IIM Bangalore

Term#3_Group #2

BGS Project Report on

Is Trump's coming to power a mandate against excessive globalization by

American population?

Submitted by
Abhijit DCruz (1611227)
Akansha Chauhan (1611232)
Asis Pal (1611236)
Kausik Tamuli (1611253)
Navdha Khera (1611264)
Yamini Agarwal (1611293)
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction
1.1 USA and Globalization
2. An analysis of the US election
3. What is the Real reason behind Trumps victory?
3.1 The revolt against elite and globalization
3.2 Education, changing nature of employment and the Trump factor
3.3 Hillary Clinton, the other option in place of Trump
4. Is Trump an isolated event?
4.1 France
4.2 Brexit
4.3 Myanmar
5. Is this a New World Order?
5.1 Rise of nationalism across Europe
5.2 Increasing rate at which Physical Barriers are built
5.3 Schengen Agreement
5.4 Breach of Dublin Regulation
6. Conclusion

References
 1. Introduction:
US president Donald Trump, who took over as the 45 th president of the United States won
the US elections through campaigns that attracted large supports as well as controversies.
Some of his campaigning issues like immigrations, trade agreements, the blue-collared
workers, off-shoring of American jobs etc. are said to be the concerns of the huge American
population. While many had written him down for Mr. Trumps political incorrectness, people
elected him not despite but because of him being blunt about the issues he made in his
speeches. Hence, we in this project analysed the last US election though the lens of the people
residing in the US. While an election outcome can be the result of concerns, dissent, policy
action, policy inactions, charisma of a leader etc., we in our project have limited ourselves by
studying the issues keeping globalization at the centre while at the same time we tried to find
out if other issues has their causes rooted in the adverse effects of globalization. We tried to
analyse the perspective, dissent, opportunities, securities/insecurities etc. of the Americans
and tried to find out if similar patterns are observed elsewhere in the world. We also tried to
find if such concerns of the people were restricted to themselves or are they responded by
governments across the world.
Globalization until the 20th Century was something which almost all nations looked forward
to and was a phenomenon which was applauded for making the world more efficient, bringing
everyone closer and reducing poverty. The great American success story, the stark difference
between the two sides of the Berlin wall which was evident after its fall [1], the success of the
European Union and the international organisations like the IMF, World Bank etc, all
advocated for free movement of people and a liberal regime. But there was people on the
other end of the spectrum like Joseph Stiglitz and Ha-Joo, who argue that Globalisation has
only benefitted the rich by making them further richer and thus widening the income divide.
Even the IMF has mentioned that due to the introduction of new technology and foreign
investment in developing countries led to increasing levels of inequality. [2]
On the light of the ongoing debate that whether globalisation is good or bad for the world
economy and for the individual countries we looked at some of its pros and cons. As far as
advantages of globalisation are concerned it provides an efficient way of procuring good and
services procuring from the global market hence increasing the market size, leveraging the
economies of scale to provide cheap goods and services, enhancing the prospects of
development through easy mobility of factors of production like capital and labour, enhancing
the capability and competitiveness of the domestic economy by accessing and learning the
technology and business of the more advanced economies. As far as the adverse effects are
concerned, globalization actually hasnt allowed many domestic companies to grow,
production base has been shifted to those countries whose environmental standards are less
stringent thereby adversely impacting the environment, loss of job for the home population,
increasing evidence of income inequality and intense tax competition reducing the tax
earnings of a country which has worsened the debt structure of many economies (both
developed and developing). [3][4]
1.1 USA and Globalization:
Since the 19th century there was huge wave of immigration into the US. Historian Norman
Lowe in his book, Modern World History mentions that over 30 million of people migrated
to the US between 1860 to 1930. He mentions that US population would have been 12% lower
in 1930 if the migration didnt happen. [5] US needed more people and capital to make the
most out of the resources available to the country and to grow at a rate which would make
its economy by far the largest in the world. It was estimated that in 1920 the US GDP would
have been 14% lower had it not kept its border open.[5] Hence, the economy speed up, along
with the increase of population and more importantly it was composed of a remarkable
mixture of nationalities, cultures and religions of the world. However, each new wave of
immigration was treated with contempt and hostility by the earlier migrants who feared loss
of job. [5] Since then until the 1990s there has been gradual migration of people across the
world to the US and it transformed as a global economy. But with fast development of the
tertiary sector and acceptance of globalization as a norm by many more countries of the
world, more and more jobs from the US was outsourced to the developing economies and
the American companies employed people from developing countries who provide cheap
labour in their secondary sectors as well. This helped the large American corporations and
other MNCs operating in the US and elsewhere in the world to stay competitive by providing
cheap commodity. This global commodity chain which is a result of globalization has enabled
the large companies to enjoy huge profits as countries struggle to underbid each other on
wages and regulations. [6]

