Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The View from Austria, Part III
This is the third and final part of the extended email exchange between me and one of our members, Lilibellt, an Austrian native who now lives in Vienna. For those of you who missed it, in the first part we discussed why she recently voted for Norbert Hofer of Austria’s Freedom party (FPÖ), and what the obviously controversial party now stands for. In the second part, we discussed Europe’s migration crisis, which we continue to discuss today.
To put this in context: Last Tuesday, the European Commission presented its latest plan for stemming migration to Europe. The EU intends to seal agreements with African and Middle Eastern countries making development aid and trade ties with certain countries conditional on their cooperation to “persuade” refugees to stay home:
European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans told lawmakers that the new partnership agreements would combine funds to strengthen border control, accelerate asylum procedures and to enhance counter-smuggling capacities, in addition to promoting development, investment and trade.
“We propose to use a mix of positive and negative incentives to reward those third countries willing to cooperate effectively with us, and to ensure that there are consequences for those who do not. This includes using our development of trade policies to create leverage.”
The plan envisages spending $9 billion in development aid and other assistance over the next five years.
The EU Migration Commissioner has said project funding could eventually reach 62 billion Euros, or roughly $70 billion dollars.
As I’m sure you’ve heard, the EU made a similar deal with Turkey recently, offering a large aid package and the (vague) promise of visa-free travel for Turkish citizens in exchange for Turkey’s readmission of rejected migrants and its efforts to stop refugees and migrants, most of them from Syria, from sailing to Greece.
Part of the new plan sounds very reasonable. The EU says it will prioritize agreements with Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Mali and Ethiopia. Cutting deals like this with Sudan and Eritrea, however, doesn’t seem quite so common-sensical. The Eritrean regime stops people fleeing the country by means of a shoot-to-kill policy on its borders. (After Syrians, Afghans, and Iraqis, Eritreans are the largest group of people trying to reach Europe.) Sudan, of course, is led by Omar al-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide in Darfur. And the United States believes his regime sponsors terrorism. Nevertheless, Spiegel reports,
documents relating to the project indicate that Europe wants to send cameras, scanners and servers for registering refugees to the Sudanese regime in addition to training their border police and assisting with the construction of two camps with detention rooms for migrants. …
A general with Sudan’s Interior Ministry told SPIEGEL and ARD that technology would not just be used to register refugees, but also all Sudanese. The regime’s goal appears to be the absolute surveillance of its people.
A spat between Austria and Hungary is now growing because Hungary is refusing to take back any of the thousands of migrants that Austria says should be returned under EU rules. And the FPÖ has challenged “irregularities” in the recent Austrian election. So Austria remains at the center of things.
Claire: In our last discussion, I pointed out that the total number of asylum-seekers and migrants, so far, amounted to no more than a thousandth of Europe’s population. You replied, and the point is well-taken, that first, the refugees and migrants are disproportionately young and male; second, the EU plan for refugee quotas probably will never go into effect; and third, most of the refugees are either already in, or want to go, to Germany, Austria and Sweden, so it’s only realistic to assume that those countries will have to deal with the majority of asylum-seekers. But that could be construed as an argument in favor of keeping Europe’s internal borders open — because, as you point out, if they’re open, the idea of “quotas” and “migrants per country” is a nonsense. The problem is that they’re not a nonsense. Europe is now in a netherworld where no one is sure whether its borders are real.
Lillibellt: Exactly. Sadly, there is nothing more to add, except that the European mismanagement of this crisis doesn’t end there. If we look at Eurostat data, we see that in 2015, out of a total of 1,321,600 asylum seekers, there were only 366,785 females. And 652,279 were males between 14 and 34 years of age. Why?
Claire: For one thing, families send the males to make what’s obviously a highly perilous and difficult journey in the expectation that he can then send for his wife and kids, who can come in a safer way, for example, by plane. Also, many Syrian refugees are fleeing conscription into Assad’s army or being forced to fight for ISIS or another militia. It may be that women are in less immediate danger than the men because of that. I’d guess they’re probably also afraid to bring children along on such a dangerous trip. It makes much more sense to leave the mother behind if the children are small and send the strongest member of the family. But you’re right: Whatever the reason, having so many young men around without their wives to civilize them is a recipe for crime and antisocial behavior. To me, that suggests it’s urgent to allow any refugee given asylum to send at once for his wife.
