Germany's Immigration Problem What to Do

The Syrian Refugee Crisis
With the war in Syria leading to the loss of so many lives and homes, it was only natural that the developed world should take notice. The Syrian refugees would have to be admitted somewhere, would have to be given shelter somehow. For a world that professed the principles of the UN—to act humanely towards one and all—how could the developed world not respond? Those were Angela Merkel’s thoughts in 2015. Truth be told, however, the experiment had been a long time coming. Integration and immigration had been key topics for Germany’s leader as well as for other member states of the EU. Immigration had been one of the key controversial issues that compelled Britons to vote to leave the EU in the shocking Brexit event that occurred in 2016 (Hunt & Wheeler, 2016). For leaders like Merkel, welcoming immigrants (especially those from the war torn Middle East) was an act of charity that symbolized the universal bond that all people shared. For others—particularly for Britons and Germans who did not want to see their national heritages and cultures altered by the influx of a foreign people with foreign customs and traditions—it was an act of self-demolition.
The leaders of the EU eventually picked up on their followers’ oppositional voice and tried to perform balancing acts in order to appease the voters while simultaneously towing the politically correct line that advocated universal kinship, open borders, pro-immigration policies and greater integration. Leaders like Merkel were reluctant to give up the ideals that they had taken to heart, even though it might cost them their positions of leadership. Merkel was being challenged as Chancellor in Germany. In England, Nigel Farage was leading the charge for Brexit and the referendum’s surprise result would lead to the establishment of a new PM—Theresa May—in the UK. It would appear that the line between being hospitable and being self-destructive was becoming clearer and clearer in the minds of many. Yet it was still not so clear in the minds of the leaders in the EU.
Bavarian Premier and Christian Social Union leader Edmund Stoiber attempted to draw a finer line about where tolerance began and where it ended by stating, “Yes to openness and tolerance, no to Islamist head scarves,” in the early half of the 21st century (DW, 2004). Federal President Johannes Rau of the House of World Cultures in Berlin had stated in 2000 that “we must overcome uncertainty and fear, which can lead to xenophobia, hatred and violence” (p. 2). By 2010, however, things were not exactly advancing as the EU’s leaders had hoped: immigration was as controversial as ever and the flow of Middle Easterners into Europe following the Western invasion of the Middle East in the wake of 9/11 certainly had not contributed to the kind of openmindedness that some leaders had insisted upon. This prompted Merkel to state that the grand multicultural experiment had “utterly failed” and that Muslim immigrants were not doing enough to integrate themselves into German culture—a somewhat hypocritical position to adopt for a leader who had spent years begging Germans to open their hearts to foreigners in need (Weaver, 2010). By 2016, after the flow of Syrian immigrants into Germany had given Germans more than enough to think about in terms of the realistic effects of a pro-immigration policy, Merkel was saying that Germans needed to have a “frank talk about integration,” though Germans were more preoccupied with other issues—namely, the increase in rapes, assaults and other violent crimes in their homeland—all by Muslim immigrants who had been welcomed into their home by the high-minded Merkel (Neo, 2016).
The problem, of course, is exacerbated by a wave of nationalism that has been sweeping across the globe—from the U.S. to the UK, from Poland to the Philippines, from Russia to Syria itself. It has been seen in the campaign of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the campaign of Trump in the U.S., the stance of Poland against the wave of immigration flooding Europe, the military assertion of Russia in the Middle East to help put down the ISIS terrorists and promote a sense of confidence in the Motherland not seen for many decades. Yet in Germany, there is still a longing for a united EU, one where integration is the key word of the day. Perhaps it is the memory of two World Wars fought on the Continent that makes the EU’s leaders so suspicious of this rising tide of nationalism. For the natives of the various countries, however, the suspicion is directed towards the wave of immigrants coming from the Middle East—immigrants who do not share in the Western culture, immigrants whose religion is distinctly Arabic, immigrants whose forefathers once engaged in mortal warfare with the countries of Christendom, the countries of Europe, the countries of the West.
Another problem is that the Syrian immigrants are not as educated or skilled as the people in the countries where they are going (UNHCR, 2016). This means that it is up to the host countries to educate the immigrants, which puts further strain on the already stretched economies of the EuroZone. Should another global economic recession rear its head, these nations are not only going to be hard pressed to educate the immigrants but to provide housing and work for them as well.
