The lead story in this week’s Economist is How to manage the migrant crisis and keep Europe from tearing itself apart. I was eagerly expecting some sane advice from the usually sane Economist, but alas, it was not to be found. The Economist in general is firmly dedicated to the principles of open borders, on the grounds that open borders allow trade to flow more smoothly, both in terms of human capital and the movement of goods. Fair enough. I don’t disagree with those ideas. The Economist is prepared, however, to sacrifice discussion of radical Islam to trade, and I am not.
The tl;dr of their suggestions is that the migrant crisis can be managed if ‘push’ factors that encourage migrants to make the journey to Europe can be reduced, aid to Middle Eastern countries fueling the crisis must be increased, and migrants must be processed in an orderly fashion, including sending some of them ‘home’, although even the Economist admits that some of those migrants have no homes to go to.
The newspaper then goes on to compare the refugees to the 2M Vietnamese boat people who fled communism for the West, and who were subsequently integrated into our liberal, democratic society with ease. Vietnamese families exceed the average earnings of most families.
This comparison is where the Economist falls off its rails, IMO. North America was built by waves of successive migration, and the Economist wants to pretend that this wave of migration is no different than previous waves, but that simply isn’t true. I’ve seen commentators all over the internet insist that the resistance to Muslim migration is based on racism. We don’t like brown people, but that fails to explain the millions of legal Hispanic immigrants America has welcomed for decades. I’ve also seen lots of people suggesting that if the US had not bombed or destabilized the Middle East, this crisis would not have happened, and therefore the US is obliged to accept Muslim refugees.
That’s complete bullshit.
Korea and Vietnam know a thing or two about eating American bombs and having their geographic regions destabilized, yet I am unaware that any refugees from those countries retaliated by filling pressure cookers full of ball bearings to kill children watching a foot race. I’m unfamiliar with any Koreans who flew commercial aircraft into the side of buildings. I’m unfamiliar with Vietnamese refugees who went into restaurants and concert halls to shoot innocent people whilst screaming religious slogans. There has been a shocking dearth of Asian gangs roaming public squares, committing mass theft, sexual assault and rape. Koreans have demonstrated a decided unwillingness to rape 10 year old boys during ‘sexual emergencies’.
Germans, Italians, Serbians, Koreans, Vietnamese – they came to America to take advantage of the opportunity to work and grow wealthy. And they have done a remarkably good job. America has successfully absorbed wave after wave of immigrants they have bombed the shit out of, because those immigrants were coming to celebrate and embrace our values of liberty, freedom and democracy.
Our new immigrants have no such intentions. The number of Muslims globally who want to live under Sharia law is terrifying, and the fact that it’s hard to get good data on how many American Muslims share those ideas is troubling in and of itself.
By some estimates, 51% of American Muslims want Sharia, and 25% are okay with killing Americans who don’t share their faith.
Just to refresh your memory, Sharia involves stoning, amputations, murdering gay people for no reason other than they fact they are gay, killing Jewish people and beheading anyone who draws a picture of their Prophet. These attitudes are not going to be solved with extra aid money to Syria or a really good system of paperwork to process migrants.
The Economist is nuts.
No doubt, there are many Muslims around the world who are fleeing the most horrific manifestations of their shared faith, and the West wishes to continue to a beacon of hope to those people, but we need to figure out who is fleeing the maniacs, and who are the maniacs.
It’s absolutely true that closing the borders will impede the easy movement of goods and people, and push the price of good and services higher. Free trade does benefit regions that engage in it. But what exactly is the alternative here? Keep the borders open, welcoming in people who intend to destroy our culture, so the price of bread doesn’t go up $1.00?
Close the borders and accept that there will be a temporary increase in prices.
It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than war.
And war is where we are headed if we don’t tackle this issue.
Lots of love,