The Immigration Crisis in Europe

Massive immigration is no longer a concern of just America.  The migration of refugees – both political and economic – from North Africa and the Middle East has shocked Europe. 

Of course, the influx of mostly Muslim immigrants is not new and has already generated substantial resistance from many citizens of the host countries. 

But the numbers coming seem to have sharply accelerated lately.  Libya is a failed state, and not the only one in Northern Africa, the Syrian civil war, ISIS, Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing to displace and drive people away.

 

And where do they want to go?  To the West, of course.  But not just any place in Europe.  Germany, the richest nation on the continent, is the prized objective.  [That fact undercuts the perception that many, if not most, refugees are fleeing war and violence.  If their motivation were primarily physical security, wouldn’t they be expected to stop when they reach safe shores, whether Italy, Greece or overland to Hungary?  But, no.  Inland to Germany and Austria is where they want to go… because economic prospects are believed to be better.]

News reports from southern and eastern Europe focus on the human plight (highlighting photos of the four year old Syrian boy washed ashore on the Turkish coast, for instance).  The tragedies are indeed heart-rending and certainly create intense desires to help.

But what happens next?  The cruel irony is that welcoming “uninvited guests” fleeing undesirable conditions encourages others to follow.  And won’t the result be the transformation of the host country in undesirable ways (as viewed by its native citizens)? 

Think of the recent problems affecting Europe as restive Muslin populations, failing to assimilate, spawn Islamic terrorism. 

Are Europe’s borders no longer to be considered barriers?  Is a foreigner’s desire to relocate there an acceptable reason to permit his entry.  Is open borders to be Europe’s new immigration policy?  Not likely!  Yet, the understandable response to the current humanitarian crisis is one in practice.  We Americans have also pursued similar policies that offer short-term compassion but promote long-term misery by encouraging would-be migrants to risk all to come.  What to do?

It’s simple to say “refuse entry”.  But the reality is that the humanitarian attitude is admirably too strong in the West to enforce that sentiment.

Of course, if authoritarian Russia or China were the targets of mass migration, the policy would undoubtedly be implemented no matter the human suffering.  But, of course, that’s an academic concern.  Who would want to go there?

The practical solution is to realize that America and Europe, in their own self-interest, must take action (both military and economic) to help control or eliminate the cause of such migration.  In other words, reduce or remove the reasons why people wish to emigrate. 

What does that mean?

 

To stem the tide of migration, use military power adequate to destroy ISIS and depose Syria’s Assad.  Employ resources to help troubled nations to establish and maintain healthy economies.  Recognize the need for the indefinite presence of Western military forces where our enemies are rooted.  (Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance, but don’t exclude northern Africa.)

These are major burdens to be assumed by Europe and the U.S.  There will be major criticisms and cries that the West is reviving colonial policies.

But unless the West chooses to commit cultural suicide, policies must be implemented to encourage people to stay home.  Otherwise the migrant stream will only increase with untold consequences for the West and its values.