by Hugh Fitzgerald
Apologists for the millions of Muslim migrants that have been allowed into Western Europe paint these hordes as the indispensable response to the felt need for more workers. The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, recently told the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle that Europe “will clearly need immigration in the coming decades.” He further added that “we have to provide those who want to come and are able to come, and whose situation makes it possible for them to come, with legal paths to get to Europe. ” Those who “want to come”? Is that all? There are lots of those. What about admitting only those who “want to work”? Or is that a delicate subject Jean-Claude Juncker would prefer not to discuss?
A writer in Forbes declares:
“If Western Europe wants to keep its social benefits, the countries of the E.U. are going to need more workers. No place in the world has an older population that’s not into baby making than Europe. No wonder policy planners are doing what they can to encourage immigration.. Eastern Europe is old. The U.K.’s median age is approaching a mid-life crisis, currently at 40.5. With fertility rates expected to hit zero in Europe in the next decade, the only way the European Union can fight elderly poverty and maintain its expensive entitlement programs is to increase immigration. Another option is to provide incentives to convince 20 and 30-something-year-olds to have more than one baby.”
Europe “will clearly need immigration” — yes, it will be necessary to replenish the work force, but these articles in defense of immigration make no distinction between this group and that group, never specify which immigration, with what kind of immigrants, doing or not doing what kind of work, is to be preferred. We are simply to assume, despite all the mounting evidence to the contrary, that all immigrants are equally desirable, equal in their I.Q.s and vocational preparation, equal in their work ethic, equal in the amount they cost the state in social benefits and security costs, and equally likely to integrate successfully into the society of their host country.
We know that Muslims who arrive in Europe are usually described as “refugees,” but very few are real refugees fleeing persecution, and those few who are could find such refuge among people just like themselves, in language, religion, and sect, in the Middle East and North Africa. The only real refugees now coming to Europe from the Middle East are the Christians fleeing persecution and murder at the hands of Muslims.
The Muslims are, rather, “economic migrants,” but not the kind who seek work. In the 1950s, millions of Italians left Italy to find work in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, South America — it was not easy to do so, no help was given by any government, and you had to have a sponsor from an employer or family member before being admitted. But those Italians who found work abroad considered themselves lucky, and readily took on the most difficult jobs, such as coal-mining, construction, factory work, in their host countries, and sending money back to families at home. They posed no security threat to the peoples of the countries they worked in; they were grateful for that work — it could not have been easy for them — and worked hard. And the same story can be told of others, such as the Portuguese who went to France seeking employment in the 1950s, and found it, and became, or their children became, French.
Compare this with Muslim migrants in Europe today. They seek, within Europe, to settle in the countries with the most generous welfare benefits, hence the eagerness with which they try to reach Germany or Sweden. They are not “economic migrants” the way Italians in the 1950s were, when they went off to work in Germany, or the Portuguese who went to France in the same period, seeking and finding employment. No, these Muslim migrants are not eager to find work. After more than one year of living in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, 80-99% of Muslim migrants are still unemployed. In Sweden, of 163,000 “refugees” admitted in 2016, just 494 — or 0.3% — had found jobs by mid-2017. The unemployment rates for Muslims are much higher than for non-Muslims all over Europe. The “work ethic” is hard to find among these migrants; the palpable pleasure many take in receiving this informal Jizyah from the Infidels, as if by right from the Infidels, is unsettling.
What is the real cost of Muslim immigrants to Europe? Given their unemployment rates, they require free housing, free education, free medical care, family allowances for a long time. They have large families, requiring larger apartments, and larger family allowances. As for the cost of medical care, because Muslims favor marriage between cousins, they have a much higher rate of congenital conditions, which last a lifetime and are expensive to treat.
Even for those Muslim migrants willing to work, fewer than one in four has even completed high school. They require considerable vocational training. This, too, runs into money.
