Why Do People Risk Everything to Cross Borders?

Questioner: Acharya Ji, I was just reading the recent news of the migration from Morocco to Spain. So it actually happened because the Spanish government recently launched and announced some kind of program to grant legal status to a lot of migrants, and this somehow triggered this huge influx, among other things also. It was so crazy that, you know, the majority of it was youth, but it was also seen that there were literally women with newborn babies, you know, just wanting to somehow escape from whatever is happening in Morocco without even much planning. So I just wanted to know, what is this huge craze that is there?

Acharya Prashant: It is powered by both things. One, the conditions in your homeland can actually be bad. Second, there is that psychological urge to have more, to be more, to consume more. Both these things get together. Wisdom lies in seeing which component dominates your movement.

What is certain is that both of these will be present. But as the country receiving these immigrants, as the country now responsible for admitting them or turning them back, you must have a mechanism that sieves, that distinguishes, that tests. Obviously, we have said such a mechanism will be imperfect. But better to have an imperfect one than nothing. Right?

I am no supporter of people entering other lands and remaining strangers to that land. In that sense, exhibiting violence on the pre-existing people of that land. Right? When a puppy enters your house, the puppy is not supposed to start biting everybody in the house. Right?

I'm not asking nations to be indiscreet in admitting people because whenever there would be that influx of migrants, we have to remember it would be powered by both the things. One is there are people who are genuinely being, let's say, persecuted. There are people who have an urge to learn, to know, to grow, to contribute. Admit them. Admit them. They'll prove to be good citizens and good companions. They will enrich the host country.

And then there are others. There are others who are just moving around like opportunists. Right? They are arriving at a place as an invader does, sometimes as an infection does. They just want to suck in. They say, "We are here to loot, to rob, to plunder." And no country is obliged to entertain plunderers. So eject them. But first of all, please identify them correctly. It is a matter of discretion, not emotion.

And emotions run high in both directions. There are those who say, "Admit both the puppy and the thief." And then there are those who say, "No, no, no. Keep your doors closed to both." No. Be discreet. Discretion is the answer.

Questioner: There are always, in the immigration issue, especially in the European countries, also in the US, these two sides.

Acharya Prashant: There are always these two sides. And ideals won't help. Ideals won't help. Wisdom helps. Discretion helps. Facts help. Not ideals, not ideologies.

Questioner: Please, can there be any policy solution, specifically?

Acharya Prashant: : Discretion is the policy. Institute mechanisms to filter the immigrants or the applicants wisely. Don't paint everybody with the same brush. Have a nice, layered, nuanced way of checking and filtering without bias. And that can be done you see, it's not all that difficult. The migrant or applicant is standing in front of you. You can ask him to go through as many tests as you like, but let there be impartial tests.

Questioner: Most of the opposition comes from cultural arguments that if the immigrants are coming, they have to assimilate, they have to learn a language. You know, then we are fine to admit them. Is there any merit behind this?

Acharya Prashant: Yes, there is merit. Even in that, you see, there are two components. You are admitting someone, and the fellow says, "I will not learn your language at all." There are going to be practical problems. It is not a matter of ideology or chauvinism.

Think of your organization, for example. Will you admit someone and the fellow says, "No, I will not read the scriptures. No, I'll not sit in the sessions"? No, you have a problem. And this is not cultural hegemony. This is not even cultural assimilation. This is simply a requirement. It's not being imposed. The choice belongs to the other side. You can decide whether or not to come to this place, this country, or this organization. But what is certain is, if you come here, there are certain rules that you have to follow, and the rules are not egoic. The rules are coming from a very practical place.

So I agree that if you move to another land, not for a month or two, or a year or two, but if you move there for good, you must learn their language. What problems can a person have with a new language? Why not learn it?

Similarly, if you have moved to a place, why do you want to very loudly continue to demonstrate very visible signs of your native culture? Why? Is that not aggression? In a public place, if you continue to wear what you are accustomed to wearing, how is that not an act of optical aggression directed at the citizens of the new country, your host country?

