mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Europe's Immigrant Crisis
A Portrait of a Mass Problem
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    This is not rocket science: the developed world has an obligation to political refugees but cannot possibly accommodate all the economic ones. The more of the latter who are accommodated, the more new ones there will be.

    • fastrackn1

      People have an ‘obligation’ to create a society for themselves to live in that is safe and progressive in economics and opportunity for all.

      NO country has any obligation to accept another country’s citizens, or fix another country’s problems, unless it is of strategic or economic benefit for them to do so.

      • Andrew Allison

        I beg to differ. It’s my belief that the developed world or, for that matter, everybody has some sort of duty toward victims of political oppression. That’s why I differentiated between political refugees and economic ones.

        • fastrackn1

          I understand, many think that part or all who need help should be helped, and that is noble.

          I am of the mind that people (or groups of peoples) all rise to their own level of incompetence, so why bring their incompetence to bear on the citizens of a developed country. Governments and cultures are a manifestation of the genetic makeup of a country, so political refugees are still of the genetic makeup that created the cultural, economic, and political problems of that country. Why pollute your gene pool with swarms of bad genetics?
          It is best to do like we (USA) has been doing by taking the best a country has to offer (brain drain) through scholarships, business opportunities, job offers, etc., and leave the rest to fix their own problems.
          A developed country has nothing to gain by accepting 3rd world refugees (especially African) into their country. It will create a thousand times more problems than it is worth, now, and especially in the future.

          Look at what bringing mass amounts of Africans into the US a few hundred years ago has done to this country. We have great sports teams, and the rest is a disaster.
          Great civilizations are not built on sports….

          • Andrew Allison

            Forgive me for pursuing the debate, but might I suggest that only in a democracy do people, as it were, Peter out. It’s not at all clear to me that the victims of totalitarian regimes have that option. It’s a difficult issue, and I’m conflicted. I do, however, fear that you are conflating political and economic refugees.
            As to the slavery issue, I must say that the disaster to which you refer is something which the founding fathers brought upon US (which is not, I hasten to add, that I have the slightest sympathy with the reparations BS: the present population, the vast majority of whom are descended from people who arrived long after emancipation, clearly bears no responsibility for the sins of the plantation owners).

  • Pete

    The last thing Europe needs is an huge influx of Africans. Fact.

    • f1b0nacc1

      I understand your broader point (i.e. a huge influx of poorer people will swamp whatever carrying capacity that the EU might have), but given the startlingly low birthrates in the EU, some fresh blood might in fact be welcome.

      • fastrackn1

        Yes fresh blood might help…but it needs to be the ‘right’ blood, not the wrong blood, or it will just end up a burdensome mess in the long run….

        • f1b0nacc1

          Europe has a rather poor track record in deciding which ‘blood’ is ‘right’, so perhaps just bringing in individuals willing to show some initiative would be a good idea. The notion that this is about genetics is at best, a bit creepy…

          • fastrackn1

            f1b,
            The reality is that Europe has created a great civilization from rocks and dirt and has contributed to the comfort, safety, and well being of the inhabitants on earth through their great economies, inventions, and support of those less fortunate than them, than most other countries and peoples of the world have combined, so not sure where you get the idea they have a poor track record on choosing the right blood?
            Sure they have caused plenty of death and destruction along the way, but so have about all other countries and they have contributed little else other than that. Those who don’t agree with that should go and live in caves, or maybe in one of those refugee countries in Africa.

            ” perhaps just bringing in individuals willing to show some initiative would be a good idea.”
            The article isn’t about ‘bringing in individuals’, it’s about “it’s flooding Europe.”, which is not about allowing select individuals in who might help the countries (like the brain/financial drain strategy the US uses to decide which of many of our immigrants to allow in). What percentage of that ‘flood’ of people do you think will actually ‘show initiative’ as you say? And how many will just come can bring their dangerous, crap culture and crap mentality and just tax the systems of the host countries…as we have seen many refugees do.

            Maybe you would like a flood of African refugees to come and live in your neighborhood?…or you can just move to the ghetto of your nearest city and live there to get the idea.

            “Creepy”, well compared to how the average person thinks, absolutely.
            That’s because humans want to think that what defines what we are as a species both mentally and physically does not apply to us…even in the face of overwhelming scientific and observable evidence. Most humans have their head stuck in the sand and think that genetics and Darwinism only applies to other species, but don’t want to admit how it applies exactly the same to them as it applies to ALL other species. Humans like to poke their head in the sand and sweep things under the rug that make them uncomfortable…like death and images of death…another subject so many think is ‘creepy’ and want to hide from….

  • fastrackn1

    Africa has had thousands of years and great resources to build a continent with and they still can’t get out of their own way.

    What the hell are they waiting for?

    Instead of fixing their own problems in these crap countries, the people just want to flee and bring their mentality and bad genetics to a nice place and ruin it for those who have built it….

    • Tom

      And geography unconducive to forming civilization…and tsetse flies…

      • fastrackn1

        “And geography unconducive to forming civilization…and tsetse flies…”

        I don’t even know where to start with this…I’d be typing for hours, so here is a few basic points.

        A continent with some of the best climate and natural resources in the world and their geography and bugs are a reason for them to be the scourge of the planet….right?….sounds like the excuses of the century to thinking types like myself. I have been to several African countries, and for a lengthy time each trip, and I can tell you first hand that geography and Tsetse flies aren’t the problem.
        Good thing the peoples of frigid, rough countries like those of Scandinavia, or of Russia, Canada, Iceland, etc., didn’t know that their geography was unconducive to forming civilizations or they would be just like Africa. Imagine if the first settlers who got off of the boat here a few hundred years ago would have said ‘wow this is too rough and wild for us to deal with, let’s just leave it to the Indians and go back to Europe’.
        Actually, I wonder what North America would be like if the settlers never came and the Indians still had control of it…probably a lot like Africa.

        I guess the geography and tsetse flies are also the reason for the conditions in our American ghettos to, right?

        Nope, not the fault of the inhabitants, it’s the fault of something or someone else…hmmmm…that sounds familiar….

        • Tom

          Look, we’ve figured out by now that you think blacks are inferior to whites. That much is pretty clear, so you can stop shilly-shallying around it.
          Your use of Canada or the USA is really, really dumb–seeing as the people who built it already came from a civilized society, and knew how to organize, and had the technology already developed.
          Also, “best climate”? Right…tell that to the Europeans who died in droves whenever they got south of the Sahara or north of the Transvaal.

          • fastrackn1

            Nice try using ‘we’ve’ to speak for others here, saying that I think blacks are inferior to whites, and that I should stop shilly-shallying around about it, as some weak try at a power play in an attempt to throw the conversation in another direction because you could not offer a decent and strong rebuttal to my comments. So your first 2 sentences are useless to the conversation.
            Now to address your next useless attempt at a rebuttal…Canada the USA, and the other places I mentioned are a fair response to your comment about geography being an issue. Yes people who settled the places I mentioned came from civilized places…THAT is part of my point! They created civilized places from which to spread out and develop more wild places. What have the Africans done? They have been on their continent for thousands of years and the entire continent is a mess!
            Your last rebuttal is more laughable than your others. Much of Africa has great climate and almost all of it is rich in natural resources…are you that ignorant that you don’t even know that? I didn’t say that the entire continent has perfect weather, but compared to the places I mentioned, most of Africa is as good, and certainly has good rainfall over much of the continent, and a temperate climate (at or near the equator). Adverse climates haven’t prevented many countries from developing their land, so why make excuses.
            Many Europeans and others have died throughout the centuries taming the different wild areas across the globe…so what’s your point there?

            You carry on like the left wing loons that troll here…just a lot of fireworks, but little in the way of solid rebuttal…Tsetse flies…right….

          • Tom

            Dude, if you think I’m a lefty, you’re an idiot.
            As to the rest of your points–“Africa has a great climate”–maybe for colonizing, but not building from scratch and figuring it all out by yourself. Africa’s climate, specifically sub-Saharan Africa, stinks for civilizational development. The river valleys are both hard to navigate and generally pest-ridden hellholes and the areas with good climate don’t have good river valleys and are conducive only to herding (try building a modern civilization without farming).
            Although, if we’re attempting to talk about all of Africa–(coughs, points at Egypt.)
            And sure it’s got natural resources–that were mostly utterly useless until the 20th century, and tended to be located in the back of beyond.
            Sorry, mac. Europe has a much better climate for civilizational development, as did the Middle East, India, and China. Africa got the short end of the stick on that, and has paid for it ever since.

          • fastrackn1

            Dude?…let’s not go back to our High School days…which were 40 years ago for me.

            I didn’t say you were a lefty, go back and reread what I wrote. I said “carry on like”…which involves lots of fiery commentary attempting to turn the conversation away from the original point, name calling, and anger, etc.
            I am well aware of the importance of farming to a civilization,
            but you still haven’t provided even a fair rebuttal to my original comments. You can blame rivers, bugs, trees, whatever you want, but that doesn’t account for Africans and what they have accomplished and contributed to the betterment of mankind. No place on earth is perfect, it is what a people do with it that matters. Funny how Africa’s resources (ores, energy, lumber, etc.) were useless until the 20th century (as you say), but everyone else’s same resources were being used for hundreds of years…hmmmm, sounds like another excuse to me.
            Have Africans set up sophisticated international commerce and financial centers? Or are their countries the type of places that no international corporation would go near because they are so corrupt that a company would be bankrupt in a year or less. Or why is it that no one wants to do any major financial business with them because of corruption?…is that climate and bugs too? Or why do they continue to breed like rabbits when they have nothing to support a family? Why do they sit and wait for a developed country to come and help them with their endless problems instead of attempting to correct their own problems? Why haven’t they mechanized a bit over the years so as to increase their crop yields?
            I have spent many months in Africa (not tourist style either, I like adventure when I travel), in several countries over the years, and I can tell you that their problems have nothing to do with farming capabilities. Their genetics has manifested itself into a culture of violence against each other, ignorance, and stupidity, plain and simple…no matter how hard you try to sugar coat it.
            No matter where they are in the world, it is the same thing…just look to our ghettos here…but I am sure you will have plenty of excuses for that though.

            Egypt?…one country 4 thousand years ago…that is your best example??…okay, sure….

          • Tom

            Because, as we all know, having the slave trade practiced on you during the development of the development of international finance (and being vigorously colonized and having your development suppressed, because that did actually happen) is an “excuse.” You might consider looking up the Belgian Congo one of these days.
            Practically every single one of your remarks on how awful Africans are can be summed up as “Hey, let’s throw industrial-era medical technique at people who haven’t culturally adjusted to it yet, and pay them poorly, and throw industrial weaponry at people who haven’t made it past the feudal system yet in terms of their political economy because we’ve been mucking around there for centuries.” I wouldn’t want to live in a Europe where someone had handed AK-47s and tanks, and then sold them as needed, to William the Conqueror and his merry band of miscreants. It’d be as big a basket case as Africa is now.

            Honestly, you refuse to consider context between 1600 and 1950–which can be summed up as “Europe and North America develop largely organically, while Africa is quashed.”
            However, you’ve decided that African genetics are what’s to blame, and you’re going to stick with it.
            Oh, as to the ghettos: The problem isn’t genetics, it’s the idea set and subcultural breakdown.

          • fastrackn1

            My remarks are based on overwhelming scientific evidence that has been known for years. And that is that genetics defines every aspect of what an organism is. We humans are just another organism on this planet and are subject to the same developmental forces as any other organism. Of course humans like to think they are above how genetics and Darwinism affects and applies to them, so they make excuses for that…it is understandable and noble, but they are still in denial about it so they either ignore it or sweep it under the rug. But funny how people are not afraid to admit that certain groups of peoples have superior genetics when it comes to athletic skills. right? I never hear excuses for that, or blaming culture for that, right?
            I on the other hand just look at things for what they actually are, as I am a Realist, not an Idealist. I am not afraid to admit that my species has bad behavioral genetic traits that can prevail in certain groups of peoples. The evidence is again, overwhelming.
            “Every single one of my remarks” as you say, are just part of my evidence. Cultures that can’t adjust, peoples who can’t get past the Feudal system, an entire continent that can’t develop between 1600 and 1950, are just more evidence to support the scientific evidence I speak of.
            Yes I am going to stick with my thoughts…as unpopular as they are, because there is no other explanation that even comes close.
            Just as all breeds of dogs have different behavioral traits, so do different groups of peoples. They are all still dogs, and all still people, but they are all different…not only in looks and physical attributes, but also in behavior….

          • Tom

            Ummm…what are you on about with the superior genetics as applied to athletics? The culture thing gets thrown around there, too, in case you haven’t noticed.

          • fastrackn1

            Do I really need to provide and answer to your first question?
            If so then Google will be your friend and can provide you with plenty more that I could type here about genetics and how they affect physical attributes as they apply to athletic ability…and everything else.

