Summary: German’s newspapers reveal the status of the Left’s great experiment with open borders, progress that a few years ago was said to be impossible. See at the end an extraordinarily clear statement of the Left’s reasons for opening the borders – and what they hope to gain.
A high culture takes centuries to build, but can be erased in a few decades, as we may see soon in Europe. A few years ago, liberals mocked conservatives who warned that in a generation or two the people in many European nations would become minorities in their own nations. Now that conservatives have been proven right, liberals acknowledging it – and applauding the success of their experiment.
And it is a bold experiment, the largest since the Left’s last big one – communism. Europe has opened its borders, producing a new underclass, with a quite foreign culture. Of course, no party ran on the platform of massive immigration to replace Germans in their own nation. No consent of Germany’s people, just a massive propaganda barrage.
These articles provide status reports from Germany. They describe the numbers, which is a step forward from the news blackout that has been in place until now. The figures in these articles do not show the impact of Merkel’s opening German’s borders to migrants from failed, largely Islamic, states. Perhaps next year German’s journalists will discuss how German’s society is changing.
“Half of the Frankfurt has migrant background”
In the Frankfurter Rundschau, 26 June 2017.
“The city of Frankfurt has long been celebrating its diversity. For the first time, statistics show that more than half of the urban population has a so-called migrant background. …According to registration data from 2015, the proportion of immigrant populations is 51.2%. In this case, these include people with non-German nationality as well as Germans who were born abroad and minors whose parents have immigrated. A slightly lower value of almost 45% with a migrant background can be found in the data from the microcensus. …
“‘The trend is clear,’ Weber emphasized: ‘We are a city without a majority.’ Frankfurt is made up of ‘more or less large minorities’ and is becoming ever more diverse. …The largest group are still Turks. However, the majority of the foreign city population comes from EU countries (61.3%). In addition, the vast majority have a legal and “solidified” residence status, Weber pointed out. Only 0.7% of the foreigners are obliged to leave the country. Another 2.8% have no right of residence or unexplained status. …
“Major discrepancies are evident, for example, in income distribution. Almost half of the workforce with a migrant background is below their income level or at the poverty line. …At the same time, Frankfurt citizens with a migrant background are more frequently affected by unemployment.”
“Number of people with a migrant background increases significantly”
In Die Welt., 8 January 2018.
“Last year, 19.3 million women, men and children with foreign roots lived in the Federal Republic. That’s 4.4% more than the year before. The share of the total population was thus 23.6%. …According to the Federal Statistical Office, a person has a migration background if he or a parent was not born with German citizenship. …
“Largest groups among the 19.3 million are people with Turkish roots (2.8 million), with Polish (2.1 million), Russian (1.4 million), Kazakh (1.2 million) and Romanian (0, 9 million) roots. Since 2017, the microcensus has collected the language spoken predominantly in the household. Of 24 million multi-person households in Germany, 2.5 million predominantly do not speak German. In these households, Turkish (17%), Russian (15%), Polish or Arabic (8% and 7% respectively) are the most commonly spoken.”
“Germany is gaining as many inhabitants over migration as through births”
By Marcel Leubecher (political editor) in Die Welt, 15 October 2018.
Got to love how they bury the lede in the very last line of the story!
“While the immigration of foreigners is widely discussed, the emigration of Germans aroused little attention. In the year 2017 again about 249,000 Germans left the country permanently, as the Federal Statistical Office announced on Monday. At the same time, 167,000 Germans moved to the Federal Republic. The bottom line was a so-called negative migration balance of 82,000 Germans {as there has been since 2005}. …
“Particularly significant is the strong emigration against the background that also the deaths have long outnumbered the births . The migration loss of 217,000 Germans in the past two years and the more than 1.7 million deceased citizens were offset by only 1.2 million births of mothers with German citizenship. In other words, Germany has lost more than 700,000 citizens in just two years.
“However, this is more than offset by strong immigration . As reported by the Federal Statistical Office, almost 1.4 million foreigners emigrated in 2017 and 885,000. In the balance of additions and departures, this results in a migration surplus of 499,000 foreigners in 2017, compared to 635,000 in the previous year.
“Thus, in the past two years, Germany’s society has gained about as many new members from migration as through births of mothers of German nationality. Due to the strong international immigration – the Federal Republic has been receiving more immigrants since the 1960s than the classic US immigration country – the country is rapidly becoming a migrant society. According to the Federal Statistical Office, 42% of those under the age of six already have a migration background in West Germany.”
Trust us! This time our experiment will work.
Why have Europe’s elites opened their borders?
The Right wants to boost the number of workers, pushing down benefits and wages, and crushing the protections they have achieved. Why does the Left support open borders? They are quite open about the answer. As usual with Lefts, there is no mention of consulting the people of Europe about this project – let alone getting their consent.
Super-diversity. A new perspective on integration.
By Maurice Crul, Jens Schneider,
and Frans Lelie (2013).
Review by Cord Aschenbrenner in Stuttgarter Zeitung, 27 March 2016. Note how he buries the lede in the last sentence.
“Soon Frankfurt , Augsburg and Stuttgart will fare: they will lose their German “majority society”. In other words, the ethnic German population will become one of several minorities. The authors leave no doubt that they consider this development as irrevocable as desirable – because it offers great opportunities for the emergence of more “social justice”, as they write: namely, if the previous majority society loses its dominant positions …. Education and social background, in the old German context, could dissolve as well. …
“Very important are ‘interethnic friendships’, as the authors emphasize. They will not be ordained, but in a willing society they will surrender.”
An excerpt from the book describing the Leftist dream of the result of opened borders. Migrants are shock troops to destroy western culture and build the new Leftist order!
“Multiculturalism has been discredited as an idea, while at the same time, multi-ethnic cities have become a reality everywhere. It is time for what the Dutch sociologist Justus Uitermark coined a ‘post-multi-cultural strategy’ (Nicholls and Uitermark 2013). A new vision of integration, offering an alternative to the policy of exclusion advocated by the right-wing populists and to the tired old demands for migrants and their children to assimilate.
“Our new vision is based on the emancipation of the second generation (the children born in Europe to first generation migrants). We will show that socially successful young people from this second generation represent the most progressive forces within their own communities. It is they who are tackling the themes that have brought multiculturalism under attack: gender equality and the right to decide about your own sexuality. It is they who are fighting for the rights of girls to continue their education, and they are breaking down the obstacles that have prevented women from entering the employment market. They demand the freedom to choose their life partner and the right to decide about their own sexuality. …
“Diversity will become the new norm. This will require one of the largest psychological shifts of our time.”
How nice for the German people, that they must make a psychological shift in order to live in their own land.
For More Information
These news stories converted into English by Google Translate.
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about immigration, and especially these …
- Sociologist Wolfgang Streeck explains the politics of the migrant crisis reshaping Europe.
- Politics of the EU: “Vanity and Venality” — by Susan Watkins (editor of the New Left Review).
- Martin van Creveld calls out the cowards in Europe.
- About Europe’s historic experiment with open borders. — Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West (2009).
- Warning of the “Strange Death of Europe.”
- Strange perspectives on the challenges facing Europe.
- Important: Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
Books about Europe’s future – and ours.
As so often the case, we can see these political dynamics more clear in other societies. We can learn much from the immigration crisis in Europe. It is our future.
Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
Forced diversity will end in bloodshed. The bloody terrorist attacks that have already occurred in Europe is a foreshadowing.
Diversity hates other diversity too.
Dashui,
“Diversity hates other diversity too.”
I don’t understand. Can you explain that?
As a Greek married to a German woman, with two children from this marriage and living in Germany for the last 5 years, and having dealings with Germany and its inhabitants ever since I went there to study, some 30 years ago, I think I can offer some insight.
Let me begin with the amazing capacity of the Germans to hide their true intentions and politics behind a politically correct facade. Due to their horrible history of WWII, Holocaust and so on, the Germans have a tendency to show to the world an open, diversity-friendly, multicultural, tolerant and what-not face. That might be true to an extend. But it is very far from expressing the feelings of the majority. The majority feels very different but they are afraid to say so for fear of being called “Nazis”. In the voting booth of course they are alone with their conscience (or its lack) and can vote for whomever they want. Case in point: In the 5 years I am living here I have yet to meet a person who admitted to having voted for Angela Merkel. Yet somehow she is the Chancellor for the last 12 years.
In the same way, the “xenophobic” AFD party is publicly shunned and condemned by almost everyone, but somehow its percentage in every election is sky-rocketing. Needless to say, I have yet to meet in person an AFD voter. The leftists and liberals will demonstrate in thousands on every street of every city, but the conservatives and right-wing voters will not. They will keep themselves to themselves and cast their vote for whomever will promise them security and stability. They are, however the vast majority of the electorate.
So, my theory is, that the Germans are publicly celebrating diversity and multiculturalism while quietly and very effectively they are already undermining it. Angela Merkel is working on a reversal of her “refugees Welcome” policy for some time now. For example, there is already a deal with Greece for the returning of Asylum-Seekers who have already sought Asylum in Greece back to aforesaid country. She is trying hard to find other willing partners for similar deals.
In Bavaria the recent local elections were devastating for the two main parties, CSU (a Merkel ally) and SPD, which also is participating in the government. In Bavaria the economy is booming, there is practically no unemployment and the median income is still one of the highest in the world, all this combined with an amazing quality of life: Low criminality, no pollution, the Alps are only a few hours away by car…So the only reason for this debacle could be the refugee question, as every political pundit in the country agrees.
So, I wouldn’t expect a collapse or radical change in the German society any time soon. After all Germans hate all kinds of radical change. My prognosis on what is about to happen is this: Most migrants are from EU-countries anyway, they will be integrated into German society in the long run (it is happening before my very eyes with my own children) or return to their country of origin when they go into pension (that is what I am planning to do). Others, from countries outside Europe will be integrated too if they have some useful skills for the job market. If not, they will be driven back to their home countries, with non-violent means if possible, by force if it cannot be avoided. As a last resort, well, there is a German saying: Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland (Death is a master from Germany) Master here in the meaning of highly skilled worker.
Taraxippos,
Thank you for sharing your first person, on the spot observations from Germany. Here are some brief replies.
(1) “I have yet to meet a person who admitted to having voted for Angela Merkel.”
Angela Merkel is the Chancellor, who is elected by the Bundestag – note voters. Her party, the CDU, got only 27% of the popular vote in the 2017 election.
(2) “the Germans are publicly celebrating diversity and multiculturalism while quietly and very effectively they are already undermining it”
“Germans” are not a unitary entity. While AfD is gaining strength – and the conservatives are respond to the changed view of their voters — the Leftist parties are also gaining strength (the Greens taking SPD voters), and they’re doubling down on open borders. It’s not yet clear who will win.
(3) “After all Germans hate all kinds of radical change.”
Unfortunately, that’s quite false in two ways. First — across history, many peoples are unwilling recipients of radical change.
Second, see this post! The radical change has already occurred, and the changes will continue due to continued immigration and the far higher fertility of migrants than native Germans. Demographic change occurs first. Social changes inevitably follow.
(4) “If not, they will be driven back to their home countries, with non-violent means if possible, by force if it cannot be avoided.”
I suggest you look at the numbers in this post. Expelling such large numbers risks violence. Forcing emigration multiplies that risk. Also, a large fraction of the migrants have citizenship or residency. That number will increase as they have children.
Also, a large fraction of Germans support the migrants – so the cohesion necessary for the kind of action you describe seems unlikely.
The great, late English poet Ian Stuart contributes to the discussion:
Lyrics to “White Power”
If the shoe fits, wear it, baby. You lack steel, this one won’t stay up..
.
.
Ed note: “Ian Stuart Donaldson (1957 – 1993), also known as Ian Stuart, was a white supremacist musician from Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire. He was best known as the frontman of Skrewdriver, an English punk rock band which, from 1982 onwards, he rebranded as a white power rock band. He raised money through white power concerts with his Blood and Honour network.” {From Wikipedia.}
At least Enoch,
The Left has fun using labels as rebuttals. “Racist” had a good run as the generic label for all that disagreed with them, then became ineffective through overuse. Then “Nazi” and “fascist” were used for a while, but being even less rooted in reality (except in Leftist’s overheated imagination), burned out quickly. Now “white nationalist” is deployed for anyone who raises inconvenient facts.
So what’s the relevance of your comment to this post?
At least Enoch,
I added a full cite and full lyrics to your comment, with a brief bio of Ian Stuart.
Sidney Hook used the phrase “epithet of abuse” for the technique of labeling and its purpose as used by what was the “New Left” in the 1980s and 1990s. He listed racist, sexist, reactionary, and quite a few others. The key point was if those labels were used in order to silence and to ignore, the latter being that nothing that label said had any worth because label, then they were epithets of abuse. Calling a KKK Grand Dragon a racist wasn’t an epithet of abuse, but Sidney Hook would’ve said you still need to listen if only to learn.
The Right in this country had it’s own versions: Commie, Socialist (defined like Art, they know it when they see it so see Labor Movement), Atheist, Anarchist (with an incredibly wrong definition), Darwinist, Liberal (again an incredibly wrong definition), and some others I can’t remember. The Left has theirs and the Right has theirs, but the other is always doing evil.
Raymond,
Nicely said! Both sides use labels to channel their followers’ thinking because it works. For the same reason both sides us the Big Lie and appeals to fear. They know our weaknesses.
When we overcome our weakness, then they won’t use these tactics. We can do it. Being pawns is a choice.
the low birth rate and aging population among europeans jeopardizes the extensive social welfare system of germany and other european nations. i see the opening of european borders as a collaborative effort between the left and the right to restrain wage growth and keep the welfare state afloat.
given the rapidly declining birth rate among europeans and longer life expectancy, it’s not obvious what alternative is available. germany, in particular, made a bet that new immigrants could be seamlessly absorbed into the population to provide a boost to the next generation of taxpayers. that bet seems to have come a cropper.
Jaymo,
“i see the opening of european borders as a collaborative effort between the left and the right”
That’s obvious, since the parties of both Left and Right support open borders. AFD is the exception, breaking the coalition. Also, this might be a collaboration — but it isn’t a public one. There was no party platforms calling for open borders and mass influx of migrants from failed states.
“to restrain wage growth and keep the welfare state afloat.”
Yes, the first is certainly true. The latter does not make sense. Bringing in massive numbers of poor and poorly educated migrants will shatter the German welfare state. Also, note the clear explanation given — one of many by the Left — of their reasons for admitting so many migrants. Nothing to do with economics.
Also, even if migrants were a benefit to the welfare state – flooding Germany with low-skill workers is quite mad as a new industrial revolution begins. The next wave of automation will produce massive unemployment, although we don’t know on what scale. For details see this about another country in a similar situation to Germany’s: Japan refuses to die, soon to become a 21st century star.
Dashui said
“Diversity hates other diversity too.”
I don’t understand. Can you explain that?
Editor if I can suggest –
I think that among whites who have not mixed much with non whites (accept richer, better educated and assimilated ones), there can be a perception that only whites are racist, that all none whites will happily live together in peace.
It is unsafe to be a different ethnicity to the dominant group in several areas,in London, Melbourne, Sydney or wherever Afro-Caribbeans dominate one area, Muslims another and whites another, Go in another group’s area of dominance and with gang signs and you have a fight and some blood spilt. Even just walking there is too much chance of rape or mugging.
Diversity is forced on the poor, they live in a prison yard, all the whites but for the poor and or older ones long gone, they see the Afro gang, the Muslim gang the Christian Sudanese gang and they have to either keep a very low profile work live dogs and hope they get enough to get out, or they have to join a gang. This is where diversity hates diversity.
Not only are there Muslim no go areas, there are even divides between Sunni and Shiite, they get on like the Catholics and Prods in 1970’s Northern Ireland. Then there are black areas, Caribbeans and Africans are separating into different gangs and so on.
I teach an Asian group and the Liberal white Manager same in, he thinks I am a racist, anyway he said to the group there is a new Malaysian restaurant, and went on and on about Asian food being so great. Racist Trainers isn’t eating “Asian food”..
After he left the Taiwanese Student said to be doesn’t the fool know we are Asian, but we all have different foods, would I come to him in Taiwan and say German restaurant great food you whites have great food. I said no he does not have much experience of diversity, he went to top mainly white university, is a high earner and lives in a richer mainly white area and loves diversity in the College, he just has very lived with it in anything, but students paying full fees (and his excellent full time salary), serving his food or cleaning his house.
Too many whites live in this type of way and just can’t understand, if all the working class whites were gone won’t the new diverse people just love us too and be progressives, maybe or maybe not. Time will tell.
Just a thought.
Mr. Kummer,
Drawing a quote from a thread: “Demographic change occurs first. Social changes inevitably follow.” is bromidic. The issue is whether the nation’s culture can incorporate the cultures of the immigrants while maintaining its core cultural identity. If we see Germany as only an ethnicity, then no, if we see it as a nation, then maybe. Germany as a nation may not have that ability. Germany as a pure ethnic group never did (See the Nazis over what percentage Jew made a German a Jew).
The USA has dealt with waves of immigration that have changed the social identity of the nation, yet the core cultural and national identity is still here. I can only imagine the fear when Catholicism jumped to near 7% of the population in 1850 (those Papists), or when the Japanese came in the 1870s. How could either become real Americans?, until the definition changed to include them. If you haven’t read Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”, please buy the book.
Around 1914, NYC had 40% of its population made up of immigrants, with no telling how many more were the first-born of previous immigrants or of those immigrants (my grandfather would be in the latter). Yet the country survived. In fact, you have never lived in that America, your America is the product of those waves of immigrants.
In full circle: “”Demographic change occurs first. Social changes inevitably follow.” Are social changes inherently good, neutral, or bad? That social changes inevitably follow is a fact but what truth were you claiming?
Finally, and I may have missed it, what is the exact working definition of “open borders?” Do you mean the anarchist’s definition?
(Forgive me, but I saw the issue of Germany and immigration as a proxy for the USA.)
Raymond,
““Demographic change occurs first. Social changes inevitably follow.” is bromidic.”
It’s a simple statement of fact. Calling it “bromidic” is playing with words, and nothing like a rebuttal.
“The issue is whether the nation’s culture can incorporate the cultures of the immigrants while maintaining its core cultural identity.”
Again with the fancy talk. The core issue is functionality. How stable will be the new multi-ethnic, multi-cultural western Europe – and America. Esp when bringing in so many people so quickly from not just radically different societies, but unstable or even failed states (which is why they’re migrating).
You description points to a secondary issue, but in bizarre way. More clearly: how much will the migrants change western Europe (and America)?
“The USA has dealt with waves of immigration that have changed the social identity of the nation, yet the core cultural and national identity is still here. ”
Europe has a poor record of assimilation. They never accepted the Jews, and finally and terminally rejected them. Many of France’s post-WWII live in the giant slums that ring Paris. Also – assimilation is no longer policy, and many of the migrants are more interested in alterming the local culture than merging with it.
“If you haven’t read Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”, please buy the book.”
Yes, I’ve read it.
Re: US history
You don’t appear to have a grasp of the situation, or the history, or the issues. No surprise, since immigration supporters discuss it mostly with misdirection and lies. I suggest reading these:
“Are social changes inherently good, neutral, or bad?”
Are you trolling us?
“That social changes inevitably follow is a fact but what truth were you claiming?”
I refer to “the Left’s great experiment with open borders.” “And it is a bold experiment, the largest since the Left’s last big one – communism.” There is a large photo with the caption “Trust us! This time our experiment will work.” If you try, you will see what I meant. You appear to read like a grade-school teacher correcting an essay exercise, closed to the possibility that there could be useful content.
“I saw the issue of Germany and immigration as a proxy for the USA.”
I’m unsure if that’s silly, or callus, or mind-blowingly self-centered.
Mr. Kummer,
I called it bromidic because it is such a simple statement of fact that it is tiresome and unoriginal, thus bromidic. It wasn’t meant as a rebuttal because it can’t be rebutted. Every American should know that demographic change leads to social change. It’s our history.
Now I must go out of the order of your response, so bear with me. ““I saw the issue of Germany and immigration as a proxy for the USA.” I did, a simple statement of fact that I included to explain all before it. I don’t read your blog in chronological order, I read it by interest. So I’ve been reading the posts about immigration. I have an interest in that because of the distortions I see all sides making.
My interest in history is political, social movements, and to a lesser extent technological change. I only read about war in those contexts. Further, I’ve been interested in the methodology of historians, that historians take facts to make truths, and that any two historians can take the same facts and make different truths by how they give weight to the same facts. Your two links are just examples of that. There’s nothing absolute or final about them. There isn’t “you don’t know history because this is the final answer.” The only absolute history is when, where, what, and who. “How” can go too quickly to interpretation, and “why” is interpretation.
“You don’t appear to have a grasp of the situation, or the history, or the issues. No surprise, since immigration supporters discuss it mostly with misdirection and lies.” And that is nothing but an ad hominem. Whatever you mean by “immigration supporter”, and I would suggest you go look to Sidney Hook, I support immigration as a historical fact of the nature of this country. I’m not a silly nativist that forgets his forebears. Nor am I a supporter of “open borders”, which you have yet to define in any rigorous manner even while I gave mine and keep asking for yours.
““The issue is whether the nation’s culture can incorporate the cultures of the immigrants while maintaining its core cultural identity.” “Again with the fancy talk. The core issue is functionality. How stable will be the new multi-ethnic, multi-cultural western Europe – and America.” The functionality is incorporating the cultures of the immigrants while maintaining the core cultural identity. That is maintaining the functionality. It’s not fancy talk, it’s what the USA has done throughout it’s history with each wave of new multi-ethinic .
Notice though that I never once addressed “multi-cultural” in either response until now. Multi-culturalism is a cognitive dissonance of the Left in the West. It’s based on a paradigm of all cultures are equal across all issues, which requires an assiduous ignoring of the differences. Africans (including the African portion of the Anglican Communion) nor Middle-Easterners accept homosexuality, and those cultures punish homosexuals like the West did until the last so many decades, is just one example of the dissonance.
““Are social changes inherently good, neutral, or bad?” That was a straight forward question. It goes to what I see as your animus to immigration and how you frame it to support your animus. Obviously, massive immigration would swamp any nation’s social safety net or economy, but that leads to what is “massive”, a word that hearkens to the words of climate alarmists about temperature. The US waves of immigration came from failed states, why would anyone immigrate from a successful state as Norwegians so well pointed out to Trump?
“That social changes inevitably follow is a fact but what truth were you claiming?
I refer to “the Left’s great experiment with open borders.” “And it is a bold experiment, the largest since the Left’s last big one – communism.” There is a large photo with the caption “Trust us! This time our experiment will work.” If you try, you will see what I meant. You appear to read like a grade-school teacher correcting an essay exercise, closed to the possibility that there could be useful content.”
The Left’s last great experiment was no more Communism than the Right’s last great experiment was Fascism. Left is a wide spectrum just like the Right; the “Left” is no more “Communism” than the “Right” is Fascism. You should take the advice you gave to me, read more history.
Sorry that this went into tl;dr.
Raymond,
There is not much content in your comment to reply to, so I’ll use your last paragraph as an example of the whole.
“Left is a wide spectrum just like the Right; the “Left” is no more “Communism” than the “Right” is Fascism. “
First, I didn’t say the Left “is” communism. I said it “was” the Left’s previous great experiment. Past tense, not present. Details matter.
Second, you are wrong. Communism was almost universally supported by the Left for decades, from the leftist-most radicals to the liberals on the NY Times (whose Moscow bureau chief from 1922–1936 so skillfully hid Stalin’s deeds from Americans) – until the bad news eventually leaked out and the Cold War made their support politically painful.
Also, Laissez-faire is the closest equivalent on the Right to communism – not fascism.
Fascism does not well fit on the one-dimensional Left-right spectrum. Hence the enduring but pointless debate about National Socialism being of the Left or Right.
As an example, Fascism had many admirers in FDRs New Deal team.
For more about how fascism fits aspects of both right and left, see “Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939“ by the great
by Wolfgang Schivelbusch.
Sigh, you start with the dismissal “There is not much content in your comment to reply to”, yet I what I wrote was a reply to each of your points. I again asked for you to define “open borders” which you just can’t do. That alone is enough content given how pivotal it is for your arguments.
“First, I didn’t say the Left “is” communism. I said it “was” the Left’s previous great experiment. Past tense, not present. Details matter.” And I said it was no more the Left’s previous great experiment than Fascism was the Right’s. I didn’t accuse you of saying the Left is communism, I accused you of making all the Left responsible for your example as would all the Right by my example. Yes, details matter.
“Second, you are wrong. Communism was almost universally supported by the Left for decades, from the leftist-most radicals to the liberals on the NY Times (whose Moscow bureau chief from 1922–1936 so skillfully hid Stalin’s deeds from Americans) – until the bad news eventually leaked out and the Cold War made their support politically painful.” This is my balliwick and obviously not yours. The Left didn’t support Communism universally in the 10s, 20s or 30s. The Left was not universally Marxist-Leninist. In fact, the Left was a mix of what is called today libertarianism (yes libertarianism can be leftist), anarchism, socialism (usually tied to the so called anti-capitalist Labor Movement), but not your abuse of the word liberal. I’m a Kennedy, Goldwater, and Reagan liberal, with an understanding of what LBJ was trying to accomplish and why. You use all the words unanchored from history. I so hope you don’t confuse TR’s Progressivism with other movements that use the same word.
To be even more plain, you understand the 1910s and 1920s as if they happened in the 1990s. You do understand that there’s a chance, however slight, that you don’t understand that period? Me, I think it close to a certainty.
“Also, Laissez-faire is the closest equivalent on the Right to communism – not fascism.” Damn, how far could you be mistaken: Communism and Fascism are political ideologies loosely based on economic systems. If you must claim Communism as the last greatest experiment of the Left then Fascism is the last greatest experiment of the Right. If it isn’t Fascism, lazy-fair isn’t next because it’s solely an economic concept, Social Darwinism is next, and that wraps all sorts of ugly interpretations of lazy-fair, capitalism, and evolution, into a justification of rapacious wealth and oligarchies. Please don’t confuse economic concepts as being political ideologies unless you want to be manipulated by those ideologies. Me, not so much.
The vast majority of those migrants cited in the articles seem to be Europeans, the next largest group are the Turks, the majority of which have been there since the 60’s. I am not seeing the numbers you fear from failed islamic states.
Gerard,
“The vast majority of those migrants cited in the articles seem to be Europeans”
(a) The largest group are Turks. They have not generally been considered “european” until cold war politics made it useful to get them in the western alliance (e.g., NATO and the EU).
(b) These stories are written to minimize the issue in the public’s mind. The numbers of migrants is so large that the 40% of non-europeans (55% including Turks) is over 9% of the total population (13% including Turks) – and increasing fast. More than sufficient to be potentially destabilizing.
(c) That data is Germany before the massive flood Merkel opened the borders. The current public policy question is not what to do with the migrants in Germany, but whether to keep the borders relatively open.
(d) Also, Turkey doesn’t look too stable. Nor is it clear how well they will assimilate — or if they will do so at all.
(2) “the majority of which have been there since the 60’s”
What is your basis for that statement? Note this from the last article: “According to the Federal Statistical Office, 42% of those under the age of six {in Germany} have a migrant background in West Germany.”
“(2) “the majority of which have been there since the 60’s”
What is your basis for that statement? Note this from the last article: “According to the Federal Statistical Office, 42% of those under the age of six {in Germany} have a migrant background in West Germany.””
If I may shed some light: until recently, German nationality laws prevented children born in Germany to obtain German nationality unless they had a German parent. Hence, it quite often would happen that a 3rd or 4th generation immigrant would still have Turkish nationality and be classified as a migrant.
Nowadays the law is more relaxed, but since Germany does not allow dual citizenship, and the Turkish community is not very well integrated, many Turks in Germany don’t take it.
So, as Gerard, I believe a large part of the migrant issue in Germany is that they have a large migrant community which has been there for a long time but does not integrate.
JP,
(1) Thanks for the info about citizenship and heritage. Which is important: “According to the Federal Office, a person has a migration background if he or a parent was not born with German citizenship.”
(2) “So, as Gerard, I believe a large part of the migrant issue in Germany is that they have a large migrant community which has been there for a long time but does not integrate.”
Gerard’s point is the opposite: “The vast majority of those migrants cited in the articles seem to be Europeans” – so assimilation isn’t a problem.
Your point is more accurate, and describes the problem discussed in this post — a large number of immigrants. Making it worse is immigration running at roughly 1% per year – before and after Merkel’s surge — and immigrants’ much higher fertility rates.
(3) What is your point about this post.
Another comment:
““The vast majority of those migrants cited in the articles seem to be Europeans”
(a) The largest group are Turks. They have not generally been considered “european” until cold war politics made it useful to get them in the western alliance (e.g., NATO and the EU).”
I think Gerard is mentioning this line in the article: “The largest group are still Turks. However, the majority of the foreign city population comes from EU countries (61.3%).”
So, while the largest individual nationality would be Turks, the sum of migrants coming from other EU countries is still a majority.
I can see how this issue can confuse non-Europeans. The freedom of movement rules inside the EU means that an European citizen has the right to live and work abroad, almost with the same rights as local citizens. However, they are still classified as immigrants, just like those coming from outside the EU.
But immigration from other EU countries does not have the same problems as immigration from outside the EU. Of course, it can still be disruptive; there are large income disparities within the EU. If I recall correctly, immigration of cheap labor from eastern Europe was an important issue in the Brexit vote; also, the financial crisis has led to a large migration of cheap skilled workers from the south to northern Europe, putting pressure on local salary levels. But it’s a much more tractable problem than influxes from middle eastern or north african countries; the disparities in income and education are smaller, there is a lot of cultural compatibility and exchange, and above all, a feeling that we all belong to “Europe”, even when we don’t agree what Europe is.
So, when looking at the recent increase in muslim immigrants from outside the EU, I think one must read the numbers carefully and realize that the total % of immigrants does not reflect the reality of situation.
JP,
(1) “So, while the largest individual nationality would be Turks, the sum of migrants coming from other EU countries is still a majority.”
As I said, which you ignore, is that there is little basis to include Turks as Europeans. As you admit, they’re not assimilating. The proportion of European migrants in Germany is 45% – and that fraction is decreasing fast.
(2) History shows the astonishingly slow response of most societies to new problems. Look at this thread. Massive effort is spent to ignore the problem, mostly quite specious. Too bad that problems aren’t solved by effort denying their existence.
“(3) What is your point about this post.”
In short:
(1) Europe’s immigration problem is not as bad as the % foreigners and % immigration per year suggests; you can consider that roughly half of those are internal EU migrants, which are much easier to integrate (and most Europeans did vote for open borders inside the EU).
(2) As for non-European migrants, most European countries have long-standing communities which have failed to assimilate. Merkel’s open borders policy might have exacerbated the problem, but I don’t think it’s the main cause.
(3) Therefore I think that the immigration problem in Europe is less severe, but more difficult to solve, than the numbers cited in this post would suggest.
JP,
(1) “Europe’s immigration problem is not as bad as the % foreigners and % immigration per year suggests;”
Few problems can be understood by looking backwards. That’s the trick of climate deniers and pretty much everybody else who doesn’t want to see. Look at the trend, look forwards. You’re trying to drive by looking thru the rear mirror.
(2) “Merkel’s open borders policy might have exacerbated the problem, but I don’t think it’s the main cause.”
You keep giving rebuttals to what nobody is saying.
(3) “I think that the immigration problem in Europe is less severe, but more difficult to solve, than the numbers cited in this post would suggest.”
Wow. That’s keeping those eyes tightly closed!
“As I said, which you ignore, is that there is little basis to include Turks as Europeans. As you admit, they’re not assimilating. The proportion of European migrants in Germany is 45% – and that fraction is decreasing fast.”
From the article you posted: in Frankfurt, the majority of the foreign city population comes from EU countries (61.3%). Turkey is not an EU country.
I don’t know is the proportion of European migrants is decreasing fast; my experience is quite the opposite, given the recent surges from southern Europe. But hopefully that’s an easy question to ask to Eurostat.
JP,
You’re looking just at Frankfurt. Look at the data about the several million that came in during 2016 – now.
“I don’t know is the proportion of European migrants is decreasing fast;”
See pretty much any of the articles about the situation. Such as Der Spiegel’s “The Changing Face of the Country” and “Facing the Challenges of Integration.“
From EUROSTAT:
Annual immigration to Germany (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/migr_imm7ctb)
Year Immigrants EU immigrants (%)
2010 2,705,490 45%
2011 4,277,550 62%
2012 5,544,550 64%
2013 1,809,317 58%
2014 2,356,901 52%
2015 4,240,776 32%
2016 2,713,533 44%
Note that the peak in 2015 is indeed mostly non-EU (I’d say it’s the refugee crisis), but the peaks in 2011 and 2012 are mostly EU (I’d say it’s the financial crisis, and that these are PIGS citizens). The refugee crisis had therefore the same magnitude as the financial crisis, in immigration terms. The situation in 2016 was roughly the same as in 2010, with the open borders policy reversed.
Also note that data until 2012 puts the fraction of non-EU immigrants from highly developed countries at 17-19% (which would include non-EU countries such as Switzerland and Norway, the US, Canada…), and the fraction of low developed countries at 3-6% (I imagine this is what you mean by failed states). The remaining 15-19% are from mid developed countries (which would include Turkey and north Africa, the source of most muslim immigration; but also Latin America and East Asia). I couldn’t find more recent data.
Of course, illegal immigration could be underestimated.
Finally, about 4% of the EU population in 2016 was born outside the EU. Germany and France have relatively higher numbers at 9%. This is after Merkel’s open borders policy. Of course, this doesn’t include un-assimilated immigrants such as the Turkish community in Germany.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics#Migration_flows:_2_million_non-EU_immigrants
My point with this is to reinforce that numbers are misleading if you don’t account for internal EU migration; and that the established, un-assimilated communities seem to be a larger problem than recent migrant inflows. This matches my personal experience living in Germany and the Netherlands.
JP,
Looking at data up to 2016? Seriously, have you read anything about this issue? Try the links in this article, in the For More Info section. I’m done here.
Thank you for you detailed figures JP.
Do you know how the repatriation efforts for the 2016 influx are going?
@Larry, some feedback to your responses
“(1) Angela Merkel is the Chancellor, who is elected by the Bundestag – note voters. Her party, the CDU, got only 27% of the popular vote in the 2017 election.”
Technically you are correct, but every major party nominates a “Kanzlerkandidat” -a candidate for the Chancellorship- before Federal Elections, so voters know exactly what person they are voting for. In the 2013 elections CDU/CSU won 41.7% of the votes. I was in the country then and still don’t know anyone who voted for her on that election.
“(2) “Germans” are not a unitary entity. While AfD is gaining strength – and the conservatives are respond to the changed view of their voters — the Leftist parties are also gaining strength (the Greens taking SPD voters), and they’re doubling down on open borders. It’s not yet clear who will win.”
Fair point, but I don’t see any strengthening of the leftist parties. I see disillusioned SPD-voters changing ranks and voting for the Greens who uphold the principals the SPD is betraying -in their opinion- through the coalition with CDU/CSU. The leftist percentage does not increase. On the other hand, the right wing voters are abandoning the immigration-friendly CDU/CSU for AFD, with its radical anti-immigration stance. That is where the most radical change takes place, in core electorate, not fringe groupings.
“(3) “After all Germans hate all kinds of radical change.”
Unfortunately, that’s quite false in two ways. First — across history, many peoples are unwilling recipients of radical change.
Second, see this post! The radical change has already occurred, and the changes will continue due to continued immigration and the far higher fertility of migrants than native Germans. Demographic change occurs first. Social changes inevitably follow.”
I never claimed that radical change doesn’t take place, I claim that Germans don’t LIKE IT. And will do all they can to prevent it.
“(4) “If not, they will be driven back to their home countries, with non-violent means if possible, by force if it cannot be avoided.”
I suggest you look at the numbers in this post. Expelling such large numbers risks violence. Forcing emigration multiplies that risk. Also, a large fraction of the migrants have citizenship or residency. That number will increase as they have children.
Also, a large fraction of Germans support the migrants – so the cohesion necessary for the kind of action you describe seems unlikely.”
That number of Germans is constantly waining. Besides, many will not have to be deported. Some will return of their own accord for lack of work, alienation or simple homesickness. Others will be simply integrated-it has happened before.
I read the articles you posted, they are not very different from the articles I was reading in the nineties in the very same magazines about the wave of refugees from war-torn Yugoslavia, and the asylum seekers from Africa and Asia. It is a usual problem with German journalism-they are constantly predicting impeding doom, the next Götterdämmerung is always around the corner…
Some general observations on German society and immigration:
Immigrants from the EU don’t really count as immigrants in public perception. Like another commentator has observed, it is so easy to move from country to country, that the only real impediment is the knowledge of the language. In many jobs, this is a non-issue. When I decided to settle to Germany all I had to do was walk to Town Hall and show my Greek ID-Card. I was immediately registered as a resident. If I find another job, say, in Belgium or Sweden, I can move there just as easily. This works the other way around too, I know many Germans who relocate to other countries to work there, or spend their old age after they go to pension. Many expats don’t want to stay in Germany forever-I would know, I am one of them.
It is only the newcomers who have a high fertility rate. Once they settle down they make as little children as the locals, even less in many cases.
Turks consider themselves Europeans. It doesn’t really make sense, geographically or historically, but it is a fact. And they are not the only ones who believe that: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-belongs-to-europe-which-would-suffer-without-turkey-council-of-europe-head-127461
They have applied for full membership in the EU since the 1960s (it was the EEC back then). The application has been dragging ever since.
There are many examples of successful integration of second-generation immigrants. I will only mention Cem Özdemir, child of turkish immigrants, MP and former co-chairman of the Green Party, and Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, whose parents were greek “Gastarbeiter”, also a former MP with the Free Democratic Party. My personal favourite though is the stand up comedian Enissa Amani, a child of two Iranian refugees. This youtube video gives you an idea of how completely germanised she is. Even if you don’t understand the language, just notice the way she dresses.
And there it is, said youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLlS8GeTfm4
.
.
“Comedy prizewinner Enissa Amani can tell first-hand. How does it live as a refugee child in Germany?”
“Amani made appearances on a number of beauty talent shows and was nominated for the titles Miss 24.de, vice-Miss West-Germany and Miss Tourism Iran. For several years she has presented fashion on the German TV channel QVC. In the middle of 2013, she began with open stand-up comedy. Shortly thereafter, she appeared in TV total, NightWash, The Satire Summit (de) and Stand-up Migrants (de).
In 2014 she was nominated for the Prix Pantheon (de) (jury prize). On 2 January 2015, she took part on the RTL comedy Grand Prix (de). In 2015, she was a contestant on the RTL Show Let’s Dance with Christian Polanc (de) as dancing partner, a multiple winner on the show. The duo took fourth place.”
Taraxippos,
That’s one vision of the future, where migrants fully assimilate. As with this young lady, fully abandoning conservative Islam for the heels, miniskirts, and freedom of western society. Time will tell if this is so. The slums across Europe – such as the giant ring cities around Paris, filled with unassimilated North Africans – might be more representative of current dynamics than this young star.
The essence of the mad social engineers running western nations is their confidence in their ability to predict the future. The 1920s and 1930s were filled with similar glowing stories about the wonders of Communist Russia (their previous experiment).
Also, population aging.
anton,
What about population aging?