So that's one part of it. The other part is, just because somebody is a little powerless, a little helpless, and has entered your place, your organization, or your country, that does not mean that you will impose your will and your prejudice on that person. So that's the other side of the coin.

I can say, "If you are here, then please come over, sit, let's talk." But I cannot say, "If you have to come here, then you must necessarily cover your head or wear that kind of uniform." Again, it's a matter of discretion you see, do you understand?

As an immigrant, I must display a willingness and sensitivity for very practical reasons. And as the host, I must be careful that I'm not being hegemonic or psychologically dominant. Both parties have to restrain themselves, and then you can have a nice relationship.

I go to some place and they keep telling me, "Change your name." Now that's a problem. But if they tell me, "Please learn our language," I think that is sensible. They tell me, "Change your religion." Now that's a problem. But if they tell me, "You know, we don't wear these kinds of clothes here. Please dress up a little more suitably." I don't think that is a problem.

You go to a corporate party, they declare the dress code, don't they? And you abide by that. You abide by that. And you don't see that as somebody walking on your rights, do you? All kinds of casual parties, they will say, "Okay, the theme is jungle." And you will not say, "But I'm not an animal," will you? If the host declares the theme is jungle, you will dress up like a pig or something, whatever. That is fine. And if you don't find that fine, kindly refuse the invite.

You cannot say, "I will come to the party, and the theme is jungle, and I am dressed in formals, three-piece." Now you are playing the spoiler. This is not done. You're spoiling the fun. You don't like the theme or the party, simply don't go. But you are saying, "I will go. I will enter that country, but I'll wear what I want to wear." No. That's not done, sir. That's not done.

Do you say the same thing in the military? Do you say the same thing even in your office? Can you arrive at your workplace in your undergarments? I mean, only in your undergarments. You don't do that, right? You follow that norm, which is fine. It helps things work. It's simply practical, sensible.

So the host must not turn into a bully, and the immigrant must not say that, "I want to preserve my conditioning in the name of my individuality." I don't like the word integration or assimilation because both of these smell a bit hegemonic. They sound a bit like conversion. But I'm all for discretion. Discretion. No?

Questioner: Just one argument that comes to mind many times. Let's say I'm a person born in a poor country, or a third-world country, or whatever, and I feel it is my right, in a way, to go to the US or Europe, just because there are some people there who have captured that place, that real estate, and they have the power.

Acharya Prashant: It is nobody's right. Yes, everybody has the opportunity. Even the way the global national system works, people have opportunities to migrate. Rights are not there. If you want rights, then you'll have to dissolve the national order itself. Then you must erase national boundaries, and then everybody is a free bird. Migrate to whichever place you want. But then you cannot have nationalism, patriotism, and such things. Then you'll have to say the entire Earth belongs to everybody, and people are free to live and move as per their wish.

And that's not happening anytime soon. So the global national order will remain. And as long as that order remains, people don't have the right to move as per their wish. Yes, the opportunity is there. Go follow the system. Apply for a visa, then apply for whatever, green card, then citizenship. There is an established process. I wonder who is the one who thinks that he has the entitlement to just move to another country and participate in the party.

Can you even enter somebody's wedding party without an invitation? You do that and you get thrashed, right? How can you enter somebody's country without invitation and acceptance? Obviously, you will not be welcomed.

And if you want that, I told the solution. The solution is to then say the ego has dissolved, and therefore there are no nations anymore. So there can be no politics in the name of real estate. Now you can fly from India to the US or from Morocco to Spain and say, "Well, you know, there are no boundaries."

But if boundaries are to be erased from the map, you'll have to ask yourself, have you erased boundaries from your heart? As long as the ego remains, it survives and thrives only in boundaries.

