Recently, Paul commented on, and criticized, something I said in our August 4 post, “We are at War!”
I said that Europe was being “overrun by Muslim immigrants.” I sounded like Geert Wilders, the outspoken, controversial and popular nativist Dutch politician known for his hostility to immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants. Okay, I’ll backtrack. Let’s forget “Muslim.”
I only singled out this one religion, I suppose irrelevantly, because it is numerically by far the largest group of immigrants to Europe.
Let’s just ask (1) whether Europe is being overrun, period, (2) if so, by whom, and (3) whether this is good or bad.
My answer to my own questions is this:
1) Maybe “overrun” is an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that many millions of immigrants have been moving to Europe for decades.
2) They come largely from Third World countries, obviously in search of a better life - North Africans, Turks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Senegalese, Congolese, Serbs, Bosnians, Somalians, Surinamese, and many others.
3) Obviously moving is good for the immigrants. It is also good for Europe in some ways. It helps the labor market. It helps demographically, as the birthrate of many European countries is below replacement level.
In a cosmic/planetary sense, the mass migration of poor Third World populations to the affluent West is “moral,” and “just.” Why should Europeans be rich and Africans starve?
But surely it is inconvenient for Europeans, no? The quality of life in Europe declines as a result. There is more crime. There is more inter-cultural conflict. There is economic cost. There are vast new slums (Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam, L’Ile St-Denis in Paris, etc.). Algerians periodically burn several thousand cars in Paris.
There is a difference between the current mass migration to Europe and the largely Latin mass migration to the United States: The people who cross the Rio Grande come entirely for jobs and for a better life, with very little political or revolutionary baggage. But some/many of the “allochtones” (the Dutch word for such largely ethnic immigrants) in Europe have, in addition, a cultural and political agenda that aims to “change” (= subvert) the European status quo. Their economic grievances may be justified, but the difference of which I speak is very real.
We could look back at Ancient Rome, and say that they, too, admitted “allochtones” to their midst.
Applying this word to ancient Rome instead of speaking of “Visigoths,” and “Lombards” is funny, and it puts things in an interesting context.
Back then, the arrival of those populations into the Roman Empire can also be seen as “just.” After all, they only wanted to share in the wealth and the amenities of Roman life. But it didn’t work out very well, did it?
Did I say that Third World immigrants to Europe are barbarians? No
But does Europe have a problem? Yes
Am I speaking in cliches and generalities? Yes
Is what I wrote probably true? Yes leave comment here