2. An analysis of the US election:

The 58th American Presidential elections were held on 8th November 2016 where former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was defeated by Donald Trump. The format of the elections
was such that voters selected the electors in each state who in turn voted for the president
on 19th December 2016. Some of the anomalies observed are:
Clinton received 2.9 million more votes than Trump yet Trump won the elections by getting
more number of electoral votes and won 30 states. Although Trump won in the expected
states of Florida, Lowe, Ohio, he also won the states which had been democratic for a very
long time. These were the blue wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Many
speculations too exist in terms of Russian government too being one of the reasons for
Trumps victory with the sole aim of undermining publics faith in the U.S. democratic process
and harm the electability and potential presidency of Clinton. [7]
Some of our observations with respect to the people who voted for Trump and the population
of the states where Trump won the elections are:
Most of the women voted for Clinton but still Trump managed to get 42% of female votes.
Again, in terms of age people belonging to the age group of less than 40 mainly voted for
Clinton and while people in the age group above 40 and mainly people with the age more
than 50 years voted for Trump. These people form the majority of population in the U.S, i.e.
they constitute 64% of the voting population. In terms of race it was mainly the Non-Hispanic
whites who voted for Trump while the minorities like the blacks, the Hispanics, the Asians
were the ones who voted for Clinton and the whites form the majority of the population that
is 70%. Again, if we analyse the income of the ones who voted we see that it was mainly the
mid-income families (lower middle income families in the income range 50 k to 100 k per
annum) who voted decisively for Trump. Families belonging to this income range also
constitute the majority of voters (31%). The higher middle income families and high income
families had voted both the candidates almost equally with Trump garnering a little more vote
than Hillary, while Hillary received majority of the votes from low income families. This is very
much congruent with their age as these people too belong to the age group of more than 40
years. As far as political affiliations are concerned it was mainly the conservatives who voted
for Trump while the Liberals and the Moderates mainly voted for Clinton. Again, in terms of
locations it was found that it was mainly people living in the urban areas that is in the city
who voted for Clinton while those living in the suburbs and the rural areas who are mainly
found to be against globalization and are the natives of the US mainly voted for Trump and
these people too formed one of the major chunk of the US population (66%). In terms of
education too it is found that people with higher education background mainly voted for
Clinton while people with education only up to college or high school were the ones who
voted for Trump. Again, this lie in line with the fact that they are the natives of US with
conservative mindset living I the suburbs and the rural region. While people with high
education background are the ones who live in the urban areas and include people working
in multinationals that migrated from different parts of the world due to job opportunities
created by globalization. [8]
This analysis is based on the population who voted for Trump. Now we also analysed the
population of the states who voted for Trump and ones who voted for Clinton.
Out of all the 30 states three states where Trump decisively attained victory were Florida,
Lowe and Ohio. On analysing the demographics of these states, it is found that Florida is the
third most populous state in the US and has the highest population over 65 years. About 65%
of population in Florida is whites and most of them are non-Hispanic whites. African
American, Asian American are found to be minorities in this state. [9] In Ohio Despite of
females making up 51.2% of the total population in this region Trump had won. The state has
good percentage of people above 65 years that is 14.1% who are ones who mainly voted for
Trump. It also has a major chunk of population below 18 years of age. Again, here the Non-
Hispanics whites form the majority of population while the minorities like the Asians etc. are
found in less than 10% numbers. Thus it can be seen that its the native conservative non-
Hispanic Americans of age greater than 40 and mainly 65 who voted for Trump. [10]
The trend seen was very much similar in the population of Pennsylvania, Michigan and
Wisconsin. These states were more aligned towards the Democrats since 1990 and it was
quite a surprise when Trump attained victory in these states too. Even in Pennsylvania the
Whites formed the majority of population that is 82.6%. If we analyse the business in this
state we see that huge number of population is into business where the number of non-
minority and veteran owned firms are pretty large in numbers. Moreover, the majority of
population belongs to the age group of more than 40 years. Again, if we analyse the
population of Michigan we see that White form the majority with greater than 80% of
population. Moreover, again majority of the population belong to the age group of above 40
years. [11] [12] [13] [14]
Thus, analysing the US election in terms of demographics and regions, we find a similar trend
in terms of the age, education, race, business etc. for the population across US who voted for
Trump and the states where Trump attained victory. Thus it can be seen that states with huge
population of natives that is the whites, that with higher ageing population who look forward
for greater social security spending and less foreign interventions, the less educated mass
who can be suitably employed as the casual, unskilled and semi-skilled labourer and has so
long largely been replaced by the cheap labours from the developing countries, the rural
populace who still are more dependent on the primary and secondary sectors and the
benefits of globalization hasnt touched them largely are the ones who has given a mandate
to Trump. This peoples concerns and the dissents clearly superimposes with that against
globalization or the adverse effects of globalization.

