One of the great humanitarian crises of this still young century is the mass of refugees seeking asylum in Europe. They have blazed trails from various war-torn nations and are knocking on the doors of Germany, France, Hungary and others in the hopes of finding new lives in the new world.

To help us understand how we got here and where we should go next is a fine panel of analysts, historians, and scholars. Marina Henke, a German by birth and international relations professor at Northwestern, Erik Tillman, also a political scientist from DePaul, joined Milt in studio. Via phone, our old friend Richard Friedman and fellow DePaul professor, history, Tom Mockiatis.

Many are opposed to his mass migration. Many more support it, and even say it will be of great benefit to Europe. Wherever you stand on the issue, what is clear is that a great relocation will take place, and that war in the Middle East will continue into the near future.

Subscribe to The Milt Rosenberg Show in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 15 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member

    Thank you for a very interesting podcast.

    • #1
  2. Jojo Inactive

    Marina Henkel gave the figure of 40,000 refugees per day trying to enter Europe. Per day. That magnitude is a revelation to me.

    • #2
  3. Freesmith Inactive

    Other than a single phone caller there wasn’t anyone on this podcast who did not have a conventional, globalist point-of-view. Boooooorrrring!

    Most appalling was the unchallenged view that it was up to the host countries to mold and manage the feelings of the migrants, that as long as say Germany made the Syrians feel welcome that would defuse any Muslim anger or resentment or sense of inferiority.

    So if the Tsarnaev brothers blow up the Boston Marathon it’s our fault for not making them more welcome here.

    As usual with globalists and progressives, they believe these pitiful Third Worlders have no agency – everything depends on what the white man does or doesn’t do. It’s the racism of NO expectations and endless excuses.

    Marina was the worst. She obviously finds religion and nationalism totally unimportant and bothersome. A perfect PORGI, that one.

    • #3
  4. Zafar Member

    Freesmith:Most appalling was the unchallenged view that it was up to the host countries to mold and manage the feelings of the migrants, that as long as say Germany made the Syrians feel welcome that would defuse any Muslim anger or resentment or sense of inferiority.

    How is it not up to the host country to mold its immigrants?  Didn’t the US do exactly that with its public school system?

    Re Germany: how has Germany done with its Muslim immigrants (finally acknowledged) since WWII?  There are quite a few (5% of the population?) – is there a big problem with homegrown jihad in Germany?

    If not, why not? What’s the difference between Germany and say the US or France or the UK when it comes to that?  (I’m going to go Third Rail and say: foreign policy and colonial history, but open to other ideas.)

    • #4
  5. Freesmith Inactive

    So, Zafar, to the question of who was responsible for the sense of dislocation and jihadist rage of the Taarnaevs, you say America? The Boston bombing was OUR society’s failure?

    Talk about blame America first! That sick concept certainly shows up in funny places these days.

    There is another difference you and the panel gloss over when it comes to welcoming these “guests,” which is they were not invited. Europe did not ask them they resettle; this crisis is being forced upon the Europeans.

    The only thing Europe did to attract these people was to have stable, prosperous nations – the more prosperous, the more attractive. The migrants want to “share” that prosperity.

    Good luck with that low-income housing the Obama administration wants to put in “wealthy” U.S. suburbs. That policy is guided by exactly the same sick rationale.

    • #5
  6. GirlWithAPearl Inactive

    Out. STANDING. conversation. My hat is off to Milt for providing one of the most useful, calm, thoughtful conversations to date regarding the refugee crisis. I’m only two-thirds of the way through but had to pause to come here and recommend that everyone give this a close listen.

    If you’re addicted to the crudities of cable tee-vee you prolly won’t last through the first break. But if you’re interested in serious examination of a problem that is just beginning and will not abate in the foreseeable future, this hour and a half will be well worth your time, and both mind- and heart-opening.

