A Counter Proposal For European Immigration

Europe is now being flooded with immigrants, chiefly from Africa or the Arab world, those least likely to assimilate well.

As Europe confronts a rapidly escalating migration crisis driven by war, persecution and poverty in an arc of strife from West Africa to Afghanistan, even high-level European officials are beginning to admit the obvious.  -- The Washington Post

Europe is being overrun. Now, this would not necessarily be a disaster, if the immigrants were assimilable en masse. As one who scours old history books, there was a massive scare around 1900 that the United States was accepting too many non-Anglo-Saxons. Chinese immigrants were called "yellow celestials," East Europeans were despised, and while the Irish were Northwest European, a feather in their cap, they were still suspiciously Catholic.

Yet, the USA survived, essentially because most of our immigrants came from a European Christian background. This is not true in today’s Europe, where most of these immigrants are from non-Christian, often non-white backgrounds. Unlike in America, they are not assimilating.

We here in America are being inundated with immigrants, but -- in spite of complaints -- they are more assimilable that what is arriving in Europe. A Mexican Catholic is still Christian, speaks an Indo-European tongue, and while not an American, is culturally closer to the United States than a Moroccan Muslim is in France.

With this in mind, may I make some bold suggestions, which are quite serious, and not to be taken as farce.

Number One

Europe owes no obligation to African, and Islamic immigrants as a result of empire. While France, Italy, England, and Spain were in North Africa, for roughly a hundred years, Muslims were in Spain for almost 800 years, Italy for centuries, Malta for centuries, the Balkans for centuries, and are still in possession of Anatolia (Turkey).  Islamic raiders plundered European shipping for centuries.

Europe owes no obligation to these people as a consequence of empire, since for most of history it was Islam's empire that was in Southern Europe. It was Europe, rather, which was the victim of imperialism, not the other way around.  Therefore, Europe owes these people nothing by virtue of history.

Number Two

The same is true of those people caught up in Europe's scramble for empire in the Pacific. Despite leftist howling, many Asian possessions [excepting India, of course] of European empires were rather short lived or limited in tyranny.

Number Three

There are people who were truly victimized by European aggression for centuries: Native Americans. Spain was in her American colonies for roughly 400 years. Unlike the Muslims who did attack Europe, Mexico's Aztecs, and Cuba's Taino never attempted a takeover of Europe. Unlike Muslims, their languages and identities were essentially erased. Native tongues in the Americas are on life support, while Arabic is a growing language.

If Europe has any obligation to any indigenous people, it is the peoples of the Americas.

Number Four

Rather than taking in Africans, and Muslims, to which Europe has little or no obligation, by virtue of history, Europe, if it must take in immigrants at all, should be giving preference to poor Latinos over Asian and African immigrants.

Europe should proclaim that it will set aside immigration -- if it must set aside immigration at all -- in preference for those people who have a greater connection to Europe in language, history and culture.

The Result

Spain

A Mexican family dropped in Spain already speaks the language. Like the Spaniard, he is probably Catholic. His name is easy to pronounce. He may not be faithful to his wife, but he is not polygamous like the Muslim, nor does he honor kill his daughter, nor sexually mutilate his females.

He drinks cerveza (beer), loves ham, plays music based on a Western scale, and probably has a quantum of European blood in him, unlike the Arab from Sudan, or Egypt.

Now I am not saying this will be easy, but this Mexican would not be a threat to Spain. If Spain has to absorb immigrants, why not Mexicans, Central and South Americans? Instead of Charlie Hebdo incidents, Madrid would probably see a lot of late night mariachi.

Spain should announce that it will prefer Latinos to Muslims for immigration.

Italy

Dropping a Latin American in Italy would not be as easy, but not radically more difficult. Spanish and Italian are very close linguistically. Spoken slowly, half the words are mutually intelligible. They would be functional in a year or so. Again, the Latino is probably Catholic, speaks a Romance language and hews to a culture not opposed to Western Civilization.

France

There are sections of South America that speak French. But even if these did not move to Europe, a Spanish speaking Latino is far more assimilable than an Arab, a Kurd, or Afghani. Maybe France should not have to take in any immigrants at all, but if France feels an obligation, then extend the obligation to Westerners. The Guatemalan is Christian, and speaks a Romance tongue.  Yes, French is far more removed from Spanish than Italian is; but even so, the alphabet is the same, and the religion is the same. The language, while more difficult to learn for a Latino, still is similar in grammar to Spanish.

England and Germany

There is no reason that England and Germany should not state a preference for Afrikaner Boers than for non-Westerners. North Europeans have a longer history in South Africa than in North Africa. Saudi Arabia only takes in Muslims, and Iran is an Islamic state. Islam is not generous; neither should Europe be.  After the Boers, Latinos should be given preference. England already has roughly over 80,000 Brazilians. Unlike suicide bombing, their signatures are samba, and great restaurants.

The West is in a culture war. There is no obligation on the part of the West to atone for past history by imbibing outlier civilizations.  If Europe has any obligation to take in immigrants -- and that is questionable -- then let Europe take in immigrants who are already Westernized, Christian, and speak either identical, similar, or related languages.

Let Europe state its reasons so. As a side effect, it would take a lot of pressure off the US Southern Border.

This may seem farcical, but it is not. The problem is Islam. If Europe feels some leftist obligation to poor people, then let Europe show charity to those people who might possibly deserve it, or who are, at least, connected to the West.

Mike Konrad is an American who writes on many topics.