With the war in Syria apparently not dying down anytime soon (Israel seems intent on escalating a conflict, not only with Syria but also with Iran), the numbers must be considered before things get worse. Already, 60% of Syrians have been displaced. About 30% of Syrians have found refuge within their own country. The other half is seeking asylum in Europe. Who will help? Who should help?
The questions get worse when one begins to consider who started the wars in the Middle East in the first place. The U.S. invaded Iraq under false pretenses, executed its ruler, and installed a puppet regime that quickly fell apart. The Al-Qaeda leftovers of the CIA’s 1980s training camp (used to fight the Soviets in the Middle East in a proxy war decades ago) moved in and another branch of extremists, funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and even the U.S. (calling them freedom fighters aiming to overthrow Assad in Syria) quickly set about destabilizing the region. One cannot help but note that Oded Yinon’s 1980 policy paper for an Israeli think tank essentially laid all this out as a plan to secure Greater Israel (Shakak, 2017). As the U.S. has long been an outspoken ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia, the tensions can be felt everywhere when it comes to pointing out who started this mess in the first place. Whether the wars all about destabilizing the Middle East to allow for Israeli expansion or whether the wars are about pipelines (oil and gas being the biggest commodities in the world—and who controls the pipelines controls, essentially, the keys to international trade), the facts are that the major players who bear a great deal of responsibility for allowing this destruction are the ones decidedly not taking in refugees. Trump ran on a “close the borders” platform. Israeli is essentially an apartheid state. Saudi Arabia is in the midst of its own political and socio-economic windfalls, with Mohammad bin Salmon recently imprisoning the Kingdom’s billionaire princes and demanding hefty ransoms for release. None of these parties are likely to offer the kind of big-hearted service that was on Merkel’s mind when she declared that Germany would open its doors to the refugees fleeing the destructive forces unleashed on the country by a new Axis of powers.
Thus, the question remains: Is the Syrian refugee crisis the problem of developed nations – and if so, what is the line between being charitable and being self-destructive?
Germany is now facing an existential crisis: its national culture is being changed from the inside out by the arrival of Arabic Muslim immigrants. Its leadership is dwindling. Merkel has managed to retain power for the time being, but still the tide of resistance to the politically correct policies of the EU, the ideals of the UN, and the immigration positions of leaders like Merkel has not abated.
Europe has a few options: 1) it can break up, with each nation doing as it pleases with regard to the immigration question—i.e., following England’s example. 2) The nations of the EU can band together and make a show of charity by allowing the Syrian refugees to take root in their nations—though this is likely to upset the delicate balance of power, culture, society, and economy. 3) The countries of the EU can begin to take ownership of the problem—at its root—and fight back against the unruly Axis of powers currently still engaging in proxy wars (and soon to be direct wars) in the Middle East, for whatever reasons they may have. A fourth option exists as well: countries like Germany could take the refugees in for a time, but limit their integration with German society; upon ending the proxy wars in the Middle East by confronting the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other nations surreptitiously funding these wars, Germany could assist in the restoration of Syria, send the refugees home, and accomplish both the self-preservation of their own native culture and the work of charitable Westerners in what is otherwise a miserable situation all the way around.
References
DW. (2004). Integration debate heats up in Germany. Retrieved from
http://www.dw.com/en/integration-debate-heats-up-in-germany/a-1402802
Hunt, A. & Wheeler, B. (2016). Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the
EU. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887
Neo, H. (2016). Germany must have frank talk about integration: Merkel. Retrieved
from https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-must-frank-talk-integration-merkel-161231123.html?ref=gs
Rau, J. (2000). Without fear and without illusions: Living together in Germany.
Retrieved from http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/Ch.7,Doc.13FIN.pdf
Shahak, I. (2017). ‘Greater Israel’: The Zionist plan for the Middle East. Retrieved
from https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
UNHCR. (2016). UNHCR reports crisis in refugee education. Retrieved from
http://www.unhcr.org/afr/news/press/2016/9/57d7d6f34/unhcr-reports-crisis-refugee-education.html
Weaver, M. (2010). Angela Merkl: German multiculturalism has ‘utterly failed’.
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed