A year ago last week was the anniversary of the Charlottesville riot. In thinking of what to possibly say a year later I didn’t have to go very far. I wrote the bulk of the following post back in early July in response to new elections in Italy and other events. Europe has witnessed the rise of right wing, populist, and anti-immigrant governments across the continent. Italy saw the 5 Star Movement combine with the League party to form a government that promised to deport immigrants, and which questions the value of their membership in the European Union and use of the Euro. The Czech Republic openly broke with Germany’s leader and said that immigration policy should be decided by individual states. Hungary has such tight border security the LA Times said it makes Trump’s America look lenient. Germany’s right wing party gained enough support in recent elections to become the third biggest party and forced a new coalition government upon Angela Merkel. The support for Merkel’s party is at record lows. Polish right wing politicians continue to rule, and there are often protests in their streets calling for additional border security and scrutiny of immigrants.
All of these developments have led to the usual hand wringing from politicians worried about xenophobia, hatred, violence, and “far” right policies. But in reality, these movements are simply a reaction to the disdain from elitists that ignored their serious concerns. In short, the European leaders only have themselves to blame for the rise of new governments and political parties.
Unfortunately, as Americans witnessed in Charlottesville, there is a strain of violent and hate filled rhetoric that targets immigrants. But the media often conflates sincere, legitimate, and nonviolent economic and security concerns with right nationalists and neo Nazis. For example, Sweden, Germany, France, and England all report higher levels of violence, sexual assault, and crime among their immigrant populations. Germany found that immigrants are responsibly for as much as 90%! of the rise in crime in the province studied. (As usual, the BBC tried to explain away the data by claiming that all youth of that age commit more crime so it doesn’t really mean immigrants cause more crime.) And this is before we get to terrorism, which the official UK website says is “very likely” in France. This is just a small sampling of the articles from a wide spectrum of sources describing the violence, sexual assaults, and terrorism around Europe and often associated with the immigrant community. In fact, on the day of this writing Britain experienced another terror attack from a Sudanese refugee and Muslim who claimed asylum AND FBI agents arrested an ISIS agent who came to America as a refugee claiming asylum AND a former Yadizi sex slave had to leave Germany after her abuser, who is in Germany as a refugee, confronted her in a Stuttgart market. In story after story the average Pole, Eastern European, or struggling worker has on the ground experience with no go zones, relatives that are victims of violence, and an elite class of politicians that is quick to call them racist if they complain about those serious concerns.
On top of violence, there are economic concerns. The migrant crisis has affected Eastern European countries more than their Western counterparts as countries like Italy regularly receive far larger numbers of immigrants. These governments then have to spend money on temporary refugee facilities, processing facilities, and medical coverage and relatively lavish social benefits. Despite the legitimate concerns about cost, the amounts of refugees they take are often dictated by the EU bureaucrats in Brussels who often seem unconcerned with the impact on local economics.
These benefits vary by country but they often include housing and food allowances plus medical coverage. The taxpayers of the countries have to provide these benefits, even as many of them, particularly Italy and Greece, are also undergoing austerity measures forced on them by the European Union that feature a cut in their benefits. (Granted, these benefits are extremely generous to begin with, but being squeezed to pay for the benefits of others do seem ridiculous.) Finally, some places like Italy are facing a recession. Even after the painful cuts the squeezed citizens aren’t seeing the desired budgetary benefits.
The end result is that the average European citizen is sick of being ignored, marginalized, and having their tax money go to immigrants, where often become associated with welfare fraud. The average European like their counterparts in the Rust Belt of America, have seen globalization shut down their local factories. They see their political class, often from their own party, lecture them on compassion and often accuse them of racism, while those same politicians lavish support and praise on immigrants, even as those immigrants spark legitimate concerns about security and violence.
So what can I say about the year anniversary of racism and the rise of a Mormon racist like Wife With a Purpose? The racists and white nationalists are a pathetic minority unworthy of comment. The legitimate concerns I described above are far different than pagan spiritualism, Nordic sunrises, home birth, and white culture that dominates Wife’s social media feeds. Even then, there is a difference between the inchoate ramblings of a pathetic person and the substantive points she alludes to. For example, as a graduate of an old fashioned Liberal Arts College, I’m a strong defender and proponent of general education courses on Western Civilization. I also went to school down the road from Washington and Lee University and passed Lee’s museum on the way to the library six days a week, so I really don’t think supporting Lee or remembering his birthday is racist. (In fact, I told the kooks and the cranks last year that they aren’t helping.)
But these caveats defending classics of Western Civilization and warning of economic and security concerns show how far the elites and conversation has moved, and how likely some people are to accuse anything slightly to the right of open borders, unlimited immigration and erase the past as racist. In the realm of ideas these tactics condemning border security are a horrible election strategy. If one side calls you deplorable while turning the volume up to 11, and the other side at least pretends to care about your problems, the average voter will naturally vote for the side that isn’t calling them names and dismissing their concerns. And that is before you consider the pain and unmet needs of the unemployed steel worker, the white opioid addict whose life expectancy is declining but still manages to get lectured by elites on their “privilege,” the nurse at a bankrupt hospital on the Southern border, the German female groped on the way to the train station by large groups of immigrants, the French citizens who see people with refugee pass ports commit terrorism, or the Italian retiree that is having his pension cut and house broken into.
The solution to these problems start with a serious discussion of how policy can show reasonable humanitarian concern for immigrants and refugees, while also safeguarding their country’s economic and security concerns. But that can’t happen when one side finds too much value equating everybody with the KKK. So yes, we should remember to condemn the 50 Nazis that rallied at the capital last week and Wife With a Purpose, but more importantly, many of the same people need to stop conflating the fringes with the valid concerns of those across various countries that elected Trump and the Five Star Movement.
Wheat & Tares 
I went ahead and opened up the comments. I closed them initially because I have very little patience for flame wars, trolling and personal insults to begin with, and this thread would seem to attract them. Needless to say I hope you take an extra moment to focus on the issues and not insults. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend.
As a Brit, I disagree with your reading of the situation. We managed to produce plenty of our own home-grown gang crime and terrorism before the recent increases in immigration through our own bad behaviour towards the poor and in our former colonies. Immigration can be seen as a consequence of our exploitation of resources in the developing world whilst aggressively promoting our own culture and values.
It’s easy to blame the black and brown faces amongst us, much harder to look at our own mistakes. We need politicians who are prepared to give leadership that calls on the good in human beings. Most Brits faced with the immediate needs of an immigrant’s family would house them in their own home rather than put them on the streets. We need an enlightened approach to aid and development in immigrant people’s own nations and equitable trade deals that do not exploit the powerless. We are being exploited by politicians who are ruling us through division.
I think this is a valuable discussion which ties to income disparity. While it’s true that neither side is listening to the other, it would be great to go back in time to where the core argument was how to solve these issues: with more government oversight and regulation or with less (and more free market solutions). The problem is that the free market is motivated by money, and minorities, immigrants, and women have less of it than white males (on the whole), so the free market seldom favors their concerns. At heart we end up again in a situation where you either have to forcibly tip the scales through government intervention to assist these groups or you have to overlook the natural disadvantages to any group with less buying power.
I do agree it’s counter productive to cry racism at every turn (although plenty of non- Nazis in this country are in fact racists), but even finding some common ground on solutions is pretty difficult.
Saturdays are my busiest days away from the computer so I’ll have to be brief. But I also think being brief helps to see the smoke and mirrors going on here. The two answers so far seem to suggest that the crime and economic cost of welcoming refugees doesn’t matter because: The white people in Britain were exploitative culturally and economically, and the rich white men and politicians are also exploitative. So apparently we need government intervention, but only to stop the evil rich white people.
There was a journal article a while back which showed that British colonialism actually HELPED countries in the long run compared to countries where colonialism had less of an impact. The countries that Britain influenced were more prosperous, more free, and had better standards of living. The article was so controversial the editors pulled it, but not because it was wrong, but only because it upset the dogma that is popular in academia…and the comment section of Wheat and Tares apparently.
Moreover, capitalism today is actually the engine of lifting people out of poverty around the world. There are 30 million Chinese people living in caves, and their adoption of free market reforms (which they mask as Communism with Chinese characteristics) actually helps about 3 thousand people a week out of poverty and into the middle class. That is just one country, I could point to textile workers in Karachi that send almost half their money home to their poor farmers, and the elevation of Eastern Europeans as well. The problem is that the free market often gets blamed when it is government intervention in the free market that usually causes the problems. For two examples see the housing crisis (made by government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified people under the guise of more social justice,) and the health insurance market. Countries that want to be better off should adopt capitalism and the free market more fully, not government protectionism and cronyism (which intervention by politicians often produces.)
In short, I’m not buying that the problem is capitalism, or the exploitative behavior of white people. I blame the criminals for crime and think that even if its just a small minority of immigrants that commit crime, as Handlewithcare said, countries have enough problems with the low lives in their own countries without importing more criminals and then paying them to live there at the expense of social programs for their own people. In fact, I never mentioned the color of any of these people, so it was rather subtle, but suggesting I blame brown or black people for crime instead of whites is exactly the kind of subtle racist attacks that politicians often take advantage of to lecture and silence the complaints from their citizens. If I learned anything while writing this article it was the three different cases in one week, and almost on the same day, that reinforced the need for better vetting of those that claim asylum, and that the system is being abused to the detriment of both the physical security and economic health of the countries’ citizens. All the talk of exploitative, white, male imperialists on here or from politicians used to shame their own people won’t change that.
A lot to unpack. But here is just one:
“The problem is that the free market often gets blamed when it is government intervention in the free market that usually causes the problems. For two examples see the housing crisis (made by government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified people under the guise of more social justice,”
In fact, that is not what caused the housing crisis.
These are the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission:
https://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report
Everybody needs a voice, everybody need to be listened to Morgan, I agree that the concerns of poor white people need to be addressed. Rich white people, not so much.
I’m interested in policy that addresses these concerns without demonising racial or religious groupings, and I think that’s possible. What we have now is opportunistic politics in Europe, and little to no problem solving if it doesn’t line someone’s pockets handsomely-plus ca change. But I believe good people would respond to good leadership and good ideas. People want to help each other.
As for improvements in former colonial states as a consequence of our occupations, depends how you define ‘improvement’. There are millions of enfranchised people across the planet who would beg to differ. I imagine it’s likely your forebears were amongst them.
As for Sweden crime rates:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trump-exaggerates-swedish-crime/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-part-ii-refugee-men-overrepresented-swedish-crime/
(As an aside, I recently visited Stockholm and highly recommend it—beautiful country and city)!
“‘The problem is that the free market often gets blamed when it is government intervention in the free market that usually causes the problems. For two examples see the housing crisis (made by government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified people under the guise of more social justice,’”
And when was the last time the modern world had a free market?
In case you haven’t been paying attention global corporations which have no loyalty to human needs, basic decency or national identity have gobbled up economies everywhere. They buy their own laws and make their own reality with impunity. Adam Smith is an antiquated dream and we are their human collateral to exploit and then discard.
With governments worldwide manifestly failing to protect their citizens.
Thank you alice.
The article linked about the “terror attack”in the UK just indicates that there was a car crash involving a Sudanese refugee driver. It might be too soon to make it Exhibit A in an argument about refugee crime. It’s not too far a stretch to imagine someone with PTSD from living in a war-torn country would panic around sirens and lose control of a car. I don’t have time to look at the other two stories just yet.
Lois already posted some excellent links about immigrant crime, so I’ll just add that it would be impossible to allow any group of people into the US — either by birth or immigration — without accepting that some will commit crime. The greater crime, though, would be forcing them back to die in their countries of origin.
The financial burden of refugees on Europe would be eased if the US stepped up. We use them as evidence that helping refugees is detrimental, neglecting that it wouldn’t be so detrimental for them if we were sharing more of the load. We seem to do pretty well for ourselves by investing in refugees. A Notre Dame study of 200,000 refugees found that, “refugees on average cross the threshold from net beneficiaries to net contributors around the 9th year after migration.” In the first 20 years, the taxes paid by the average refugee exceeded benefits used by $21K.*
“The average voter will naturally vote for the side that isn’t calling them names and dismissing their concerns.” Agreed. Throwing around “racist and “elitist” and “snowflakes” isn’t convincing anyone. Instead, let’s throw around facts instead.
*https://www.businessinsider.com/refugees-pay-more-in-taxes-than-they-collect-in-benefits-2017-8
The article linked about the Yadizi refugee does not even speculate how her abuser was in Germany; there is nothing indicating that he is also a refugee. German authorities have said they can’t identify him, which could indicate he has no official (legal) presence there.
The news about the ISIS agent found as a refugee in the US is definitely concerning. But it sounds like officials had been watching him since shortly after his arrival in the US, so something’s going right with the process.
Thanks for commenting Laurel. I don’t have a chance to respond to everybody but every point they present is debatable. I’m not a big fan of spending copious amounts of time online proving I’m right. I have tmj problems, which means that I have chronic face and neck pain, and frankly, most conversations aren’t worth the literal pain in my neck. I’ve said my piece and I stand by it.
But when I mentioned how I blame criminals for crime I’m reminded of a tendency that really bothers me where in people seem to make so many excuses for the crime and blame everybody and everything for the act, except the criminal. In seeing your comments Laurel I’m especially reminded of that trend. Lets assume you’re right, I’m sure the people of Britain feel better that they just imported a murderer and not a terrorist. He’ll get his day in court, but when you make excuses for crime instead of demanding consequences for it, you’ll get more crime. This is a whole separate debate but if I care and find the time I can explain why and provide support for it. (Ditto for the benefits of capitalism, the cause of the housing crisis, and those that doubted my sources.)
Capturing an ISIS agent on US soil who came in as a refugee is an example of the problem, not the solution. Its a nice spin job, but capturing ISIS agents in America is exactly the kind of problem with the refugee system. If this Yadizi women and former sex slave was a Hollywood actress its not too hard to imagine all of the press coverage and feminist support she would receive. #metoo, except when it disagrees with my politics and then I’ll try my hardest to poke holes in her story. Careers and good names have been ruined for less, but there is a likely raping, slave owning, terrorist involved so lets give him the benefit of the doubt and not jump to conclusions lol. This is an ongoing story and German officials say they are looking into at least half a dozen claims of ISIS agents abusing the refugee program so I would treat this as a heavier story instead of making excuses. I’m sure the victims of the San Bernadino shooting and Boston bombing would your best excuse: Well every group commits crime so we shouldn’t really expect immigrants not to commit mass murder. Like I’ve said several times, we have plenty of own criminals without needing to import them.
I’ve written before about the refugee crisis:https://www.opslens.com/2017/02/09/syria-refugee-resettlement-immigration-debate/ I think the answer to the refugee problem is not guilt tripping white people about how colonialist their ancestors were, how racist they are today, or trying to make excuses for the ISIS members, murderers, and jihadists that we import. The answer is to be proactive in helping to solve problems in their own countries, empower NGOs, and give refugees and displaced persons the options of staying in their own country. I would also suggest much more stringent vetting of those that claim asylum. I’m pro immigration but I also have compassion for the potential victims of terrorists and murders that we important and think our policy should take them into account.
We have right to control who enters our country and have legitimate concerns over the entire process. You mentioned how “its not hard to imagine” somebody accidentally running over half a dozen people because of ptsd. But many of my critics reading this thread and calling me names find it incredibly hard to imagine something much more simple. That all of these stories, which are just a sampling of those I could have included, suggest a real and dangerous problem. And that US and Europeans that elect right wing governments might see all of these news stories (including Sweeden, where even the snopes article admitted there has been “an uptick in some crime categories since the country took in 160,000 asylum-seekers in 2015”) and consider the current immigration positions of many leftist politicians, especially the ones that lecture them on their racism, as out of touch, ridiculous and dangerous. Have a great night.
Morgan, it wasn’t my intention to poke holes in the Yadizi woman’s story, which I believe regardless of her lack of Oscar nominations. But nothing I said contradicts her statements. None of several articles I skimmed offered insight into how her abuser came to be in Germany. Using her experience as an argument against refugees (like her) is probably not what she hoped to come out of telling her story. It seems a bit like how some have used the #metoo stories to argue that women shouldn’t work.
I am not making excuses for crime. I am saying that, based on the article you linked, this may have been a tragic accident and not a crime. I’m not convinced it was one or the other, but I am convinced we don’t know yet. Sudanese immigrant + car crash = terrorism might seem like an airtight formula, but, as you said, he’ll have his day in court. So I am saying that, like the story of the Yadizi woman, there are not enough facts to use this as an example of a bad refugee. If there is a crime, I’ll demand consequences for it — for the criminal, not for people from the same country as the criminal. “Not for Adam’s transgression” and all.
My heart goes out to the people who lost loved ones in San Bernadino and the Boston Marathon. Is their pain so different from that of people who lost loved ones from criminals born in the US? The latter don’t console themselves with, “At least my loved one was killed by someone whose grandfather was born here.” Similarly, the 800 Syrians who died in July didn’t leave life thinking, “At least my death isn’t in vain because if the US admitted me and 162,624* other people, one terrorist would slip in.”
We have the right to vet entry into our borders, but we have a moral obligation to use that right ethically. I don’t see God as valuing American lives over non-American lives. I can’t see explaining to him that we sent someone back to their country with, say, even just a 50% chance of being killed because there was a .00062%* chance an American would be killed by them. Christ spoke against “salut[ing] your brethren only.” There is never going to be a vetting process that stops crime 100% — without stopping immigration 100%. People — immigrants — have agency. Accepting that people are going to act like people is not the same as accepting crime. Bringing in any pool of people means you are letting in a percentage of criminals — as well as new police, teachers, innovators, politicians, doctors, and pillars of society. Maybe tell all the Apple employees that Steve Jobs’s dad shouldn’t have been here because he might have killed someone.
I apologize for the incivility of people I’d consider on my side of this debate. I understand you have valid reasons for your opinions, and you have brought up some valid points.
*https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/feb/01/ted-lieu/odds-youll-be-killed-terror-attack-america-refugee/
I’m really encouraged by how Europe–especially Germany–has stepped up and handled the refugee crisis. Germany alone is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. A couple of years ago, Elder Holland stated publicly that governments were not doing enough to assist refugees. Unfortunately, the U.S. is ignoring the prophet’s voice and continues to significantly reduce the number of refugees allowed into our country.
It’s important to keep in mind that there’s a big difference between the U.S. refugee program and the refugee program in Europe. The U.S. does an extensive background check on every incoming refugee, and historically (with the current example being the only exception I’m aware of) the background check works. Refugees in the U.S. are significantly less likely to commit crime than U.S. citizens.
Morgan: I don’t think we are in much disagreement here. Let me take one of your responses line by line.
“In short, I’m not buying that the problem is capitalism, or the exploitative behavior of white people.” I don’t think capitalism is “the problem” or that there is a “the problem.” These issues are a tangle of threads, and every thread you pull on moves the whole. Like Kissinger said, every solution is a ticket to a new problem. I also didn’t say that white people are exploitative, merely that capitalism favors the wealthy and powerful, and that statistically, there are groups that are more disenfranchised and less powerful than others. Even if there are no current exploiters, the system we’ve inherited is set up this way. Money makes money. Disadvantage makes disadvantage.
“I blame the criminals for crime and think that even if its just a small minority of immigrants that commit crime, as Handlewithcare said, countries have enough problems with the low lives in their own countries without importing more criminals and then paying them to live there at the expense of social programs for their own people.” I do get this argument. Immigration is a drain on resources in the receiving country, for sure, although that doesn’t dictate policy. Denying immigration also has a social cost down the line, and immigrants are often an investment in the future. How we assess these risks is definitely a difference between parties. This is one reason that I don’t like so much emphasis on states making their own rules or handling their own costs (vs. national programs). States with borders have significantly higher costs due to both legal and illegal immigration, and without national funding, the costs outweigh the benefits. I live in Phoenix which is said to have around one million undocumented immigrants. Now, most of those are families and while they aren’t a “risk” per se, they are often being paid under the table which has an economic impact.
“In fact, I never mentioned the color of any of these people, so it was rather subtle, but suggesting I blame brown or black people for crime instead of whites is exactly the kind of subtle racist attacks that politicians often take advantage of to lecture and silence the complaints from their citizens.” I’m not sure why you’ve called this one out. There are people who are motivated by racism, I assume you would agree, and the immigrant groups targeted are usually darker races. There aren’t a lot of people lobbying against British people immigrating here. I’m just confused by your objection here. There are legitimate concerns about immigration that should be reasonably dealt with, yes, on that we are agreed. But I assume we can also agree that some politicians harness the racism of their constituents to gain support for their political agendas.
Having a little more time I wanted to expand on my earlier comment re governments failing to protect citizens from global business.
It has been my observation that far too few businesses now regard their employees as an investment, as opposed to fodder. Back when my parents left school there were ample opportunities in apprenticeships and such, which in subsequent years vanished. Now industry doesn’t want to pay to invest in training and such like. Oh no, if the government want industry to provide apprenticeships then the government need to provide subsidies to industry, and industry whinges about not being able to find enough qualified people for the roles they apparently have. But don’t want to have to pay for the training themselves. Oh no. They expect the government to do that. And governments are pretty much held to ransom if they want the companies providing employment in their country as opposed to another. That’s one point.
Then there are companies, which in the past employed all their own staff from cleaners on up to the top, with all benefiting from company pension schemes, and other company benefits. This is also a thing of the past. Now the lower paid tasks, such as cleaning are contracted out to cleaning companies with lower pay and no company pension scheme or other benefits. Often these contracted out companies take on the existing staff working there, and these staff are expected to sign inferior contracts for the ‘new’ employer.
Another point is the meteoric rise in zero hour contracts in recent years. So people apply for work, accept a contract, but are basically expected to be on call, and are only paid when work is available making it very difficult to plan a life or have an expectation of a regular income.
We have an ever rising legal age of retirement. My husband jokes, that we just don’t know what our retirement age is likely to be. Yet many in parents generation were able to take early retirement with good final salary pensions. These no longer exist. I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere there’s likely to be a large drop in retirees able to serve missions for the church. And from my perspective that’s very true. Not only will we be retiring much later, but our pensions won’t be the generous pensions of our parents generation.
Most government benefits are paid to those in work which doesn’t pay enough for the employees to live on or raise a family.
And for sure, its those in the lower skilled occupations that are suffering the most.
What is particularly alarming is that populist governments on the rise in Europe, instead of pointing the finger where it belongs, point to immigration as the cause of the woes. And global industry expects governments to provide for the education and training of the fodder.
Okay I’m painting a bleak picture here. Some employers are better than others. But for the lowest paid it isn’t pretty.