Europe is now being flooded with immigrants, chiefly from Africa or the Arab world, those least likely to assimilate well.

As Europe confronts a rapidly escalating migration crisis driven by war, persecution and poverty in an arc of strife from West Africa to Afghanistan, even high-level European officials are beginning to admit the obvious.  -- The Washington Post

Europe is being overrun. Now, this would not necessarily be a disaster, if the immigrants were assimilable en masse. As one who scours old history books, there was a massive scare around 1900 that the United States was accepting too many non-Anglo-Saxons. Chinese immigrants were called "yellow celestials," East Europeans were despised, and while the Irish were Northwest European, a feather in their cap, they were still suspiciously Catholic.

Yet, the USA survived, essentially because most of our immigrants came from a European Christian background. This is not true in today’s Europe, where most of these immigrants are from non-Christian, often non-white backgrounds. Unlike in America, they are not assimilating.

We here in America are being inundated with immigrants, but -- in spite of complaints -- they are more assimilable that what is arriving in Europe. A Mexican Catholic is still Christian, speaks an Indo-European tongue, and while not an American, is culturally closer to the United States than a Moroccan Muslim is in France.

With this in mind, may I make some bold suggestions, which are quite serious, and not to be taken as farce.

Number One

Europe owes no obligation to African, and Islamic immigrants as a result of empire. While France, Italy, England, and Spain were in North Africa, for roughly a hundred years, Muslims were in Spain for almost 800 years, Italy for centuries, Malta for centuries, the Balkans for centuries, and are still in possession of Anatolia (Turkey).  Islamic raiders plundered European shipping for centuries.

Europe owes no obligation to these people as a consequence of empire, since for most of history it was Islam's empire that was in Southern Europe. It was Europe, rather, which was the victim of imperialism, not the other way around.  Therefore, Europe owes these people nothing by virtue of history.

Number Two

The same is true of those people caught up in Europe's scramble for empire in the Pacific. Despite leftist howling, many Asian possessions [excepting India, of course] of European empires were rather short lived or limited in tyranny.

Number Three

There are people who were truly victimized by European aggression for centuries: Native Americans. Spain was in her American colonies for roughly 400 years. Unlike the Muslims who did attack Europe, Mexico's Aztecs, and Cuba's Taino never attempted a takeover of Europe. Unlike Muslims, their languages and identities were essentially erased. Native tongues in the Americas are on life support, while Arabic is a growing language.

If Europe has any obligation to any indigenous people, it is the peoples of the Americas.

Number Four

Rather than taking in Africans, and Muslims, to which Europe has little or no obligation, by virtue of history, Europe, if it must take in immigrants at all, should be giving preference to poor Latinos over Asian and African immigrants.

Europe should proclaim that it will set aside immigration -- if it must set aside immigration at all -- in preference for those people who have a greater connection to Europe in language, history and culture.

The Result

Spain

A Mexican family dropped in Spain already speaks the language. Like the Spaniard, he is probably Catholic. His name is easy to pronounce. He may not be faithful to his wife, but he is not polygamous like the Muslim, nor does he honor kill his daughter, nor sexually mutilate his females.

He drinks cerveza (beer), loves ham, plays music based on a Western scale, and probably has a quantum of European blood in him, unlike the Arab from Sudan, or Egypt.

Now I am not saying this will be easy, but this Mexican would not be a threat to Spain. If Spain has to absorb immigrants, why not Mexicans, Central and South Americans? Instead of Charlie Hebdo incidents, Madrid would probably see a lot of late night mariachi.

Spain should announce that it will prefer Latinos to Muslims for immigration.

Italy

Dropping a Latin American in Italy would not be as easy, but not radically more difficult. Spanish and Italian are very close linguistically. Spoken slowly, half the words are mutually intelligible. They would be functional in a year or so. Again, the Latino is probably Catholic, speaks a Romance language and hews to a culture not opposed to Western Civilization.

France

There are sections of South America that speak French. But even if these did not move to Europe, a Spanish speaking Latino is far more assimilable than an Arab, a Kurd, or Afghani. Maybe France should not have to take in any immigrants at all, but if France feels an obligation, then extend the obligation to Westerners. The Guatemalan is Christian, and speaks a Romance tongue.  Yes, French is far more removed from Spanish than Italian is; but even so, the alphabet is the same, and the religion is the same. The language, while more difficult to learn for a Latino, still is similar in grammar to Spanish.

England and Germany

There is no reason that England and Germany should not state a preference for Afrikaner Boers than for non-Westerners. North Europeans have a longer history in South Africa than in North Africa. Saudi Arabia only takes in Muslims, and Iran is an Islamic state. Islam is not generous; neither should Europe be.  After the Boers, Latinos should be given preference. England already has roughly over 80,000 Brazilians. Unlike suicide bombing, their signatures are samba, and great restaurants.

The West is in a culture war. There is no obligation on the part of the West to atone for past history by imbibing outlier civilizations.  If Europe has any obligation to take in immigrants -- and that is questionable -- then let Europe take in immigrants who are already Westernized, Christian, and speak either identical, similar, or related languages.

Let Europe state its reasons so. As a side effect, it would take a lot of pressure off the US Southern Border.

This may seem farcical, but it is not. The problem is Islam. If Europe feels some leftist obligation to poor people, then let Europe show charity to those people who might possibly deserve it, or who are, at least, connected to the West.

Mike Konrad is an American who writes on many topics.