Lilibellt: I have to insert here that being called up for military service is no ground for asylum according to the Geneva Convention–
Claire: –that’s an exceedingly technical objection. The convention defines a refugee as, “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” To be “called up for military service” in Syria is to assent to committing massive war crimes against your fellow citizens, including gassing them with chemical weapons. It’s fair to say that objection to this is a “political opinion,” and that refusing to be conscripted would result in a very well-founded fear of persecution. (See, e.g., Syrian men conscripted in Bashar Assad’s army choose escape over ‘Kill or be killed.”)–
Lilibellt: —I also assume that leaving your wife and children to take a long and perilous journey may not be very agreeable, but it suggests you’re in a reasonably secure place. I don’t want to sound cynical: Living in a refugee camp in Lebanon as a woman, alone with your children, and without the help and protection of your husband, is awful. And very likely dangerous. But it’s not life-threatening, and thus no ground for asylum–
Claire: –Almost certainly, among those who arrive are many people with no strong case for asylum. But to assume refugees are necessarily safe and in no danger of refoulement in countries like Turkey is ungrounded.
Lilibellt: Also, don’t forget that only 50 percent of the asylum seekers are Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghans. The next largest group are Albanians, followed by people from Kosovo. If we conclude that broadly 30-40 percent are not actual refugees, but migrants trying to escape their poor living conditions at home and using the refugee crisis to enter the northern European countries, then a spike in male applicants makes even more sense.
Claire: I’d guess that figure is roughly correct.
Lilibellt: Of course, this is only theoretical and extrapolated from the data available, because I couldn’t find information about the ratio of males and females among the different ethnic groups of asylum-seekers–
Claire: I couldn’t either, but UN data on registered Syrian refugees shows an even ratio of men and women. (This doesn’t at all obviate your point that many may be safe enough to meet the Geneva Convention provisions in the camps where they were registered in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey; I just add the information in case anyone is curious.)
Lilibellt: Shouldn’t it be essential for politicians and opinion leaders to give at least some thought to the social stability within the receiving countries and, in this context, to the fact that last year’s refugee influx in Germany alone has lead to an five percent increase in the young (16-40) male population? For how many years can this go on?
Claire: Just to be clear, last year’s influx in Germany is unlikely to be repeated, because the routes to northern Europe have been sealed. It’s southern Europe, Greece and Italy in particular, that’s apt to end up bearing a vastly disproportionate burden. Those borders are maritime, and obviously not as easy to seal.
Lillibellt: Germany expects 500,000 requests for family reunification among asylum-seekers who registered last year, and we can safely assume that most of the women are married (because of the dangers of coming here unaccompanied). That leaves us with 50 percent of the males between the age of 18 and 40 unmarried. And we haven’t even touched the cultural problems with underaged wives or polygamy.
Claire: I think your demographic concerns are well-founded. It’s common sense: Young, single men are the most criminogenic cohort everywhere, even under the best of circumstances, and even when the gender ratio is equal. When you add “massively traumatized” and “from a culture where women are treated as second-class,” you have a recipe for — no, you will have, guaranteed — a new alienated and criminal underclass. And it’s one that could become more so, quickly, owing to a ratchet effect: If any member of the group commit crimes, people will develop a negative view of the whole group and will be less eager to invite them over, or help them, or hire them. So they’ll quickly encounter stares, insults, hostility in their daily lives, and become fearful of their host country. If they get a reputation for harassing or (God forbid) raping women, it’s very unlikely the local girls will want to date them or marry them. And even if this doesn’t turn them into criminals, they’ll be isolated, lonely, resentful, and sexually frustrated. To me, again, this suggests the urgency of family reunification and the importance of establishing a gender-based quota system.
