-death situations, people are more likely to help kin
than nonkin (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994). Intergroup discrimination also occurs
under minimal group conditions. Many experiments have shown that people preferentially
give money or points to ingroup rather than outgroup members even when people are divided
into groups based on a trivial criterion, such as the preference for a particular painter (Brewer,
1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Second, humans appear to be unique in their capacity to form deep emotional
attachments to large, anonymous groups that are merely symbolic in many ways. Once people
identify with a particular group, such as a sports team, they feel good when it does well and
suffer when it does poorly (Branscombe & Wann, 1991). Empathy, an emotional experience that often moves people to behave altruistically, does not move us as much when the potential
recipients are members of outgroups (Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006; Stürmer,
Snyder, & Omoto, 2005). Humans also display loyalty to symbolic groups, sticking with them
despite being better off by allying themselves with other groups (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle,
1998; Van Vugt & Hart, 2004; Zidaniuk & Levine, 2001).
Third, humans dislike group members who are disloyal. In opinion groups, members
who hold different opinions than the majority are disliked and ignored—the black sheep effect
(Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988). Members of task groups who are not pulling their
weight for the group—the “bad apples”—are subject to scorn, exclusion, or punishment (Fehr
& Gächter, 2002). One recent study found that group members spend a substantial portion of
their experimental earnings (25%) to altruistically punish disloyal ingroup members (Van
Vugt & Chang, 2008).
Fourth, humans have a tendency to derogate or even actively harm outgroup members.
For instance, people tend to think that outgroup members are less moral and trustworthy than
members of the ingroup (Judd & Park, 1988). People denigrate members of outgroups when
they get an opportunity and feel Schadenfreude when a rival group loses status (Leach,
Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003); they even deny typical human emotions to outgroups
(i.e., infrahumanization; Leyens et al., 2001). Finally, people find it easy to morally justify
aggressive actions against members of outgroups (Brewer & Brown, 1998).
Fifth, intergroup contexts are often automatically perceived as competitive and hostile.
When individuals play Prisoner’s Dilemma Games against other individuals, they tend to
make cooperative decisions; yet, when individuals form groups and play the same game
against other groups—or play as leaders on behalf of their groups (Johnson et al., 2006)—
they tend to make competitive decisions (a phenomenon known as the group discontinuity
effect; e.g., Insko et al., 1994). Fear and distrust of outgroups seem to underlie the discontinuity effect (Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990). When groups (rather
than individuals) work together, people almost automatically expect the other party to cheat,
which then serves as justification for a pre-emptive strike (Johnson et al., 2006; cf. Snyder,
1984).
Sixth, intergroup helping sometimes happens. When individual members of ingroups
and outgroups form a friendship or cooperative partnership, this can serve as a catalyst for
reducing intergroup prejudice and hostility. A successful example is the Jigsaw class room in
which school children of different ethnic groups are encouraged to work together on
cooperative tasks, and, under the right conditions, these activities promote positive intergroup
relations (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). Furthermore, high-status groups
sometimes offer help to low-status groups to affirm their superior status—an example of
competitive altruism (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). However, as Nadler and Halabi (2006) have
recently shown in the context of relations between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews, low-status
group members (Arabs) might refuse help from high-status group members (Jews) if they
believe that the status relations between the groups are either unstable or illegitimate
Seventh, finding from the anthropological and sociological literatures indicate that
managing intergroup relations is primarily a male activity. In most societies, intergroup
aggression and warfare occurs almost exclusively between coalitions of men in the form of
armies, militias, street gangs, and hooligans (Goldstein, 2003); and most victims of intergroup
conflict are men (Daly & Wilson, 1988; Keeley, 1996; Staub, 1999). However, men are also
the primary peacemakers between groups (De Waal, 2006). Men (but not women) even suffer
vicariously from intergroup competition. Dutch scientists observed a higher number of
cardiovascular deaths among Dutch male soccer fans on the day that their national football
team was eliminated on penalties from a major tournament (Witte, Bots, Hoes, & Grobbee,
2000).
Eighth, and finally, humans share some aspects of their tribal psychology with other
species such as ants, termites, bees, and—our closest living genetic relatives—chimpanzees.
Wild chimpanzees form coalitions to defend their territory against neighboring troops and are
known to attack and kill “foreign” chimps, which is also limited to males (Goodall, 1986;
Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). Furthermore, female chimps can safely migrate between
communities, whereas male chimps are often injured or killed." (Van Vugt, M., & Park. J. (2008). The tribal instinct hypothesis: Evolution and the social psychology of intergroup relations. In S. Sturmer & M. Snyder, New Directions in Helping and Intergroup Behavior. )
Given the data collected and produced by Vugt and Park, we see that having the least number of various groups within society could prove to be the most optimal way to avoid conflict, violence, discrimination, racism, and xenophobia. The above text proves one more thing that is yet to be recognized by the masses - namely that the question of immigration, and perhaps even sociology at large is a question of scientific nature, as opposed to an ethical, or even a humanitarian one.
In Preferences and Beliefs in In group Favoritism Everett, Faber, Crockett made a number of very similar discoveries. They claim that "Across many different contexts, people act more prosocially towards members of their own group relative to those outside their group." Here, they explain this behavior by stating that "Social preferences are likely to have been evolutionary advantageous because cooperation was typically in our longterm best interest". They also claim that these behaviors might potentially be unconscious since "Humans must be equipped biologically to function effectively in many social situations without excessive reliance on cognitive processes, and so these processes are likely to be a part of human nature" (Hoffman, 1981; Van Vugt and Van Lange, 2006).
Given the biological characteristics of human beings which are the result of evolution, genetics, and various environments in which the humans have evolved in, should the question of immigration be discussed by ethicists, politicians, and perhaps the general public, or should this be a concern for biologists, and psychologists?