What the Fall of the Roman Empire Has Taught Me About Immigration

Illegal immigration has been in the news a lot lately, and not just in the United States. Foreigners arriving uninvited at the borders of another country is a global phenomenon. What to do with these pesky asylum seekers is a matter of great debate, and those most opposed to the idea of admitting unwanted foreigners are usually those most troubled by the whole idea of immigration in general. After all, why can’t these people just stay in their own countries?

We tend to think of immigration as something new in our times. Indeed, when we look at the racial and ethnic make-up of our 21^st century communities, we must take note of how much has changed from a half century ago when most people in western countries were white and of northern European descent. Today our communities are much more likely to be racially and ethnically mixed. However, it would be wrong to think this is something unprecedented. As in so many things, the Romans were there before us.

The story of immigration begins with the story of colonization. If you are surprised, for example, how many present day Britons are of Indian or Pakistani descent, you need only remind yourself that Great Britain colonized India first. If it strikes you that there are a lot of Mexicans and Latinos in the United States, you need only remember that a vast swath of the United States from Texas through Arizona to California used to be part of Mexico.

When a colonizer imposes himself on someone else’s country, the natives may suffer. But they may benefit as well. And that's the more interesting story when it comes to immigration. 

As a result of colonization some natives may flourish by virtue of access to the better nutrition, technology, and systems of governance introduced by the colonizers. Not surprisingly, some natives may begin to yearn for the better way of life promised by immigrating to the colonizer's homeland.

The Romans started out as a small city state based around the city of Rome. They spread out and almost immediately encountered the Etruscans, Latins, Volsci and other tribes. Rome absorbed and assimilated those tribes, granting them representation in the Roman legislature. This liberal policy towards outsiders benefited Rome greatly. By the end of the second century BC Rome had conquered the entirety of the Italian peninsula, absorbing all of its peoples. And it didn’t stop there. Rome was the ultimate colonizer.

By the end of the first century AD, Rome had taken over most of modern day Europe, extending its dominion as far west as Britannia and as far east as Armenia. Those people it couldn’t assimilate it subjugated. But there was one group of people the Romans never brought into the fold, the Germans.

For the Romans the word "German" was a catch-all term referring to a variety of peoples settled across a vast stretch of territory from the Rhine River to the Russian steppes. The tribes in these areas fought fiercely to maintain their independence, but it didn’t mean they weren’t influenced by contact with Rome. Over time they became familiar with Roman technology, bureaucratic organization, and culture, and they liked what they saw.

In the fourth century AD, the period I write about in my novels, the lands north of the Empire’s borders were destabilized by the encroachment of the Huns. Tribes from the region fled south into Rome seeking asylum. At first the Romans tried to hold them off, but more kept arriving every day, and eventually they relented and let them in. At that point everything could have been managed to the benefit of all concerned, but what the Romans did next led to a crisis.

Anti-foreign voices among the Romans objected to the immigration of the foreigners from the north. Many of these foreigners had resided in regions once impinged upon by Roman colonizers and were well acquainted with what Rome had to offer, but anti-foreign voices among the Romans considered them intruders, outsiders, what they called “barbarians”, and demanded they be driven out.

At that point Rome forgot what had made it's immigration policies so successful in the past, the peaceful assimilation of outsiders.

When the Romans tried to drive them out, the immigrants revolted. With the Huns breathing down their necks, the immigrants felt they could not go back without being killed. Consequently, they fought to stay in the Empire as if their lives depended on it. The Romans were unprepared for such fierce determination, and the result was a humiliating defeat for the Romans. 

With Romans back on their heels, the immigrants spread out and penetrated deep into the Empire. Subsequent attempts to root them out ended in failure. Over the course of the next century the immigrants, who the Romans referred to as the Goths, sought a safe haven, a separate homeland with the Empire, and, after the expenditure of much blood and treasure, got it.

The Goths settled in Aquitaine, modern day southwest France, and established a separate kingdom there. The Gothic Kingdom of Aquitaine became the first independent kingdom within the borders of the Empire, and spelled the beginning of the end for Rome.

The Gothic example inspired other German tribes to try the same thing. By the late fifth century AD the Roman Empire was beset by foreign invasions, and was coming apart piece by piece. In 476 AD the last Roman emperor abdicated and the city of Rome itself fell to foreign invasion. The greatest empire the world had ever known came to an end.

Could it all have been avoided if Rome had simply absorbed the asylum seekers as it had in the past? It's hard to say. One thing we know for sure is that Rome had managed foreign immigration to its benefit for hundreds of years, but as soon as it turned jingoistic and antagonistic, a devastating crisis brought the Empire to its knees.

Immigration is inevitable. Groups of people move around. It has always been thus. The United States in particular has an enviable track record of absorbing foreigners. Much like Rome the US has benefited greatly from its liberal policy of absorption and assimilation, but in recent years populists have stirred up resentment against foreigners to score political points, building walls instead of bridges.

What the Fall of Rome has taught me about immigration is that it is a tide that cannot be stopped, only managed. Managed correctly it can be a net benefit to all, but used as a way to foment resentment and nativism it can become dangerous, not only to the immigrants, but to the country they yearn to become a part of.