And then there the colossal cost of extra security required everywhere there is a large-scale Muslim presence. Guards at churches and synagogues, Christian and Jewish schools, at airports, metro stations, bus stations, railroad stations, on subway cars, buses, and trains, at national monuments, at sports events, at concerts, at publishing houses — places that have been targeted before and could be targeted again, at any place where anti-Islamic speakers are featured (how much does it cost the Dutch state to guard just one such person — Geert Wilders?), at nightclubs and restaurants of note. Visit even a small city in France, and you will see well-armed soldiers on constant patrol, a dozen at a time. How many more must be conducting sweeps, constantly, through Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon, Toulouse, Marseilles? How many tens of billions of dollars are spent annually in Europe for such security measures, made necessary by Muslim terrorists? This, too, should be factored in as part of the cost of Muslim immigrants.
Europe needs immigrants, but which immigrants? It has now had extensive experience with Muslim immigrants; the results have been disastrous. Instead of contributing to European countries’ economies, these migrants have battened on the benefits provided by the state for as long as they can, in every way that they can. They have created a need for much greater security at every level. They do not integrate, but challenge the laws and customs and cultural assumptions of their hosts. Their large-scale presence has created a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for the native non-Muslims than would be the case without that Muslim presence.
There is another way. European countries should be seeking to bring large numbers of Christian migrants from Latin America to their countries. From Mexico southwards, there are enough unemployed or underemployed workers to supply the future needs of Europe. Right now there are at least 26 million unemployed people in Latin America and the Caribbean. To that, add the numbers who are underemployed, or whose current pay would rise considerably in Europe. They have a work ethic, as can be judged by the migrants from Mexico and Latin America who have already been contributing to the economy of the United States and Canada. Economic conditions in some of these countries — the dismal case of Marxist Venezuela (free violin lessons, no jobs) comes swimmingly to mind — are making people desperate to emigrate. And if the American government cuts down sharply on immigration from south of the border, this will encourage many who might have gone to the United States to migrate, instead, to Europe. They are not “refugees” and do not expect, as so many Muslim migrants seem to have done, to live on the dole. They want jobs.
Though not from Latin America, the nearly 200,000 Filipinas who now work in Italy as nurses and domestic workers have been among the most successful of all immigrants. They are Christians helping other, elderly, Christians. They try to fit in, and are much sought after as employees. Imagine, if you will, not Filipinas, but Arab Muslimahs as domestic help for Italians, and count the ways that would not work.
Millions of young workers, who share, instead of being contemptuous of, the beliefs of Europe’s Christian civilization, will be able to fill the vacancies and do the jobs that Europeans had previously believed, mistakenly, Muslim migrants would be happy to take. Unlike Muslims, these migrants will be able to integrate into European societies. They have not have been taught to regard Europeans as the “most vile of creatures.” They have not cursed the Kuffar 17 times a day, as part of their five daily prayers. They have not have been raised on the more than 100 verses in the Qur’an commanding Muslims to wage Jihad, nor been taught to emulate Muhammad, who boasted that he had “been made victorious through terror.” They are not taught to despise Infidel women, nor to take advantage of them. They belong, in short, to the same moral universe as the Europeans among whom they should be encouraged to settle.
Those Europeans, such as Geert Wilders, whom we are constantly told are “far-right” and “anti-immigrant,” are neither. They are intelligently opposed to Muslim immigrants, and they should start now to voice their support for “an immigration policy that makes sense,” putting paid to the canard that they oppose all immigrants, and introducing a note of sanity to Europe’s immigration policies. For too long, Europeans did not know what to expect from Muslim migrants; now they do. It still pains them to acknowledge their colossal error. Fortunately, there is a much more suitable source of migrants, those tens of millions of young people in Mexico and Latin America ready, willing, and able to work in Europe, and to integrate, into European societies. Contrast them with those who have been pouring into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa these last two decades, disrupting every country in which they settled, and demonstrating little desire either to work or to integrate, but a great desire to receive every possible benefit — those migrants whom the outspoken (“senza peli sulla lingua”) Oriana Fallaci called “the sons of Allah.”
First published in Jihad Watch.
Most of today's EU bureaucrats and many Western politicians are globalists or international Socialists. Since the EU is a project which seeks to unite disparate peoples, one would expect such internationalist sentiments. The trouble is, the inclusiveness has gone too far, extending to the most pathological cultures. The end result may be a swing to nationalism and far more restrictive immigration, and a lot of trouble for Europe for years to come.