Part IV response (Immigration Policy)

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by Brett Zamir ( on May 03, 2002 at 11:20:37:

In Reply to: Why immigration is bad posted by Vincent on May 01, 2002 at 16:48:25:

However, all of this does not say that the Baha'i Faith necessarily endorses the political objective of lifting immigration restrictions (in fact, Baha'is are to avoid politically divisive topics and policies, and as I mentioned, I have not seen any quotations in all of the translated and published Writings encouraging immigration to be expanded). Of course, this is different from what individual Bahá‚ís might advance (contrary to what they should). As I mentioned, the Baha'i Writings themselves acknowledge the turbulent impact which massive immigration can have on a local people: „The disquieting influence of over thirty million souls living under minority conditions throughout the continent of Europe...--these stand out as the gravest symptoms that bode ill for the future stability of the structure of modern civilization.š (Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Bahá‚u‚lláh, within pp. 31-33, November 28, 1931, quoted at

I likewise recently found a quotation which seems to sum up the Bahá‚í position well, with „both sidesš being, as usual, taken into account (thus indicating the need to refer to the Bahá‚í Writings rather than individual Bahá‚í opinions): „With regard to your question about the "White Australia" policy, it is clear that this policy of rigid exclusion of coloured Asiatic races from Australia finds no justification in the Bahá'í Teachings.

Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá taught in the clearest possible way the necessity of getting rid of all racial and national prejudices and of equal justice for men of all races and colours. That a white race should forcibly annex a country previously inhabited exclusively by coloured people and then proceed to forbid the admission of coloured people to that country - especially a country so large as Australia, many parts of which are obviously better suited for coloured races than for white people - is clearly unjust.

At the same time there is undoubtedly truth in the contention that if, in a country where a reasonably high standard of living, of culture, etc., has been attained, people accustomed to a lower standard of life and culture are freely admitted, and allowed unrestricted rights of commercial and industrial competition, the standard of living and culture in that country is bound to suffer.š

Read it carefully. It says a RIGID exclusion finds no justification and the latter quoted paragraph implies restrictions may be necessary (or at least understandable).

this topic is closed - post at