Europe on a Death Roll

Is it European altruism that they are accepting immigrants from Africa, Middle East and elsewhere for quite some decades? Can we say it is their liberalism which, in its lofty principles, asks for elimination of all biases and orders care for all humans alike? Or, is it something more mundane like the guilt-feeling emanating from their colonializing past? In case of Germany, it wasn’t so much colonial past. But then, is it the horror of recent Nazi rule, that makes them compensate through a call for higher human values?

Before we go deeper into the subject, let me list the possible reasons for accepting foreigners into their countries — some oft-repeated and some carefully avoided. These have been (a) doing the humane thing faced with refugee and asylum seeking situations, (b) short-term augmentation of labour force, (c) long-term demographic trends of reduction in the native populations’ growth rates, and (d) enriching the local culture and thereby improving the overall quality of life. Believe it or not, this last reason—that culture enriching bit—has also been profusely touted.

Germany has had immigration issues since the end of the World War. Initially those were Germans expellees returning home. From 1961, for next twelve years, it was guest workers needed for low-paying jobs that Germans were reluctant to do. That stopped in 1973, but the inflow of immigrants’ relatives followed. Since 1992, immigration was opened again — this time to ethnic Germans and asylum seekers. There were further stops and starts. However, as it stood in 2011, Germany had 80.3 million residents, and of those, 15.96 million — almost 19 per cent of the entire population — had a migration background. In 2005, in comparison, 17.9 per cent of the population had a migration background. Things have gone further south in recent years. In 2013, 1.2 million people came to Germany, and simultaneously 797,000 people left Germany. This resulted in an addition of 403,000 people. This was the highest plus since 1993.

The trend has been nearly the same all across Europe. Local populations are aghast at the way it has changed their lifestyle. A poll carried out in the Netherlands in 2013 revealed that 77 per cent of respondents believed that Islam does not enrich their country. The view was shared by such majorities across voters of all Dutch political parties. Some 73 per cent said that a relationship exists between Islam and terror attacks and 68 per cent said that there already was enough Islam in the country.

This was when they hadn’t experienced 2015 — a watershed year when Italy, Greece and Hungary faced large influxes of migrants — most coming from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Albania and Pakistan. In that year over 1.3 million refugees and asylum seekers flooded the continent. Hungary apparently was worst struck by receiving near 1,800 migrants per 100,000 of its local population. Towards releasing pressure on Hungary, EU Ministers agreed to relocate 160,000 migrants to other parts of Europe. Further, they offered to move out another 54,000 from Hungary. A good deal? Apparently not for Hungary. It rejected the offer, and chose to take in more migrants from Italy and Greece instead. What was the inherent thinking here? The high-pedestal rhetoric of enrichment of their own culture through incoming immigrants? Hungary wasn’t a colonizing nation; and they rightfully couldn’t have had any guilt on that score. So, was it a necessity in view of their ageing population — annual population growth rate being -0.3 per cent in that year?

Here, it is important to note that a country’s annual growth rate needs to be 2.1 per cent to maintain its current population in absolute numbers.

Sweden took in 1,667 migrants per 100,000 of its local population — a close second to Hungary — in that year. The annual population growth rate was near 1.1 per cent. Swedes sang it to skies that they welcomed these mostly Islamic migrants to enrich their culture. Of course, only the unhinged—governments in power included—accepted that rationale.  Malmo — once a quiet city — and currently Sweden’s most populous city has 20 per cent Muslims. And it has been overrun with violence, the latest being the brutal gang violence last month. That supposed “enriched culture” has instilled such a palpable fear that parents are no longer comfortable with sending their children out to play.

How do common Germans feel about the immigrant influx? Well, a poll carried out in 2012 — before the 2015 influx happened — showed that 64 per cent of respondents associated Islam with violence and 70 per cent associated it with fanaticism and radicalism. These concerns have not diminished. They have exacerbated year on year in spite of some let off this year. All across Europe, people have been ruing the destruction of native culture and ruination of the standard of living.

I put it to you that poor post-war demographic planning has brought Europe to this sorry pass. There have been, and shall be, more and more culture clashes and ethnic conflicts. The life style of local populations are seriously affected, and will only deteriorate in future. There is massive discontent amongst all over Europe, and it is expressed time and again in various opinion polls.

How then, in the European democracies, do the political leaders take in those concerns? The answer is, they don’t. It is the same old charade of showing angst on immigration at the times of elections, and doing just the opposite after the elections.

Take France as an example of what is going on. In April 2013, Harris Interactive reported that in a poll conducted across the country, 73 per cent of people said they viewed Islam negatively. Yet, 10 per cent of French population today is Muslim.

In November 2009, Nicolas Sarkozy was at the helm. He was unpopular. He was running out of time for he had already completed more than half of his term in office. The major concern ahead was that the voters were expected to give a bloody nose to Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling right wing party in the regional elections. He launched a 3-month long debate on the need to redefine the values of France in the 21st century and what their collective future should be. The most critical issue of the government’s drive was the then current toughening up of French borders and increasing forced removals, which was the centre-right Sarkozy’s creation in 2007. In that sense the debate was seen as Sarkozy’s attempt at softening somewhat on immigration.

Regardless, the net immigration into France stood at over 470,000 between that year and 2016. That was when in an interview to two British authors, President Francois Hollande opened up. He was nearing the completion of his term, which, in turn, unburdened him. It would be reasonable to assume he would have otherwise chosen to keep mum. He spoke his heart out when he said, “The fact that there is a problem (in France) with Islam is true. Nobody doubts that.” He drilled deeper and surprisingly arrived at the home truth, saying, “It’s not Islam itself that poses a problem for being a religion that is dangerous for the Republic but because it wants to assert itself as a religion inside the French Republic.”

But what does his successor, Emanuel Macron, do? He came in 2017, and his term had pretty much just begun. The timing being perfect, the pitch on immigration could be conveniently changed. Witness the about turn. He has reportedly said, “The reality is that Europe is not experiencing a migration crisis of the same magnitude as the one it experienced in 2015. A country like Italy has not at all the same migratory pressure as last year. The crisis we are experiencing today in Europe is (only) a political crisis”. A liar, for dumb he certainly is not.

The immigration crisis was thus pooh-poohed as only political. You want to understand this flip flop on immigration? Match it with the fact that France’s population growth rate is near 0.4 per cent or thereabout. President Macron wants yet more of those immigrants. Ask yourself as to why more are needed? Is it because that would be in consonance with his left liberal high moral pedestal? Or, is it for some more enriching through immigrants’ cultures? I suggest it simply is for inexpensive labour they sorely need now, and shall go on needing in foreseeable future.

European politicians have been dishing feel good banalities when those in reality are clever lies covering up the fact that all crime and violence is almost always from one particular immigrant community.

From immigrants’ perspective, they know they would be used as cheap labour in their adopted country. To them, it may still look like an accomplishment of a life-long dream in comparison with a lot sorrier conditions in the countries they came from. But they find out it isn’t such a happy place for themselves either; and for what they think is necessary for their happiness they demand, agitate and resort to violence.

What about the citizens of various European countries? They have repeatedly spoken their minds. Europe’s leadership is not listening. On a one-way ticket to doom. You bet, that’s where Europe is.

***