A Better Message

I criticized this tweet. Now, I have to do the advocate and offer an alternative.

True. Public support needs to be won on behalf of migrants. It is impossible, -even if not impossible, it would be meaningless and stupid to implement something when there is so much opposition to it. And the tweet is an attempt to counter-act that opposition.

There was another version of the same type of poster with nurses, doctors, etc. basically implying that they come and work and contribute to the host country. Something like this:

I guess this is a better version. Still... The problem remains.
        This is playing the card of profit. It implies that you will be or you might be benefiting from the immigrants coming over to "your" country. There are two things that are offset here:
        The first, you are fueling the selfishness of the people. Okay, it may be said you are taking advantage of people's selfishness to pave the way to your cause. But then again, you do this by fueling selfishness.: Which is at the base of the problem.
        The second, if we are to arrive at a better world and sustain it for the next generation, we need to do some radical change in the mindset of people and start doing that by undermining the core beliefs about the political state of the world, and we need to appeal to and address principles.
***

The problem still remains: People who do not sympathize with migrants or "foreigners" will not change their minds by looking at such posters. So, what is the best way to counter-act the opposition to the mobility of people?
       We have to first identify the problem so that we can attack it at the root. I start with the simple one: The nature of man (or our society!)
       We are pretty selfish in the Western world. We like the comforts of our modern lives and we'd like to keep our privileges. Sure, there are many people sacrificing and helping in many ways. Ah, don't think they can avoid attacks. People who want to hit and criticize someone, find an excuse to hit and criticize. They claim those who try to be of help are “morally vain.” There might be truth to that claim. Even if so, it would be a rightful vanity if you ask me.
        Anyway... Some people do not help, but they feel what's being done by the governments in our name is not right. They feel compassion for refugees, they feel compassion even for the migrants, they say they'd do the same if they were in their shoes. On the other hand, they cannot bring themselves to do that thing which seems as too much of a self-sacrifice.
        These “compassionate” people are afraid of being crucified even when they express their understanding, lest their empathy be seen as approval. After all, there is a mob out there. A mob ready to attack. So the compassionates right away apologetically state: “I'm not claiming that we open borders or anything...”
        On the other hand... They don't want to come off as a brutal person. It's all about how we want to see ourselves in the mirror, you know? And how we want to reflect ourselves for others to see...

So what are you going to do? There seem to be three choices here (if you exclude letting people die because of your "borders".) Are you going to welcome migrants, are you going to expel them, or are you going to select and welcome some and expel the rest?
        Trying to control people's movement is a hell of a job. To me, it can never be worth the cost. But that's what governments are pushing for. Control control, more control.
        Security is only for “us”. We do not care much about the security of “others”.
        Social security, too, is for “our” people. After all, charity needs starting at home, right? Yes. Does it mean we cannot do it all? That's where we diverge: At the answer to this question. Some people believe we can, some believe we cannot. I am of the former belief and I like the comment posted by “AhBrightWings JohnBull101" on the Guardian about helping refugees or helping veterans, homeless etc. at home:
        “Believe it or not, both can be done. We've been conned into thinking that we can only deal with one crisis at a time. Ironically, that's why we solve none of them, at home or abroad, because they're all inextricably related. We have people on the streets because of a lack of empathy and compassion; that condition becomes calcified and the norm; hence we cannot offer anything to those at our gates. At some point hate and fear and selfishness become an endless feedback loop and then--to all our detriment-- a way of life.”

And that's our predicament.

Therein comes the next points: Fear and the political organization of the world.