You cannot say, "Inside, I have so many boundaries. For example, this is my family." Now that's a boundary. You cannot say, "These four people are my family, but I can just, by way of privilege, fly away to the US and enter there." No. You are the one still believing in boundaries. When you say, "This is my family," then you are drawing a boundary, and you are saying, "These four people are mine, and the outsiders are not mine." How can boundaries be erased on the map when boundaries remain inside of you? So let's not be hypocrites.

As long as the interiors of the human being remain divided, the same divisions will show up on the maps as well. So they are going to be there, and therefore you better follow the legal route.

Questioner: Namaste Acharya Ji. My name is Shabbangi, and I have been part of the data community for more than two years now. I worked as an IT architect and lived in Munich, Germany, for the past 10 years and have been recently in the UK.

Today, my question is on the huge migration happening globally. Recently, there's news of around 60,000 people trying to cross the international border from Morocco to the establishment place, and the crisis being so huge that military action has to be forced. We also heard that nearly 14 died while trying to cross the border. We have seen similar situations across other international borders too, for example, the USA and Mexico.

My question is that what inside of human beings is so convinced that their actual life lies somewhere beyond an international border or any border which they are yet to cross, even to the point of risking death?

Acharya Prashant: There can be perfectly legitimate and justifiable reasons for crossing over into some other land, other country. The fundamental thing is that human beings did not evolve to remain confined to a particular piece of land. Right? So movement is natural, prakritik. It's all fine. We love migratory birds, don't we? But when it comes to migratory humans, we look at them with suspicion or even derision.

Why not ban the migratory birds then? What the hell are they doing coming to this place, that place? Because that's how prakriti operates. You're not supposed to remain confined to your village. It's all okay. Move. And the apparatus is built to know the right reasons to move. The climate crisis, for example, will result in mass migration, and that will not have psychological reasons. That will have perfectly justified physical reasons.

So people will migrate, and they must migrate. A place is not going to receive rain anymore. Who is senseless enough to stay put there still for ideological or emotional reasons? Why must you do that? And so there is going to be migration, and migration has always been happening.

If you look at the various peoples of the world, you will mostly find migrants. The USA is a country of migrants. Almost nobody there is a native. The entire population migrated to that place at some point or the other. And that too in the not too recent, too distant past. It has all happened over the last few hundred years.

Similarly, other places, in India too, we know of four different kinds of races that exist. There is that which can be broadly called as the North Indian Aryan thing. Then the South Indian Dravidian thing. Then there are the natives, the originals, the tribals, and then there are people of the Northeast.

So obviously, people were continuously moving and mingling, and all that is not just fine but probably beautiful. Nature wants you to move. It is society that places the burden to remain loyal to your little ancestral farmland in your patriarchal village.

And I'm pretty sure even this gathering that we have here, how many of you have been living in Greater Noida since ten generations? Please raise your hand. You everybody here, every single person here is a migrant. You all came from some other places, no?In fact, some would have entered this city just a few months back, some a few years back. All that is fine.

Now, very distinct from prakritik movement is the movement inspired by the ego. The ego says, "I have to move so as to have a better lifestyle," which simply means more consumption. "I must migrate to Europe or to the US so that I can consume more." These are two very different dimensions that can be found even in the life of the same person.

One could decide, for example, to go to Europe to pursue a PhD, and at that moment that migration is just very fine because that kind of education is probably not available in India. So the fellow says, "I must go to the US or to some other place, maybe Germany. I have to go there because I want to get educated," which is fine. And then three or five years later, the same person says, "But you know, there's more money to be had here. Cars are cheaper. So therefore, I'll stay put." Now, that's a different axis.

Do you understand this?

There is a movement for the right reasons coming from the prakritik center, and then there is a movement coming from the center of delusion. Ego blocks the right movement, and ego also causes the wrong kind of movement.

