Why do nations embrace migrant trees but reject human migrants?

Question

Accepted Answer

Nations embrace migrant trees but reject human migrants because identity stories and visibility shape acceptance more than economic logic

Malaysia’s palm oil and rubber industries treat migrant crops as “Malaysian” after they take root, while migrant people—such as plantation workers—are often met with suspicion. The shift comes from three linked factors: a belief in “indigeneity” that nations use to tell creation myths, the way economics becomes identity politics when people cross borders, and the faster, more visible scale of human migration compared with slower crop introductions.
“Indigeneity” myths turn late arrivals into “natives” for trees, but not for people
Nations often frame land, people, and flags as having “always been one,” using creation myths to justify who belongs. The pattern appears across countries: the United States highlights “founding fathers” rather than “recent British immigrants,” Australia celebrates Anzac spirit while airbrushing convict ships, and Brazil promotes cordialidade while marginalising Nordestinos who fled drought for Sāo Paulo. Crop arrivals get absorbed into national identity over time—oil palm arrived in 1910 and is now described as “Malaysian,” while those arriving in 2010 are not treated the same way.
Economics becomes identity politics when migrants are human and visible
When rubber and oil palm cross borders, they can bring GDP growth, yet the “migrant tree” does not carry accent, religion, food preferences, or skin colour into public life. By contrast, human migrants are hyper-visible, and in conditions of stagnant wages and precarious housing—problems the piece links to domestic policy rather than migration—strangers become convenient scapegoats. Studies are said to show long-term migration can expand the economic pie, but fear of cultural dilution is described as burning hotter than spreadsheets.
Human migration happens “in real time,” while crop migration is slow and managed
The piece contrasts how seeds and plants travel slowly through colonial steamships, botanical gardens, and decades of agronomist study and plantation management. Human migration today happens in real time, with images on screens—such as a dinghy in the Mediterranean, a caravan at the Rio Grande, or a work permit queue in Kuala Lumpur—arriving raw and without context. A seed germinates quietly, while a family arriving at midnight is portrayed as looking like an “invasion,” creating a perception gap tied to speed and scale.
The same countries that fear migrants rely on them for prosperity
The argument further states that countries that now detest immigrants depend on immigrants for their existence: the USA’s transcontinental railroad is described as being built by Irish and Chinese labour, Australia’s post-war prosperity by Greek, Italian, and Vietnamese refugees, and Brazil’s coffee boom by Japanese and Lebanese migrants. Malaysia’s rubber and palm oil industries are said to rely heavily on workers from Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Nepal, without whom plantations would stall and foreign exchange would wither. The piece closes by calling anti-immigrant sentiment a “fever” that will pass, while stressing that how people are treated during the period shapes how future generations judge the outcome.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why do nations embrace migrant trees but reject human migrants?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends