Duly Noted – Hardliner Immigrants and Compliant Hosts

Duly NotedIt would be convenient to claim that “Duly Noted’s” responds here to the International Day of Refugees (June 20th). It would also be opportune to add that the writer represents an earlier vintage of refugees to defuse guilt by violating PC. However, the truth is beyond such excuses.

A correlation caused the attention as on that official day, the timidly reported local echoes of migrant criminality covered the writer’s desk.

The memorial was about the 50 million refugees that populate our globe. Most of these are decent persons. The genuine victims of evil deserve help. Coming from a “retired” fugitive who faced hanging, this is no mere lip service.

The charge against the persecuted lacks a reason related to a deed. Even so, persecution being arbitrary, it is unrelated to individual qualities: being victimized does not attest to decency. Victim status only reveals the immorality of the persecutor and it tells nothing about the virtue of the harassed.

Ethics demand that murderous systems be fought. The bullied deserve sympathy; however, there is no moral reason to make that support unconditional.

Most of the imperiled seek refuge in their culture, close to the home where they intend to return at the end of troubles. In such a location, the refugees have ties of language, culture and religion and, furthermore, their maintenance is cheap.

Few will doubt that refugees deserve help. The same goes for the resettlement of those that were driven away by gangs that kidnapped their original home. If the “problem” could be limited to such tasks, the resulting humanitarian duty would be manageable. Alas, a derivate of the refugee problem is muting into a global dilemma of assertive migrants and their threatened hosts.

Most refugee masses represent pre-industrial societies. Exceptions exist. The Jewish exodus injected an element that, as the cases of the Tellers, Wigners, Szilàrds, Neumanns (notably, all from one place and the same school!) indicate, matched the society that protected them. The same applies to the Hungarian refugees of 1956 and the Czechoslovaks that fled “Panzer Socialism” in 1968. Not unlike some of the USA’s Asians, while all migrations will contain criminal elements, comparable groups could integrate. Driven by the desire to succeed by excelling, they could become more successful than the average of their rescuers.

Exposure to a covetous envy, or to Socialism’s false egalitarianism, proved to be a good preparation for life in an open society. The exposed learned where success and failure, wealth and poverty originate. The reaction to the suppression of individuality and ability ignited a will to prevail through performance.

Additionally, these immigrations accepted the ways, the public order and the values, as well as the determining traditions, of the society that embraced them. This makes the contrast to some of the present’s immigrant groups striking.

Our time’s displaced masses present an unprecedented challenge even if only a few of the truly persecuted wish to migrate into developed countries. Second, the ranks of entrants are swelled by economic migrants from “safe countries” that exploit the “politicals” to slip into what they see as the land of plenty. Often they assume faked identities from “unsafe” countries to demand refugee status. Once the new life began with a lie and a crime, the next painfully registered step becomes inevitable. This is an existence sustained by crime. Instead of scoring through performance, in Europe, car theft, the drug trade, prostitution, slave trade, extortion, and welfare abuse have become immigrant “businesses”.

Third, the main problem. The historical refugees; representing an upper and middle class, as well as the economic immigrants recruited from the sub-strata of society- to places such the USA, Canada and Australia, shared defining traits. Due to these, these migrations could integrate and assimilate through participatory success. It has been decisive that these people felt to have been disadvantaged in the country of their origin. This caused a break with the home country’s ways to the extent that, its system appeared as undesirable to those that escaped it.

That insight dovetailed into another realization. It was that the system of the “new country” is superior and that it explains the wellbeing of the natives. The encountered new way of life was perceived as vouching for the rise of those that would accept it through participation. This attitude explains more than the integration of newcomers. It also tells why immigrants, even in countries that are scarcely known for harboring the “tired masses,” have done well. A case comes from overpopulated Switzerland where immigrants founded several of its noted global enterprises.

The wish to contribute had a precondition. The immigrant’s background enabled him to assess the cause of the good life he found. He sensed that it was not the product of luck, of conquest, or some collective form of crookedness but of “work”, and inventiveness enhanced by good institutions. This made it possible to fit in -in a way by which one could be personally successful.

A significant segment of the present’s  entrants carry a backpack whose content holds them back, damages their relationship to their hosts, and damages the society that opened its gates to them.

Some of the thusly handicapped immigrants desire to continue their old way of life in a new environment. This not only reflects insufficient education, lacking knowledge and perspectives. It also tells of misunderstanding. These immigrants into “welfare” are not necessarily lazy: they are confused regarding the real causes of their earlier misery. The consequences of a trend aggravate the situation. Useful skills are a cultural product. The gap between advanced and retarded societies has grown in recent decades. Satisfaction with low wages does not compensate for expertise. A loss of autonomy follows, and through that, the tensions caused by the exclusion from effective participation rise. With the help of explanations furnished by local ideologues, “discrimination” and “prejudice” will be blamed. Transferring guilt will solidify the bemoaned condition. It will also project responsibility from the consequence of erroneous approaches upon the indigenous and their system.

A mutant of the above is when adjustment is hindered by a vow to preserve an imported culture –which has not worked at the place of its origins. Earlier emigrations were generally the movement of individuals and not of “nations”. Even if these people lacked up to par skills, they realized that a gap is to be filled by learning. In doing so, they did not think that this process threatens their identity. Mainly, however, such immigrations did not “know” the “wrong thing” and therefore they did not carry the virus of rejection of their new environment in their blood. The point: some forms of identity-consciousness can preclude success and convert the rejection of the host’s ways into hostility. The appearance of a second generation raised by unintegrated parents as Jihadists abroad, or in the despised host country, demonstrates the point.

Now, the most problematic variety of snubbed adaptation. If historic emigrations were political, they chose countries whose systems they wished for their homeland. If you participated in an anti-Communist revolution –as has the writer- you avoided the USSR and went to, shall we say, America. During the cold war, leftist émigrés tended to pass up Moscow and drifted into countries run by the capitalist enemy. They knew privately that they would not admit publicly: Socialism is more profitable in capitalism than in communism.

Some contemporary emigrations demand entry into states whose religion, values, economic order, political system and way of life they regard as “haram”. The list even includes “democracy” and their hosts’ “tolerance”. Responding, the defied PC-led majority does not rebel against the “resistance” to the system that protects those that are “different”.

Hostile immigrants can regard themselves as a spearhead to convert, peacefully if possible, by force if need be, the realm that took them in. The goal is to preempt the system of their benefactors in favor of one that resembles what they had fled. Meanwhile, those that seem unwilling to defend their way of life harvest the contempt due to weaklings. The position seems to be “it is your principle to tolerate, so you must put up with us. Our principle is to crush what differs from us, so we may subject you to our way”.

Once, invoking tolerance, a right is created that the indigenous must adjust to the way of new arrivals, immigration mutes into conquest. It is aided by unconditional tolerance for demonstrative noncompliance converted into a right. Even if done in the name of a noble principle, by ignoring reality, this becomes a dangerous policy. It invites abuse and so it mutes into a course that ignores precedents, common sense and practical fairness.

Comments are closed.