3. What is the real reason behind Trumps victory?

The story of Donald Trumps stunning victory sent shock waves across the world. He won the
white working class by an unforeseen and huge margin. He also managed to have
unpredictable majority of the college-educated whites. Quite interestingly, he was able to
turn heavy white areas of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin who had voted for
Obama in the previous elections. Exit polls suggest that white voters constituted 70% of all
voters and out of them 58% had voted for Trump [15].
One might think that the reason is economic, and the working class voters were dissatisfied
with the on-going job losses because of globalization [17]. Brad Heaths analysis in USA Today
found that Hillary Clinton got pulverized in the states where unemployment had decreased in
the last years of Obamas governance. But the idea that Trump won because of the self-
interestedness of the working class who overlooked his misogyny and racism might be an
oversimplification because more than half the voters earning less than $50,000 did vote for
Hillary Clinton [15].
Trump won anyway. But the question that comes to mind is how and why?

3.1 The revolt against elites and globalization:

Donald Trump, who himself is a billionaire elitist, positioned himself as the man of the
people. He understood that people are unsatisfied with the employment conditions in
America. Political scientist Roger Peterson has said that ethnic conflict all around the world
has usually been driven by resentment; privileged section of the society has a feeling of
injustice when they see power moving out of their hands into the hands of a new group of
people who didnt have that power before. According to his theory, one cause of ethnic
violence can be a change in the political status of the majority/minority of an ethnic group.
People had preferences over Americas diversity; America was meant to be white. Trump
didnt create these preferences, he just galvanized it.
Immigration, technological change and free trade dont always help everyone and they leave
many people behind. The past has shown that politicians havent really done anything to help
them or even listen to them. But Trump conveyed during his many speeches that not only he
listens to them but will take steps to help them. Republican Party wanted its other candidates
to harness his more populist ideas such as these. They were the unaddressed grievances of
the public which Trump was focusing on. They thought that when Cruz and Rubio would begin
to address those then they will get ahead of Trump. But that didnt happen. The reason is his
public bigotry. He was able to channel pent-up prejudices which were constrained by political
correctness [20]. Trumps victory comes only after a few months of Brexit, making it another
stunning electoral upset that was built on a campaign that focused on opposition to
immigration, trade deals and globalization in general.
Immigrants coming to America from countries such as Mexico might have escaped poverty,
famine and genocide. But does it really matter to Americans when it comes to protecting their
own self-interest? The support was so strong that Americans were ready to overlook Trumps
comments on Mexican immigrants where he called them rapists and criminals [22]. A lot of
people do not see immigrants in such light. They see them as people who come to their
country in search for work, better opportunities and want to make a life for themselves [22]. It
