RE: Ingroup preferences and Politics.

Reading the title of this text, you will surely realize that the text is going to deal with the question of immigration 

Firstly, it is important to point out humans should not be stripped out of their biological components. What I mean here is: humans just like other biological creatures consciously or subconsciously act in a way in which they have been programmed to by their genetics and the collision between these genetics and the environment which they have either decided to expose themselves to, or were forced to exposed themselves to. 

One of the concepts that Darwin proposed is that tribalism of human beings is optimal. In his "Descent of Man", he stated that a tribe which includes many members who collude, aid, and were able to sacrifice would be flourish of other tribes without those tendencies. (p.132) This statement alone allows us to inquire as to whether the way we’ve become, and now exist, is a product of an in-group preference which was optimal for our survival. 

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the behavioral outcomes, have been shaped by biological evolution, just as human physiology has been shaped by evolution, and just as other animals have been shaped by the same processes of evolution as well. Different types of necessary adaptations necessitate different sociospatial geometries. [Douglas T. Kenrick, normal P. Li, and Jonathan Butner 2003]  

There are a number of key findings which I would like to talk about here. The topic at hand is in vs outgroup preference, however, for the sake of this text and the argument that it makes, we ought to look at it through the lens of immigration. 

"First, humans make spontaneous ingroup–outgroup categorizations and preferentially

help ingroup members over outgroup members. People sometimes perform quite costly

helping acts on behalf of ethnic groups, religious groups, businesses, or states (Van Vugt,

Snyder, Tyler, & Biel, 2000). In life-and-death situations, people are more likely to help kin

than nonkin (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994). Intergroup discrimination also occurs

under minimal group conditions. Many experiments have shown that people preferentially

give money or points to ingroup rather than outgroup members even when people are divided

into groups based on a trivial criterion, such as the preference for a particular painter (Brewer,

1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Second, humans appear to be unique in their capacity to form deep emotional

attachments to large, anonymous groups that are merely symbolic in many ways. Once people

identify with a particular group, such as a sports team, they feel good when it does well and

suffer when it does poorly (Branscombe & Wann, 1991). Empathy, an emotional experience that often moves people to behave altruistically, does not move us as much when the potential

recipients are members of outgroups (Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006; Stürmer,

Snyder, & Omoto, 2005). Humans also display loyalty to symbolic groups, sticking with them

despite being better off by allying themselves with other groups (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle,

1998; Van Vugt & Hart, 2004; Zidaniuk & Levine, 2001).

Third, humans dislike group members who are disloyal. In opinion groups, members

who hold different opinions than the majority are disliked and ignored—the black sheep effect

(Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988). Members of task groups who are not pulling their

weight for the group—the “bad apples”—are subject to scorn, exclusion, or punishment (Fehr

& Gächter, 2002). One recent study found that group members spend a substantial portion of

their experimental earnings (25%) to altruistically punish disloyal ingroup members (Van

Vugt & Chang, 2008).

Fourth, humans have a tendency to derogate or even actively harm outgroup members.

For instance, people tend to think that outgroup members are less moral and trustworthy than

members of the ingroup (Judd & Park, 1988). People denigrate members of outgroups when

they get an opportunity and feel Schadenfreude when a rival group loses status (Leach,

Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003); they even deny typical human emotions to outgroups

(i.e., infrahumanization; Leyens et al., 2001). Finally, people find it easy to morally justify

aggressive actions against members of outgroups (Brewer & Brown, 1998).

Fifth, intergroup contexts are often automatically perceived as competitive and hostile.

When individuals play Prisoner’s Dilemma Games against other individuals, they tend to

make cooperative decisions; yet, when individuals form groups and play the same game

against other groups—or play as leaders on behalf of their groups (Johnson et al., 2006)—

they tend to make competitive decisions (a phenomenon known as the group discontinuity

effect; e.g., Insko et al., 1994). Fear and distrust of outgroups seem to underlie the discontinuity effect (Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990). When groups (rather

than individuals) work together, people almost automatically expect the other party to cheat,

which then serves as justification for a pre-emptive strike (Johnson et al., 2006; cf. Snyder,

1984).

Sixth, intergroup helping sometimes happens. When individual members of ingroups

and outgroups form a friendship or cooperative partnership, this can serve as a catalyst for

reducing intergroup prejudice and hostility. A successful example is the Jigsaw class room in

which school children of different ethnic groups are encouraged to work together on

cooperative tasks, and, under the right conditions, these activities promote positive intergroup

relations (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). Furthermore, high-status groups

sometimes offer help to low-status groups to affirm their superior status—an example of

competitive altruism (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). However, as Nadler and Halabi (2006) have

recently shown in the context of relations between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews, low-status

group members (Arabs) might refuse help from high-status group members (Jews) if they

believe that the status relations between the groups are either unstable or illegitimate

Seventh, finding from the anthropological and sociological literatures indicate that

managing intergroup relations is primarily a male activity. In most societies, intergroup

aggression and warfare occurs almost exclusively between coalitions of men in the form of

armies, militias, street gangs, and hooligans (Goldstein, 2003); and most victims of intergroup

conflict are men (Daly & Wilson, 1988; Keeley, 1996; Staub, 1999). However, men are also

the primary peacemakers between groups (De Waal, 2006). Men (but not women) even suffer

vicariously from intergroup competition. Dutch scientists observed a higher number of

cardiovascular deaths among Dutch male soccer fans on the day that their national football

team was eliminated on penalties from a major tournament (Witte, Bots, Hoes, & Grobbee,

2000).

Eighth, and finally, humans share some aspects of their tribal psychology with other

species such as ants, termites, bees, and—our closest living genetic relatives—chimpanzees.

Wild chimpanzees form coalitions to defend their territory against neighboring troops and are

known to attack and kill “foreign” chimps, which is also limited to males (Goodall, 1986;

Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). Furthermore, female chimps can safely migrate between 

communities, whereas male chimps are often injured or killed." (Van Vugt, M., & Park. J. (2008). The tribal instinct hypothesis: Evolution and the social psychology of intergroup relations. In S. Sturmer & M. Snyder, New Directions in Helping and Intergroup Behavior. )

Given the data collected and produced by Vugt and Park, we see that having the least number of various groups within society could prove to be the most optimal way to avoid conflict, violence, discrimination, racism, and xenophobia. The above text proves one more thing that is yet to be recognized by the masses - namely that the question of immigration, and perhaps even sociology at large is a question of scientific nature, as opposed to an ethical, or even a humanitarian one. 

In Preferences and Beliefs in In group Favoritism Everett, Faber, Crockett made a number of very similar discoveries.  They claim that "Across many different contexts, people act more prosocially towards members of their own group relative to those outside their group." Here, they explain this behavior by stating that "Social preferences are likely to have been evolutionary advantageous because cooperation was typically in our longterm best interest". They also claim that these behaviors might potentially be unconscious since "Humans must be equipped biologically to function effectively in many social situations without excessive reliance on cognitive processes, and so these processes are likely to be a part of human nature" (Hoffman, 1981; Van Vugt and Van Lange, 2006). 

Given the biological characteristics of human beings which are the result of evolution, genetics, and various environments in which the humans have evolved in, should the question of immigration be discussed by ethicists, politicians, and perhaps the general public, or should this be a concern for biologists, and psychologists?