[From article]
Everyone recognizes the need for humanitarian assistance to a reasonable degree for those trying to escape from the horrors of the brutality of the war in Syria and the barbarous Islamist terrorism.
While recognizing the moral problem involved, the countries of Europe are confronted with the pragmatic problem of responding in the context of 4.6 million Middle East refugees seeking asylum and 13.5 million people needing assistance inside Syria.
[. . .]
There are three factors involved. The first is the unwelcome straightforward issue of the number of would-be migrants, genuine refugees, from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somali, and Eritrea, who can realistically be accepted by European countries and, to a lesser extent, by the United States. A second is whether those migrants, mostly Muslim, can be satisfactorily integrated into Western democratic societies. Already in 2015 more than 1 million people came to Europe by sea, and another 34,000 by land. A third problem is the fear that some of them may be Islamists or jihadists prepared to cause harm, rather than genuine refugees.
[. . .]
the President of Finland Sauli Niinisto said that migration into European by people, almost all Muslims, was a serious threat to Western values, culture, and identity. It is now clear that a considerable number of those seeking asylum are not genuine refugees fleeing war.
[. . .]
The West should try to some extent to help those refugees who are in distress or who are being persecuted but not those people who are not really in need.
[. . .]
after peace talks in Geneva on Syria had failed and been suspended, the London Conference agreed to raise more than $10 billion,
[. . .]
thirty governors have declared their states would not accept any of the 10,000 Syrians that President Barack Obama had suggested could enter the country, while some of the presidential candidates have suggested admitting only Christian Syrians.
The debate is even more heated among the European countries,
[. . .]
One is that it is simply not feasible for European societies now encountering economic difficulties, to manage to incorporate a large influx of foreigners that would be a burden on resources. The other is the reasonable expectation that the nature of their society would be changed for the worse.
[. . .]
Germany, which has taken disproportionate numbers, was to take 17,000, and France 12,000, but the UK opted out of this quota proposal.
[. . .]
Instead it built walls around the entrance of the Channel Tunnel to prevent migrants camped in Calais from entering it to get to Britain.
One fear has been that refugee camps in European countries may become breeding grounds for jihadists. That has come true [. . .] in Austria [where] young people have apparently become radicalized because of immigration difficulties and their unwillingness to become integrated into Austrian society.
Austria, with a population of 9 million, received 90,000 asylum claims, but many of the claims were by economic, not political, migrants. The Austrian government deported 12,500, and argued that the European Union should stop giving aid to those Middle East countries that refuse to take back nationals whose asylum claims were rejected.
All the European countries recognize that the influx of migrants has caused difficulties in their social, economic, and political systems.
[. . .]
Politically, many of the countries have witnessed the rise of far right and nationalist political parties who call for limits on immigration, especially by those of Muslim culture and religion, who they argue are difficult to integrate into the existing system or even worse may be hostile to it as has been shown by the Islamist violence in Malmo, Sweden.
[. . .]
The [parties] have changed the landscape in European politics.
[. . .]
two factors are relevant. It is not racist to suggest that for practical reasons reasonable limits be put on those attempting to immigrate.
[. . .]
the native population of Europe is aging and declining.
[. . .]
The question is not one of discrimination, but of real differences: educational levels, cultural behavior, religious, and political views.
The Finnish president Niinisto on February 3, 2016 asked the question, “We have to ask ourselves whether we aim to protect European values and people …or inflexibly stick to the letter of our international obligation with no regard for the consequences.” If Western democracies are to survive the answer is obvious.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/realism_about_immigration.html
February 6, 2016
Realism about Immigration
By Michael Curtis
No comments:
Post a Comment