sure is illegal but that doesnt mean they should be branded as criminals who have come to
victimize Americans.
Because of Trumps history with black people where he has given them differential treatment,
a lot of black people had trouble voting for Trump because they didnt want a President who
would judge them on the basis of the colour of their skin [22].
Since we know that all the voters of Trump werent white, people were ready to look beyond
his racial demagogue. They felt far more deeply affected by illegal immigration. Some people
are of the view that falling rates of labour wages have led to an increase in crimes in United
States and illegal immigration is the cause as they are ready to work at a much cheaper price.
During one of the speeches, he stands against corrupt elite by talking about the false song
of globalism. He promised to put American people first on trade, immigration, foreign policy
and job security. He promised to make it his first priority. He talked about how none of
Americas friends or enemies have prospered who failed to put the interests of their people
first. He said that We will never surrender to the false song of globalism. He talked about
the international unions that obliges America as a care taker of the world down leading to
huge foreign expenses and vowed that hed never enter any agreement that would reduce
Americas ability to control its own affairs. He gave people the example of the North American
Free Trade Agreement that brought about total disaster and cleaned out manufacturing and
jobs in Pennsylvania and New York. He also promised to keep the existing jobs and bring in
the new ones. Under his administration Americans priority will be second to none. Companies
that would leave US to exploit it by firing people and taking advantage of US would be dealt
with harsh consequences [18].
Youtube comments on the video of the above speech
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOyma_8dFm0), gives a great deal of insights on what
Americans think of such policies and opinions against globalization:
He has to win, there is no other option.
Talking about globalism. wow Trump is actually the real deal.
"Probably the most important speech given in the past 50 years"
God please let this be true. [18]

3.2 Education, changing nature of employment and the Trump factor:

Even though unemployment as a whole fell across US in October, 16, American working class
still voted for Republican even in areas that used to a Democratic surety, Midwest Rust Belt.
Level of education might have an important role to play in how Americans vote. Despite the
wealth and resources of America, it remains one of the most ignorant countries of the world.
Majority of the Americans fail to name the three branches of the government and they have
no idea about which parties control the Senate or the House [15].
A politician such as Donald Trump, who embraces his lack of experience in politics and military
and flaunts it like an asset, might greatly appeal to voters who were failed by the American
school system [16]. After all, he is the proof that business man-like determination might just be
enough to succeed no matter the existing qualifications or temperament. He wasnt a
politician; he was a businessman who had aced in his field. He had proven that he had the
ability to get the job done. Thats what appealed to the Americans and they saw hope in his
promises. Mr. Trump is always right has a compelling psychological effect [16].