            As far as your second comment, I will clarify. Culture gets blamed for the ‘amount’ of a group of people who seek sports and athletics as a hobby or as a career, but it does not get blamed for the reasons that a group can generally run faster, jump higher, box with more intensity, or any of the other genetically produced qualities, that make one group of peoples better at athletics than another.
            So while it is accepted and okay for a society to believe that genetics play a role in positive attributes of a group of peoples…say a group who excels at athletics for example, it is not socially acceptable to think or acknowledge that genetics can also play a role in behavioral attributes that are negative and have caused societal and cultural failure in a group of peoples. It’s just not PC.

            Luckily, I don’t follow, or think within the confines, of PC…which is just guilt crap that has been laid on us by the extreme left at an ever increasing rate over the years…I think for myself.

        • Debs

          Well I guess one of the reason why Africa is such a fucked up continent is because a big number of sinister, “superior” assholes decided that it was a good idea to take a trip down there, colonise some countries, rape some women and lure some innocent tribesmen across the sea to work as slaves in the cotton fields. All with a big fucking gun in hand. Just try to imagine what the trauma of seeing your mother and father killed by some strange white men whilst your sister is raped and your brother leaves you behind to work somewhere far away would do to you and possibly your kids and grandkids? Taking into consideration that most of your people are suffering the same tragedy. How does trauma affect people? Do kids who grow up in an abusive home always become nice, loving people? Or do they sometimes develop an inability to love, or feel? Now take that and apply it to a whole continent! Aaah the Americas, the land of opportunities, the land of greedy bastards who create money out of thin air and put innocent people out of their homes. The land where people go abroad to fight for the government only to come back and be left dying in the streets. The land of obesity and ill health, extensive drug-use and GMO’s. What you seem to be forgetting is that since the industrial revolution the planet has been exploited in a way that could me the human race is wiped out in the next 1000 years. All thanks to the European settlers!

          • fastrackn1

            Thanks for your over-emotional, naive, far left wing diatribe, but i simply deal with reality, and facts in life.

            BTW, if you think what the settlers and industrialized society has done for humanity is so bad, then why are you using electricity, a computer, etc??
            Just go to Africa and spend a few days and nights living in a Masaii village (as I had done when traveling in Africa) and see what you think about life without modern civilization. After that experience I am sure you will love it so much that you will want to move there and live full time…..

  • mdmusterstone

    Sir, you win the award for the greatest amount of claptrap
    in the fewest words since, well, since your last article on African immigrants. I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony in
    that I barely know where to begin so let’s take it in order.

    Four sons? Is that
    all the children he has, bet not, but even if it were so, what reckless irresponsibility
    to have any children at all when you can provide nothing. Read an anthropological article many years
    ago about a tiny island off the coast of Ireland
    so poor that no one marred and had children until 35-40 years of age because
    they couldn’t ‘afford’ it!! What a vast
    difference in personal responsibility.

    “We’re with Susso… ” What low paying jobs? Would you care to list ten of such, five,
    three? The whole thrust of the century in
    the developed countries is that these jobs are going away and what few remain you
    are indicating are not to be made available for citizens of the EU but for
    anyone who comes along, from anywhere, anytime, in any numbers. What do you suppose this competition will do
    to the wages of these already low paying jobs?
    Good plan that!

    So the US
    and the EU are partially (what a generous parsing of responsibility) for Susso
    because of Libya? Why do you only consider the ripple effect
    reaching Gambia? Why not all of the ‘Stans, and any number of
    the Asian subcontinent, don’t leave out Venezuela
    or anyone else that’s dissatisfied for any reason? And try and get this; all help is a luxury. I have always helped on a personal basis and
    as a volunteer; what I had to give I did
    but with limits, I have no intention to sell my house and car or starve my
    family because more help is demanded. Overwhelming European culture to
    “help” is not helping anyone by hand wringers.

    But your next paragraph is the real world beater…

    “Either way, though, it’ll be no more than a temporary
    fix. If Europe wants to take a population this big,
    there are more humane, as well as more straightforward, ways to do
    it. That would require shifts in cultural mores as well as in legal
    architecture that would be daunting for any policy maker to pull off, however.”

    Was your editor asleep when you posted this? Change the institutions? It IS the institutions, fought hard for for
    centuries, that makes Europe what it is. But here’s a thought experiment for you. Consider by some magic that all the wanna
    be’s suddenly were transported to Europe while all the Europeans were transferred
    to resource rich Africa, just their human agency, hard working hands and the
    institutions that came with them. Given
    two generations or less which direction would you guess immigration would be
    then? This isn’t a trick question.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service