Lillibellt: To the extent that quotas are feasible in reality, I am with you on your second point. But regarding family reunification, we disagree profoundly: Yes, there must be a realistic prospect of family reunification depending on the asylum-seeker’s efforts to integrate and economic success. But asylum is granted for period of time; it is not a relocation program–
Claire: –in reality, Syrian refugees will need to be relocated permanently. The war could easily last another hundred years. Syria has been destroyed, physically and socially; there is nothing for them to return to. Be practical: Is there a realistic prospect of them returning?
Lillibellt: Only if the asylum-seeker ceases to be dependant on the welfare system should he be eligible for family reunification. For these reasons:
- If he’s successful, there is no point in sending him back home when the cause for his asylum no longer exists. (In Europe, there is already talk about changing Geneva Convention. You will see, this point will be raised in the near future! – and I don’t like that);
- You would give up the best way there is to find out who is really a refugee and who’s not (without quotas, bureaucracy, or lawyers). If you’re a migrant who is not persecuted for your religion, sexual orientation, or political opinions, and the economic prospects in your home country are dire, you want – understandably — a better future for yourself and your children, one without the threat of violent unrest and war. But your work skills won’t be sufficient to find you work in Europe any time soon, so you should think twice and be aware that family reunification is unlikely. (This should apply as well to any possible future wife from his homeland.)
- One of the biggest mistakes Europe made in the past was failing to make a concerted effort to prevent the establishment of “parallel societies.” This situation is the worst now in countries where obtaining family reunification was the easiest. If your family’s future depends on integrating, your chances are much better if you’re in the workforce and have to deal with Austrians, Germans, French, and so forth on a daily basis. It also would lead to the discussion we most need to have, about opening the labor market to refugees. (It can’t be the new normal for refugees to work for a Euro an hour; this is a disgrace and robs companies of their contracts; this is a social time bomb.)
Claire: This is anecdotal, but might provide a clue about why the asylum-seekers are predominantly male:
Lillibellt: This is my point. It’s hard to distinguish between asylum-seekers and migrants (sometimes they are both), but you have to do it. Otherwise, I say it again, you are creating a social time bomb.
Claire: I agree. But as you can see from that video, this will require Europe to coordinate its policies.
Lilibellt: You also have to consider the incentives of the European welfare systems (especially in Austria, Germany, and Sweden). In Austria, everybody, including recognised refugees, who has “no sufficient financial protection by other means” is eligible for the guaranteed minimum income (800 Euros a month for a single man or woman; each child, another 210 Euros.) Recently, the media reported the case of an Afghan family who receives 5,600 Euros a month.
Claire: That “minimum income” in conjunction with Austria not being a deadly war zone is going to continue to attract people — how could it not? Hell, reading that makes me want to move to Austria, I’d quite like a guaranteed minimum income that high! Speaking of economic incentives, this is a natural place to introduce the problem of the economic incentives to human trafficking, which are massive. And busting the traffickers is an incredibly complex transnational problem, about as apt to be successful as the war on drugs. I’ve heard rumors — ones that would obviously be very significant if true — that Russian organized crime has been acting as human traffickers, at least in Greece. Have you seen or heard anything to suggest this is a rumor worth my pursuing?
Lilibellt: No, sorry, I am not even aware of the rumors you mentioned. If, as you said and I agree, this conflict will go on for ten years or longer, there is no way European population will accept peacefully an influx of millions of migrants on their welfare rolls each year, no way. At this point — it is hard to convince the public, but I feel it is still do-able — the only peaceful solution is for Europe to accept only real refugees (women, children, Christians, members of Muslim sects, politically-persecuted people, etc.) and to offer family reunification, in the case of relatives who aren’t persecuted, only after the refugee qualifies for a resident permit and fulfills the economic requirements. Austria took in people after the Yugoslavian war, the Prague spring, and the Hungarian uprising without much complaining (at least, nothing like we are seeing today). I still think that most Europeans are more than willing to help. But if politicians, media outlets, and NGOs keep playing fast and loose with what’s left of Europe’s compassion, I don’t want to imagine what will happen.
Claire: Here’s another situation you don’t want to imagine: There are 4,843,344 Syrian refugees — not economic migrants — in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and North Africa. A whole generation has been brutalized, is going without any education that would allow them to function in a modern economy, and many are living in squalid camps with absolutely no hope for the future. What happens to children who grow up under these circumstances? Will there even be governments with which the EU can make deals? By the way, did you see that Sebastian Kurz (Austria’s foreign minister) argued for the “Australian model” in dealing with migration?
Lillibellt: I was just translating this interview for you, so it saves me the trouble that you found it too. Yes, really — well — interesting times, when I have to agree with a 29-year old rookie politician instead of the 61-year old “pro” who’s experienced in world politics and head of the leading European nation. I feel uneasy about it. Maybe my take on the refugee crisis is completely wrong after all. I surely hope so.
Claire: The obvious practical objection is that Australia can do this because it’s a single country (and an island). No country in Europe will be willing to commit its sovereign territory to this project, I guarantee it. If you look at this discussion thread, for example where people of different European nationalities are talking about this proposal, you can see immediately what every country’s reaction will be: Use someone else’s island. So even if the case can be made that this is the only way to prevent migrants from drowning, it’s not going to happen.
Lillibellt: That’s a question of leverage. What about a temporary solution where Greece agrees to “rent out” an island for a period of time without losing any territory permanently, and renegotiations are scheduled in advance? Could you see this happening? I honestly don’t see any other way. If anyone has a better idea, be my guest: I’ll listen to it. But it pains me to say, you must stop the refugees and migrants from entering European soil to save them from drowning or putting their lives in danger, and to preserve an EU with open borders. Without free trade and free movement of persons, without open borders, the idea of the EU is soon to be a memory of the past.
Claire: I think if I were Greek, I’d be enraged with what seem to me de facto plans to turn Greece into the EU’s massive refugee camp.
Lillibellt: Yes, if I was Greek I would resent Germany more by the day. I wonder if Merkel is even aware what she has created with the illegal bailout of Greece and now this illegal refugee-welcome party. If the European Union falls apart or slides into an even deeper crisis, she’s to blame.
Claire: What if no one’s to blame? Or no one in Europe, anyway.
Lillibellt: What I do know is that the underlying cause of so many unresolved problems today, not only the refugee crisis, is false compassion. Europe, at least the leader of its most influential country, in concert with EU officials and the media, seems to have decided that compassionate policy, not efficient Realpolitik, is the right way to go. Someone should commend to them the words of Stefan Zweig:
There are two kinds of pity. One, the weak and sentimental kind, which is really no more than the heart’s impatience to be rid as quickly as possible of the painful emotion aroused by the sight of another’s unhappiness … ; and the other, the only kind that counts, the unsentimental but creative kind, which knows what it is about and is determined to hold out, in patience and forbearance, to the very limit of its strength and even beyond.
Claire: I don’t know what an unsentimental but creative policy would look like, in the case of the EU. Sending surveillance equipment to al-Bashir is, I suppose, unsentimental.
Lillibellt: I think the main problem is that the present generation of politicians inherited a fairly good, organised Europe (from Mitterrand, Chirac, and Kohl), with clear objectives and rules (like the Maastricht treaty, which anticipated exactly the problems we are having now). But they lack the competence and gravitas of their predecessors. They have the mentality of bureaucrats, and perhaps it isn’t even their fault, because — as Kafka perfectly described it – bureaucracy is a beast of its own. Merkel even looks like some character out of his books (I know, I know you’re not supposed to make fun of people’s looks, but I couldn’t resist). Why is it that Putin, Orban, or even Erdoğan for that matter — he is not shy about declaring his objectives, you must give him that — can formulate their political goals and philosophies so much more coherently than European politicians, or worse, EU officials? (I am not talking about their actual policies.)
Claire: The beauty of authoritarianism. It’s easy to be clear when you’ve crushed your domestic opposition and you don’t mind alienating the rest of the world.
Lillibellt: Then again, maybe you’re right and the bureaucracy is only a symptom of history repeating itself. Before the First World War, the Habsburg empire was known for having the best civil service administration in the world (like the EU bureaucracy). At the same time, Franz Josef II is said to have had little interest in the military and matters of national defense (like all the EU members, with maybe the exception of the former Eastern bloc countries). And nationalism arose everywhere in the Empire (like everywhere in the EU). You yourself drew comparisons to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the comment section of our first exchange. Perhaps we have to take another look at nationalism and learn how to make it a force for good (more in the spirit of Dvorak and Liszt) rather than suppressing it. I don’t know.
Claire: I’m not sure how even the healthiest of nationalisms would solve, practically, the problems at hand. That reminds me: Russia. Are you concerned about the alleged links between the FPÖ (the party for which she recently voted) and Putin?
Lilibellt: Yes, I am, or at a minimum I don’t feel too comfortable about it. Admittedly, I haven’t paid much attention to the FPÖ’s connection to Russia or Serbia in the past. If I remember correctly, a former FPÖ party member and now an FPÖ arch-enemy, Ewald Stadler, was an election observer in Ukraine and ruled that everything was okay. The name the most associated with Russia among the FPÖ’s ranks is the party’s vice-leader, Johann Gudenus, who spent time in Russia during his legal studies and is thus fluent in Russian. He was an election observer during the Crimean “independence” referendum, after which the FPÖ supported Russia. Remember you asked my opinion about Hofer’s statement that Kosovo is part of Serbia? Neither the FPÖ nor Hofer released further comment, and there was no follow-up in the press, just that one headline. I still doubt it has much to do with pandering to potential voters, but it does make sense in light of the FPÖ’s engagement with Russia. Overall, I’m not really sure what to make of this apparent alliance between the right parties of Europe (the National Front in France, the AfD in Germany, the FPÖ in Austria) with Russia.
Claire: Is there resentment of Russia in Austria, generally [for worsening the Syrian crisis and generating more refugees], or is Russia seen to be playing a useful role?
Lillibellt: I’m not aware of it. Generally I don’t think, too many people are familiar with the details of the Syrian war and the political players involved.
Claire: What about the US? Is there resentment that the US hasn’t played a more active role or accepted more refugees?
Lillibellt: There is no resentment towards the US because of its lack of activity; far more often Austrians blame America for destabilizing the Middle East in the first place, starting with Bush.
Claire I’m honestly feeling hopeless. I look in every direction and see no rational solution that would be widely accepted in Europe. It’s a classic tragedy of the commons.
…..
Meanwhile in Syria, mere hours after the first food rations in four years were delivered to Daraya, which has been under siege by Assad and starving, Assad began pounding the city with barrel bombs.
Jean-Marc Ayrault, France’s foreign minister, said he was “outraged beyond words.”
Thank you for any help you can give me toward defraying the costs of writing this book.
Published in General
The ~750 million denominator in that statistic includes European Turkey and everything through European Russia.
Cutting down to the EU takes a third off the denominator.
Taking out the Eastern European EU countries where the migrants do not want to settle, probably knocks the denominator down a decent amount more. Take out the less popular/attractive Western European EU countries like Spain and you concentrate things more.
Then we start looking at concentration within the popular countries.
This puts a bit more urgency in the factors you then address like the parallel societies issue. We easily see that the current immigration amount is sufficient to overwhelm specific cities/areas.
Then you start getting into some significant civil rights issues if you want to prevent the parallel societies. Would you prevent migrants from moving to an area that already had x% Muslim population? Would you cut off access to Hallal food? Would you strictly enforce a secular education policy?
Very informative series. I appreciate Lillibellt’s insights.
For Europe this is not just a migration crisis. It is a cultural crisis. The last transformational migration crisis was in the 5th century.
There is a solution, and that is for NATO to send forces to Syria to secure a partition of the country. The Kurds get their part, the Sunnis get their part, and the Alawites get their part. That way everyone gets a safe place to live and the refugees can go home.
This is a NATO job because if it is not done, Putin will continue to use Assad to flood Europe with refugees to stoke the fortunes of brown parties allied to Moscow.
What is at stake in Syria is not Aleppo, it is Europe. Either the West takes a stand or Europe falls.
It doesn’t include Turkey, even on the European side of the Bosphorus, according to the UN, although it does include Russia. I think you’re correct to say that the odds of Russia cooperating with a refugee redistribution plan are nil, however.
I’ve been wondering the same thing.
How long do you think this would take? How many ground troops? Do you think Russia would accept this? How great is the risk of provoking a direct superpower confrontation? Do you think it could be done without killing what remains of Syria’s population and spreading the chaos further and faster? How long would Syria need to be occupied? Who would do the occupying? How much would it cost? How will Syria be rebuilt?
I’m not sure you’re wrong, but the questions need to be asked and answered to a reasonable approximation of reality before this is a policy proposal that makes sense.
I have no idea if it’s true, but it hit Twitter about six hours ago that US airstrikes killed 22 civilians in Ojaqnah village today. Is there any realistic possibility of NATO making Syria a place to which refugees wish to return — in a timeframe that keeps Europe stable, no less?
I don’t see how it amounts to anything but an empty slogan. If we’ll reject sentimental pity, I don’t see how replacing it with equally sentimental romantic nationalism helps.
How do you get Turkey on board?
What about Christians and Druze?
What do you do about the Russians?
Once you partition, what do you do if one entity attacks another?
And also thinks if the evidence for this is that they didn’t end the war. I don’t think he’s correct. I think everyone knows what’s happening in Syria.
Euro socialist elites will win the battle versus the nationalists by using the oddly paired fists of political correctness and Islam. What comes after might not be so fun for the socialists though after they are too weak to deal with the death cult of Fuller Brush folks in their living room.
Well, you’re describing the plan as it stands now: governments in the Middle East and Africa (including that of génocidaires) get the “assistance” they need to be sure no one can leave any state that still exists has a state; and as for the countries with maritime borders, too bad: Greece becomes Europe’s Nauru, whether it volunteered for the job or not. You can’t really “build a wall” on the Mediterranean. Mind you, France apart, it’s still curtains for Europe. So Southern Europe may well have the last laugh.
I suppose I’m entering into kook territory here, but I would like to weed out those internationalists who have no loyalties to anything but money and power. I’m thinking of EU and IMF bureaucrats as a prime example. And I’m not sure if we can ever develop any understanding of the Islamic peoples, or develop the confidence we need to take in mideast refugees, if we don’t have any sentimental loyalties of our own. History has shown it’s a dangerous tool, of course, so I’m not all gung-ho about blood-and-earth loyalties. The operative word is “wondering.”
You’ve blown up the Geneva Convention. Those who don’t have a genuine claim to asylum should be returned. To return those who do have a claim means you’ve blown up the Geneva Convention. Are you sure that’s wise? Are you absolutely sure neither you nor yours will ever need its protections?
Is Europe still Europe if it renders its own history morally meaningless?
As Raspail asks: What’s the point of protecting Christian civilization if there’s no Christianity in that civilization?
I can’t say much about IMF bureaucrats, but I see no reason to think EU bureaucrats are motivated only by money and power. They’re civil servants, and they are, I assume, loyal to a vision of a Europe that never again descends into the barbarism of the first half of the 20th Century. It’s no small thing to which to be loyal, and I do think it inspires real passion. How could it not? Who could look at the rows and rows and rows of monuments and memorials and gravesites in even the smallest of European villages and say, “The only way to make meaning of this is to ensure it never happens again?”
I’m sure there are Eurocrats who are short-sighted or corrupt, but on the whole they seem to me to mean well.
I don’t know enough about the IMF to say that; I can say, though, that they’re not much better at economic forecasting than my tarot pack, and that following their counsel has caused a lot of misery. Whether it’s possible to do better, generally, I don’t know.
As long as the political center of gravity in the Western World continues to conflate masochism with altruism we will continue to have people like Trump destroying any hope of improvement.
Why do you say the circumstances were entirely different?
Welfare states, transportation technology, and communications for starters.
Sometimes I think what really upsets Europe about these asylum seekers is the Asylanten resolutely refuse to be washed of their woad. They seek asylum, but they do not feel inferior. Is this upsetting?
It’s true that the 1951 Convention was essentially limited to protecting European refugees in the aftermath of World War II, but the 1967 Protocol removed its geographical and temporal restrictions. That the 1951 Convention was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War hardly meant that the crisis of displaced persons was easily solved; if in some sense Europe and the Islamic world have been at war on and off for centuries, so has Europe been at war with itself; the First and Second World wars dwarfed in bloodletting by orders of magnitude any previous war with the Islamic world.
It’s not true that there’s no common heritage whatsoever among peoples of the Mediterranean, not at all. Nor is it true that migrants to Europe have shown no interest in becoming European. There are unquestionably pockets of failed integration, so-called parallel societies; but most immigrants have wanted to become European, and most have succeeded. France, certainly, is full of people like Myriam El Khomri — born in Rabat, whose civilization most certainly is part of the heritage of France — whose proposals to reform the labor law have brought France to a standstill. (The latter is thanks to CDG head and communist lunatic Philippe Martinez, who’s of Spanish origin — his father fought in the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War.) Immigrants from Afghanistan are in no sense historically part of European civilization, and I do wonder if they’ll fare especially well here, but Indian, Bengali, and Pakistani immigrants have for the most part done fine in Britain. Mind you, it isn’t clear whether modern economies can still integrate unskilled labor, so this time may be different, but the jury’s still out about whether any of us will ever experience economic optimism again.
As for “what interest could Europe possibly have in resettling legitimate refugees,” beyond the moral question there’s the point — and so far, no one has tried to rebut it — that unless Syria’s refugees, in particular, are resettled and their children educated and given a reasonable shot at at least a 19th-century life, they will grow up under conditions that every bit of research we have suggests will be a petri dish for radicalization. Europe can’t just erect massive walls and hope that madhouse stays on the other side of the wall. This is the era of SAMs and IRBMs and ISIS. Leaving hundreds of thousands of children to grow up like that on the other side of the Med is to leave the next generation to deal with a problem that, unimaginable as it sounds, will be even worse.
Syrian civilization was repressive before the war, but it was not barbarian. I accept that Europe cannot accept every refugee in the world, but there is both a moral case and a Realpolitik case for accepting as many as possible, and putting pressure on all the developed countries of the world — including ours — to do the same. The only alternative is, as Robert has proposed, attempting to impose a military solution on Syria, and I’m not sure there’s much evidence that we are capable of it; we certainly don’t have the will. But putting up a wall and hoping it will be a barrier to what the region is becoming is not going to work.
I would love Ricochet to schedule a debate between Claire and Mark Steyn on what to do about this issue. There are millions of square miles of vacant land in the dar al-Islam for these folks to be reorganized and educated – western civilization does not have to commit suicide to pander to effete sensibilities.
What is required to to give the anti Assad forces sufficient support to fight Assad to a draw. This includes neutralizing the Syrian Air Force, so that the front can be stabilized and people behind the lines can be safe. Once that is done, a partition can be negotiated. The alternative is allowing genocide and ethnic cleansing in Syria, driving the destabilization and subsequent Kremlin domination of Europe.
Your questions and concerns are all valid, but this is why we have a military, which needs to figure out how to implement such a strategy. We either draw the line or allow catastrophe.
The Syrian Air Force has largely been neutralized. The Russian Air Force has taken over.
I don’t know if this is even true. Many second-generation immigrants I’ve spoken to in Europe have described lifetimes of wanting to fit in and be accepted. I think the first generation usually spends most of their lives, unless they were very young when they arrived, feeling baffled and a bit scared.
I was curious about whether Muslims fleeing to Europe ostensibly from the chaos created by the Islamic State didn’t seem a contradiction at some level. (Yes, I know they are mostly fleeing Assad, but I don’t know if that is the general perception of the issue. Am I wrong?)
One could argue: if the chaos is a function of Islam, why are these refugees showing up in Europe (whose peace and prosperity is a function of Christianity) to ask for asylum while still mostly remaining Muslim?
If being Muslim was what created the problems which made them refugees in the first place, shouldn’t they be wanting to be something else when they flee these problems? And if not, why not?
I sort of pick up that pov on Ricochet occasionally, and wondered if it existed in Europe as well?