3.3 Hillary Clinton, the other option in place of Trump:

People didnt even like Hillary Clinton. There was animosity toward both the candidates. The
winner was going to be who was hated the least. There were some people who were
struggling with the decision whether to vote for an extremely corrupt politician or vote for an
inexperienced political demagogue.
I am forced to wonder, did Trump win because the other option was Hillary? Clinton focused
much of her campaigns on women. She focused on the historic nature of her candidature. By
doing so, she lost much of the white male votes to Trump. She failed to gain votes of educated
white women. The real blow to Clinton came when the FBI director investigated Clintons
email. Women who turned away from Trump after the groping allegations turned back to him
in huge numbers following the FBI directors announcement and they didnt return to Clinton
even after she was cleared for the second time. A lot of people did not want to vote for
someone who thought they were above the law. They didnt think Clinton was the right
person to represent them. They didnt trust her enough to make her their President [21].
There are many people who have bowed their head in shame when they got to know that
majority of their countrymen have voted for a misogynist, a racial demagogue who knows
nothing about politics. Sadly, for them, people who saw voice in his will to fight for the
American people, the people who bought into his persona and his promise to make America
great again by fighting against globalization were far greater in number.
 4. Is Trump an isolated event?
We have seen that election of Trump as the President of one the largest and oldest
democracies of the world can probably be a reflection of the insecurities and discontent in
the hearts of the native people against globalization. Such insecurities which lead to
discontent in the hearts of the people might come up in different forms like racial or religious
exclusion of the immigrants, raise of nationalist feelings amongst the natives, building
economic and physical barriers across countries, etc. The actual discontent which is against
globalization so long didnt gain a political support as the new world since the fall of Berlin
Wall in 1989 accepted liberalism and free movement as the norm and also had the support
of the business class and to some extent of the bourgeois class who benefited most from
globalization. Hence, the discontent appeared in the guise of other forms as mentioned above
which can sound populist and can gain political support. [23]
Here, we have studied some cases parallel to the US, where similar discontent might be
rooted in the hearts of people of other nationals and the different forms that they have taken
might have the same root cause. Some of the similar parallels are discussed below:
4.1 France:
Globalization has become a public and political issue in France now. Globalization has always
been challenging for France due to three key reasons [24] first, France has one of the largest
state sector in Europe and despite the rapid increase in liberalism as an effect of globalization,
the public still largely depends on the state, rather than the market, for their welfare.
Secondly, the French are strongly connected to their culture and identity, and they feel
threatened by the Americanization. Globalization is associated with US dominance among the
French citizens. Third, globalization challenges one of the key fundamentals on which French
republic was founded. It is strongly against the inequalities that are created by globalization.
The WTO summit in Seattle in 1999 [25] saw the developing countries protesting globalization.
The participants were the NGOs concerned with labour issues, labour unions and various
groups who were against the free trade. Since then it also reached the developed countries
where people and political leaders are now increasingly questioning the impact of
globalization and finding ways to curb it. Here, unlike other developed countries, France
deserve a special attention because of their historical reasons of inclination towards the state
sector and a desire of maintaining a separate French identity distinct from a global multi-
cultural citizen. Although French adaption to globalization led to good macro-economic
indicators, the trade and tax benefits emphasised by globalization hasnt benefited the large
working class and small business folks in France. [24] [26]
According to a survey by pollster IFOP in 2012, 8 out of 10 people said that globalization hurts
the employment and 7 out of 10 people said that France should increase its taxes on its
imported goods. However, the anti-globalization feeling did reduce substantially in the recent
years under Sarkozys presidential rule due to his establishment of harmonious relationships
with the US. Globalization has benefitted the large French companies while the effects hasnt
trickled down to the working class and the small business. Moreover, migration continues to
pose a threat to national harmony.
In recent times, a series of events, starting with Paris attacks, exit of Britain from EU and the
victory of Trump has given support to the ideas of right wing party, National Front (FN),
against immigrants and globalization and anti-Islam policies. Exit polls show that the chances
of the FNs presidential candidate Marine Le Pens victory in the upcoming 2017 presidential
elections have increased substantially post Donald Trumps victory in the Unites States. A
fresh wave of ideas is seen among the public, who do not support the old parties with their
old policies that have traditionally benefitted the rich, increased the income divide and loss
of jobs for the working middle class and small business folks. [26]
In one of the interviews, Le Pen said, "I am opposed to a multicultural France, I think that
those who have a different culture and who arrive in France have to submit themselves to
French culture. Like the old saying, 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do.' I think that in France
we should do like the French people. [27] This is a clear reminder of the US elections scenario
where Trumps strong views against immigrants were expressed and helped him win the 2016
elections. It is speculated that French population might also show their support to Le Pen
which clearly signals the majoritys voice against excessive globalization that has been
happening for decades. Going one step further, with the Euroscepticism in France, will
France also take a bold step like Britain did? It is a question which will find its answer in the
coming years.

Fig 1: Change in peoples attitude to migration, post Paris attacks

Source: www.yougov.com
4.2 Brexit:
In 2016, the world saw yet another example of people resisting against the excessive
globalization when 52% of the UK population voted for exit of Britain form the European
Union (EU), commonly known as Brexit. One of the major reasons was the sovereignty or the
rise of nationalism across the world. There was rise of distrust in international institutions
such as IMF, WTO etc. and various nations of EU felt the loss of control to take their
independent decisions. [28] The campaign slogan for Brexit - Lets take back control speaks
about the frustration of millions of people at their current standards of living. Majority of
households had no real growth in their incomes since 2005. [29] UK also housed the maximum
number of immigrants among the EU nations (Fig 2).
London is one of the cities with highest concentrations of billionaires in the world. The Brexit
vote was, in fact, a vote against London and its globalised elite class, free trade and open
boundaries. Eurozone has failed to keep up with the very purpose of keeping the economy
strong. Unemployment is more than 10%. Greece crisis and other slower growths in countries
like Italy has left the population to think that globalization has only helped the small segment
of elite group, and not them. The GDP has risen post globalization, but the median household
incomes have not grown. The dissatisfaction among the population helped leaders like Nigel
Farage to propagate the idea of Brexit.
An analysis of the Brexit poll indicates the dissent by sections of the people who were not
happy with the phenomena of globalization. Our observation from Brexit poll yields similar
result to that of US. It is found that provinces with more pensioners voted for Brexit while
young people voted to remain with EU. [30] The more educated populace and the high
immigration area voted to remain with EU. While areas with majority on DE -class, which
includes semi-skilled and unskilled labours, casual labours and pensioners voted for Brexit. [30]
Hence, it is found that the skilled and educated mass along with the younger generation who
can make the most out of the globalization voted to remain with the EU, while people from
the DE class who were the victims of the inequality of globalization voted for Brexit.

Fig 2: Top 10 EU countries with immigrants in 2011 (Source: Eurostat)

4.3 Myanmar:
Myanmar, a country in the South-East Asia has recently caught the attention of the
international community because of the widespread discrimination faced by the minority
Rohingya Muslims. Buddhism is the religion of majority in present day Myanmar and the
region is home to thriving multi-ethnic society for past couple of millenniums. [31] However,
origin of Muslims in Myanmar can be traced back to 15th century. [31] Rohingya Muslims have
traditionally been living in the Rakhine state, a state in the south-east Myanmar. They have
been brought to Myanmar by the British colonial government as farm labourers. [31] However,
after the British left, the Rohingya Muslims were not given citizenship and are treated as
immigrants.
So long there has been several tensions between the local Buddhist people and the Rohingya
Muslims. There has been discrimination against the Rohingya Muslims ever since Myanmar
gained independence. They were classified as the associate citizens and were deprived of
several citizenship rights like government jobs, right to education and limited healthcare
facilities. [31] [32] Hence, they were engaged either farm labourers or were engaged in small
businesses.
However, things were under control until recently. But since 2012, there has been a series of
violent clashes and the Rohingya community had fled to the remote areas. [32] The formation
of the democratic government led by Aung San Suu Kyi had high hopes that the minority
community which had so long been discriminated would have equal rights. To the contrary
situation turned worse after the formation of democratic government. There was mass
persecution of the minority community by the majority community as well the Burmese Army.
Villages, houses and shops where the Rohingya Muslims were concentrated were burnt and
there were cases of systematic murder and rapes by the majority community with support
from the government forces. [31] The Rohingya Muslims are now forced to live in camps which
doesnt have the basic amenities and hence under all these circumstances they have started
fleeing the country, mainly to Bangladesh.
All these ongoing events for the past several years in Myanmar although is an ethnic conflict
in the face of it, the events have occurred at a time when the world has seen increased
resistance to foreign immigrants and have expressed insecurity more than ever before.
Myanmar was known to have thrived in a multi-ethnic culture. There was discrimination
before, but the voice of the majority native to protect nationalism was never so violent leave
alone being very distinct and so targeted.
Hence, the increasing impatience towards other nationals in so diverse part of a world can be
pondered as a reversal of the liberal norm that has set is since the 1990s. It may not be proper
to see Trumps election in isolation today.
 5. Is this a New World Order?
As described above we have seen that in several parts of the world there is a growing voice
against a more integrated world and a feeling that each individual cannot maximize their
benefit with growing globalization. In order to see if the political fraternity of the developed
world, where the effects of globalization is seen to a greater extent, has already tapped this
feeling and there is any reaction by those governments, we tried to gather data how the
immigration and barriers across the world have changed since 2010 and tried to observe if
there is any trend following.
5.1 Rise of Nationalism across Europe:
We observed that support for national parties is on the rise not only in France and Britain but
also in the rest of Europe. As can be seen from the figure below (refer Fig 3) from the Wall
Street journal, in three of the EU countries, France, Austria and Netherlands, respective
National parties have the highest support while there is substantial support in other countries
as well. With the persistently high levels of unemployment and increasing inequality, the EU,
which wanted to exemplify the rest of the world by shaping some form of a global government
may now set in a reversing trend.

Fig 3: Rise of Nationalism in various European countries

Source: Wall Street Journal
5.2 Increasing rate at which Physical Barriers are built:
Since the end of World War II in 1945, around 55 fortified boundaries are built. Out of these,
25 (roughly 50%) of them were built after 2000. [33] The number of physical barrier
construction across the border is shown in Fig 4. A study has also found that such structures
are built by the richer countries, which in the past has been a proponent of globalization, to
prevent illegal immigration of the citizens from the poorer countries. [33]

Fig 4: Number of barriers initiated since 1945 [33]

5.3 Schengen Agreement

The Schengen Agreement which led to the creation of the borderless area in Europe operates
like a single country as far as crossing borders amongst those countries are concerned. The
Schengen Areas are shown in Fig 5. However, it is seen that fences and border controls and
monitoring across the borders have increased in EU zone as well as can be seen from Fig 6 [33]
5.4 Breach of Dublin Regulation:
The Dublin Regulation was signed by most of the member state of EU (Britain is not a member)
to ensure that if war fleeing migrants from any hostile state seeks asylum in EU, the first
member state of EU through which the migrants enter should be responsible for registering
those migrants. [34] [35] Thereafter, there should be non-restricted movement of those people
within the Schengen Area. However, in the wake of the Syrian crisis in 2015, existing rules for
processing people have been discarded. There has been re-emergence of border controls in
the Schengen Areas in what was supposed to be passport-free border areas and fences are
being strengthened. [36]
Schengen and Non-Schengen Areas in EU & non-EU zones

Fig 5: Different EU & non-EU zones in Europe

Fig 6: Border controls in Europe [33]

 6. CONCLUSION
From our study, we can conclude that the victory of Donald Trump does signal a new world
Era even though the wheels against globalization were set in motion much before. It is seen
that Europe which was once the strongest proponent of open borders and free movement of
the people is not only resisting the trend but some of the member states are acting contrary
to the trend. The trend indicates that globalization has reached a stage where people of the
native countries are no more comfortable with. Their way of expressing or reasons for
opposing might of-course seem quite different on the face of it. We also tried to find out how
the number of immigrants have varied since 1990s among the six countries with most
immigrants excluding Russia. Fig 7 and Fig 8 below shows the number and the rate of
immigration has changed over the years. The data for the study is collected from the
interactive map prepared by United Nation Population Division. [37]

47 Number of Immigrants in different countries

42
37
Immigrants (in Millions)

32
27
22
17
12
7
2
-31990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
US Germany UK Saudi ARABIA Australia Spain

Fig 7
30% % change of Immigrants in different countries
25%

20%
% change in immigrants

15%

10%

5%

0%
1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2015
Between Years
-5% US Germany Saudi Aribia Uk australia spain

Fig 8
It is evident from the two charts that the rate of inflow of people to the countries which
initially had most immigrants is declining. Baring Saudi Arabia these are all the first world
countries. Probably this trends and events parallel to the US happening across various parts
of the world indicates that globalization is not something all people are looking forward to,
least if not against it.
References:
[1] Modern World History by Norman Lowe, 5th Edition; Chapter 10 : Th two Europes,
East and West since 1945, Section 10.6 (e), Page: 209-210
[2] http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/81/trade/costs-and-benefits-of-globalisation/
[3] http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-1
[4] http://occupytheory.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-globalization/
[5] Modern World History by Norman Lowe, 5th Edition; Chapter 22: Th USA before the
Second World War, Section 22.2 (a) and Section 22.2 (b), Page: 474-475
[6] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/a-foreign-policy-of-cruel-
populism/article17350132.ece
[7] "2016 November General Election Turnout Rates". www.electproject.org.
Retrieved December 17, 2016.

"A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinton". The
New York Times. Associated Press. Retrieved December 20, 2016.
"Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results" (PDF). Federal Election Commission.
January 30, 2017. Retrieved March 13, 2017
[8] http://www.businessinsider.in/7-charts-show-who-propelled-Trump-to-victory/While-
polling-before-Election-Day-showed-voters-with-less-education-were-flocking-to-Trump-
which-shows-in-the-exit-polls-he-still-saw-a-good-amount-of-support-from-voters-with-
higher-education-/slideshow/55363369.cms

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Florida

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio

Amish Studies: "Population Change 20102015" Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback
Machine.

[11] http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/pennsylvania-population/

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan

[13] Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals By Race, 1790 to 1990, and By Hispanic
Origin, 1970 to 1990, For The United States, Regions, Divisions, and States

[14] Population of Michigan: Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map, Demographics,
Statistics, Quick Facts
[15]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/president-donald-trump-why-
people-voted-for-republican-wins-us-election-2016-a7407541.html
[16] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-huge-reasons-donald-trump-won-2016-11-09
[17] http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/9/13572174/president-elect-donald-trump-2016-
victory-racism-xenophobia
[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOyma_8dFm0
[19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uJCLgCpm-8
[20] https://www.telegraphindia.com/1151207/jsp/opinion/story_57017.jsp#.WNJRjlWGPIX
[21] http://time.com/4566748/hillary-clinton-firewall-women/
[22]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-charles/im-a-republican-heres-
why_b_11849402.html
[23] http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/donald-trump-president-us-election-results-
hillary-clinton-4366857/

[24] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/french_challenge_chapter.pdf

[25] http://www.iatp.org/files/Seattle_Debacle_Revolt_of_the_Developing_Natio.htm

[26] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/735339/Jack-Rasmus-Donald-Trump-Marine-Le-Pen-
French-election-president-Hollande-Sarkozy-Brexit

[27] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/marine-le-pen-interview-donald-trump/

[28] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/07/05/3-reasons-brits-voted-for-
brexit/#accdcd31f9d6

[29] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/was-brexit-a-vote-against-globalization

[30] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-
the-uks-educated-old-an/

[31] http://indianexpress.com/article/research/rohingya-muslim-crisis-in-myanmar-the-warning-
signs-of-a-possible-genocide-4460254/

[32] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/23/rohingya-muslims-myanmar-aung-
san-suu-kyi-election

[33] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/donald-trump-wall-
mexico/483156/

[34] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF

[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

[36] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3200641/Dealing-migrants-bigger-challenge-Europe-
Greek-debt-crisis-warns-Angela-Merkel-says-attacks-refugees-unworthy-Germany.html

[37] http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/05/17/global-migrant-stocks/?country=ES&date=2015