For example, "No, no, I must not go to Europe to pursue higher education because if I go to Europe, I'll get spoiled. If I go to Europe, you know, I'll start consuming alcohol, and the girls, they are all so bad. They'll seduce me and make me do all kinds of immoral things. So I'll pursue my PhD in Dhannalal College. There is this little kasba next to my village where you can buy a PhD for 800 rupees. I'll pursue it from there." So the ego is blocking movement, right?

Ego can work both ways. It can block the right movement, and it can cause the wrong movement.

Equally, when your PhD was completed and it was your time to return, and you could have had a nice job and a fulfilling career, there were great applications of your PhD waiting to be implemented in India. The place really needed the application of what you had just learned. Then you said, "No, no, I have to remain there because you see, I have just one life, and I have to care for my lifestyle. Plus, now I have Kim in my life, and Kim says, ‘You know, I won't go to a third-world country.’"

Do you see this?

There you go. So migration can be a perfectly, perfectly nice thing, and in the same breath I say migration can be something that will only deepen your suffering because you are going to another place as a new object of the ego in the hope of fulfillment. If you go to another place in the hope of bread and butter, that is fine. But if you go to another place in the hope of fulfillment, you will return empty-handed. No place, no object of the ego can offer you fulfillment.

For knowledge, please migrate. If physical security is threatened, please migrate. Fine. For the sake of sheer livelihood, please migrate. If your native place cannot offer you even the basic standards of decent living, then you are fully justified in migrating to another place. But if you are migrating because you know you will get a great life there, then you will be just disappointed, or you will participate in the kind of consumptive ruin that the West is demonstrating every day.

When migrants are entering a developed country, therefore, things have to be seen clearly. Are they entering because they are physically threatened? Are they entering because they are literally starving? Or are they entering as invaders too? These are two different things.

It's raining. It's raining cats and dogs, and that little puppy is trying to sneak into your house. That's one kind of migration. And the puppy has lost its mother, right? And you hear it crying outside your door, "Please open the door." Allow that kind of migration. And then there is the thief, the burglar trying to break into your house because it has desire. Please block that kind of migration.

The problem cuts both ways. There are those who say, "No, no, if you are allowing the puppy, also allow the thief." No, no. There has to be a distinction. And then there are those who say, "No, do not allow the thief and also do not allow the puppy." No, no. Please, please don't do this. The puppy deserves some sanctuary, some asylum. Allow that migration.

Questioner: It's the ego deciding whether it's the situation of a puppy who lost his mother or it's the situation of a thief, actually, who just…?

Acharya Prashant: So, because you are asking this question, therefore, you have to make this decision for yourself. And you must also ask yourself why seeing that distinction is so difficult. We cannot see that distinction among others because we do not see that distinction in our own inner operations. The thief poses as the puppy, and the puppy looks like the thief in our own inner life.

Therefore, we cannot distinguish one from the other when it comes to our outer life also. So we then want blanket solutions. We say, "Ban both the thief and the puppy." Or we say, "Let's be very liberal and allow both the puppy and the thief." No. One has to be allowed, and the other has to be blocked. And yes, the filtering will always be imperfect. But imperfect filtering is much better than those blanket solutions, either of them.

Questioner: Acharya Ji, is there a chance that this continuous imperfect filtering eventually gets better, and how?

Acharya Prashant: One doesn't know what becomes of it. It all depends on your intent. If you have honesty, you will filter honestly. And if you filter honestly, you can have a great land of migrants.

Think of all the Jews that fled Germany. They went to several other countries and enriched them. Ask those countries, and they'll say, "We couldn't have reached the current levels of knowledge, of prosperity, of technology without the contribution of Jews that fled Germany." So many countries are actually powered by immigrants. So you block immigrants, and you are blocking all the goodness that can come to you along with immigrants. You'll be left behind.

Yes, the thief is to be blocked. We remember that. Yes. But the puppy can grow into a greyhound that one day saves your life. You can take your time and think of more reasons to declare the puppy a thief. We can meet next week.

Questioner: Thank you, Acharya Ji.

Acharya Prashant: Yeah. Sorry to disappoint.

show_less