    Right off the bat, in the first few minutes of Marina Henke’s commentary, I learned a useful factoid: one explanation for the large number of single male refugees is that Assad (our good buddy whom we are about to infuse with huge cash & comfort via Obama’s Bull Shiite “deal”), has begun to conscript available men for use in his people-eating, sanctuary-for-tyrants machine. Aha. That’s something I can understand, and a pretty good reason for fleeing far as I can see.

    to be continued…

    • #6
  7. GirlWithAPearl Inactive


    One thing, though, that struck me. Even this illustrious and thoughtful panel is speaking in terms of a few tens of thousands. But the crisis numbers in the MILLIONS. Reality bites….we Americans might want to think (a foreign concept, especially during football season) that we’ve avoided consequences by pulling out of the Middle East. But we’ve just created a different, possibly heavier, problem – on the other end so to speak. Oh well, just switch the channel, Americans (there are many hundreds of choices and you don’t even have to leave your recliner) and see how long you can avoid responsiblility. Oh, and vote for Trump. He really really hates immigrants and uglies. That’ll teach ’em. And that’ll “make America great again™.”

    • #7
  8. Zafar Member

    Freesmith:So, Zafar, to the question of who was responsible for the sense of dislocation and jihadist rage of the Taarnaevs, you say America? The Boston bombing was OUR society’s failure?

    Of course not Freesmith.  It’s all their fault.  Our actions only cause good responses, and anybody who says different is wrong and probably a vegetarian.

    (Although – the Tsarnaevs – made no sense, any way you look at it.  If they had a Chechen issue they would have it with Russia – so what was going on with them?  I didn’t understand it, to be honest. My opinion: they were homicidal nuts.)

    • #8
  9. Freesmith Inactive

    Our actions do cause responses, Zafar; however, whether those responses are for good or ill is up to the responder.

    • #9
  10. Zafar Member


    • #10
  11. Freesmith Inactive

    Girl with a Pearl

    Contempt for your fellow Americans is unattractive. But it does seem to be a feature of those with a post-nationalist, globalist outlook, which may explain why so many ordinary Americans keep failing John Kerry’s “global test.”

    • #11
  12. GirlWithAPearl Inactive

    Freesmith, contempt for “the other” is unattractive ‘specially when coming from a guy an ocean away dispensing advice to other sovereign nations. My contempt is not unfounded when my fellow citizens twice elected the primary author of this refugee crisis and so many of my fellow pubbies seem fixated at the moment on mindless nativism that only exacerbates the problems and prolongs the reckoning.

    As for your fave caller, the huntington guy i presume, t’would be nice if such a utopian idea could explain away all the worlds human plight but it is not realistic or moral in my view.

    • #12
  13. Freesmith Inactive


    Ah, the primary author of the refugee crisis roiling Turkey, Jordan and now Europe is the American President.

    First let me introduce you to Zafar.

    Second, let me introduce you to Bashar al-Assad.

    My goodness, you “Blame America Firsters” seem to think those foreigners have no agency whatsoever, that they are merely props for some endless morality play about the U.S. Like Chalmers Johnson with “blowback” and Malcolm X and Jeremiah Wright with “chickens coming home to roost” you see war and strife where there has never been peace and point your finger at America.

    There really is more than one way to see the Syrian refugee crisis other than the perspective of Davos and Brussels. It would be nice if those others were represented on a podcast featured on a conservative website. I can get the globalist view on NPR.

    As far as advice from this side of the Atlantic is concerned Europe can do what it likes – and suffer the consequences. Although I do think they’d be wise to remember 376 and what happens when you allow huge numbers of outsiders to cross the Danube.

    As for America I believe we should accept one less Syrian migrant than the number of Mexican migrants European countries have accepted.

    They’ve got their problem; we’ve got ours.

    • #13
  14. GirlWithAPearl Inactive

    You’re quite the P-touch labeling machine there, Freesmith. I’m a post-nationalist, globalist, blame America firster. I’ll have to get on the mailing lists to find out what else I’m guilty of and where to get my lapel pins!

    • #14
  15. Mr Tall Inactive
    Mr Tall

    Thanks to Milt for this episode.

    I agree with Freesmith: it was a window into a now-discredited, 20th-century, globalist worldview in which people and cultures are considered to be essentially equivalent and therefore fungible — except that only people in Western cultures really, deep down, are responsible for their own actions, and can ‘redeem’ those who are lost in a broken world.

    There were moments I found beyond parody, especially when Ms Henke was solemnly delivering her sociologist’s dogma: i.e. that material deprivation is the real ‘root cause’ of terrorism and jihad. Does anyone really believe this anymore?

    Kudos to Milt, by the way, for continually posing questions and rhetorical openings that encouraged his guests to offer up anything other than the most standardized soft-left explanations for this crisis. It was not his fault that not one of his guests was sufficiently daring — or perhaps even capable — of taking one up.

    • #15
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.