Julius O’Malley is a longtime reader and commenter from Australia. Below is his first guest-essay for Gates of Vienna, on the issue of mass Third-World immigration to the West.
“We want right to enter UK legally”
by Julius O’Malley
So says the crude handmade banner held up by a group of hoodied MENA young men standing in a street in Calais, France.
Of course they do. One is tempted to remark that “I want right to enter USA legally”, but I’m not going to get it. Oddly, I understand and accept that the USA can’t just let in everybody who wants to migrate to the country.
What do these young MENA men have to offer the UK? It is an obvious question that rarely seems to be asked in our era, perhaps because it is now deemed irrelevant. What happened to make this so? It seems pretty fundamental to me that a state admits immigrants based on that state’s needs. If these MENA men were admitted would they become hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers and civil citizen contributors who would add to the social capital of the nation? Or would they just enlarge the largely hostile, pervasively unskilled and resolutely unassimilable horde of parasitic cultural invaders?
Why are there young MENA men congregating on the streets of Calais demanding entry to the UK? They are planning to somehow smuggle themselves via the Channel Tunnel into Britain where they intend to apply for asylum. They camp out on abandoned factory sites or on unused public land. Their tents and sleeping bags are provided by French charities. One new Calais camp, “Jungle 2”, has a central building, the Jules Ferry Centre, a former seaside recreation centre for French schoolchildren, where the small proportion of women and children are accommodated, and hot showers and meals are provided for the men who live in surrounding tents and shanties. They’ve even erected a rudimentary mosque there.
French officialdom tries to persuade them to make asylum application in France. They refuse. And they complain about the poor sanitation facilities provided to them. As you do when you’re an illegal transient using somebody else’s country as a staging point to illegally enter another somebody else’s country.
How did they get into France in the first place? Into Europe? They paid “people smugglers” around €3,000 each to get them across the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy, or into Bulgaria or Rumania from Turkey. That’s quite a lot of money for someone from a Third World country, so its reasonable to assume that the asylum-seekers are not from the poorest stratum of MENA societies. The people smugglers are very often Albanian or South Asian, the former gangsters who’ve diversified from trafficking narcotics and prostitutes-to-be from East to West into a new lucrative industry. The latter have yet to acquire the “mafia” tag, but conduct themselves indistinguishably. Ever noticed in the photographs of the overcrowded boats the passengers are sitting in orderly rows like obedient schoolchildren? That’s because they get shot or thrown overboard by the on-board smugglers if they stand up. Conditions whilst waiting on the Libyan shore are pretty awful too: rape, murder, beatings. It is no accident that Libya is the principal embarkation point and the spike in departures has coincided with the complete breakdown in public order since the glorious “Arab Spring” took place there.
Are they “all in this together” and thus display a camaraderie of desperate people escaping persecution? No fear. In Palermo on April, 15 Muslim asylum seekers from the Ivory Coast, Mali and Senegal were arrested after docking for having thrown 12 Ghanaians and Nigerians overboard in the open sea. They drowned, of course. Why? The latter “had declared themselves Christians”. Many more would have drowned if they hadn’t formed an arms-interlinked human chain which made it impossible for them to be thrown off.
How many more instances have there been where no Christians survived to tell the tale? Or were too frightened to speak up?
Italy is a modern, affluent, stable country with a “very high” Human Development Index of 0.872 — the 26th highest in the world. After France, USA, Spain and China it is the fifth most popularly visited nation on Earth. For decades it was the number 1 or 2 tourist destination in the world. So why don’t they stay in Italy? No one asks why they don’t stay in Romania — it’s impolite — but Romania has a “high” HDI of 0.785, the 54th highest in the world. Its GDP per capita is $20,000, a little over half that of Italy’s; still it is 18 times higher than Eritrea’s and five times that of Sudan’s, so not too shabby. If I were fleeing, say, Somalia, I’d stay there. In fact if I were fleeing any MENA nation I’d be delighted to be settle in Romania.
Only 30% of asylum seekers in Italy actually apply for asylum in Italy; the other 70% move north-west and north. Historically, Italy has been a toughish country in which to gain refugee status/political asylum: the success rate varies dramatically from year to year, but since 2005 has hovered around 40%. Still, one would think that those landing in Italy would at least try in Italy. That more than twice as many don’t than do makes one suspicious that these people are not truly desperate for asylum, but are simply opportunistic economic migrants. Oddly, nobody in France or the UK seems to say to the applying refugees: you were in Italy, why didn’t you apply there?
And they should ask, because international humanitarian law obliges the refugee to seek residency in the closest neighbouring state to their own. And if that one refuses them, the next closest. And so on until they find a country they are able to settle in. This fundamental rule, embedded since 1951, is totally ignored by the refugees and those processing their applications to stay. There should be no MENA refugees at all in the UK. Nobody from Syria or Iraq should get any further than Turkey. Of course Turkey treats its fellow Muslim asylum seekers and refugees from beyond its southern and south-eastern border with a maximum of brutality. Like Indonesia, it funnels them on.
Why do these paying, trafficked, human beings make their way into France, comparable to Italy in every affluence/stability/quality of life indicator, but not want to stay there either? The sayable reason is that asylum applications by the invariably undocumented seekers have a 60-65% success rate in the UK, but only a 30% success rate in France. The unsayable reason is that in the UK, if unsuccessful in gaining asylum, one can easily just disappear off the official radar and stay: there are no identity cards; one can sustain oneself working in the black economy; one can rent housing off the books. One’s children will still get a free education. All these things are much more difficult in France: its ID card is non-compulsory, but try getting a job, a home, a driver’s licence or opening a bank account without one. In the UK, when your asylum application is denied by the tribunal, one would think that the next step is to be escorted by immigration officials to a detention centre in readiness to be officially deported on the next available flight. But no: they just walk out of the building and disappear into the streets.
Standing next to the “We want right to enter UK legally” banner are two men each holding a crude cardboard sign. One reads: “This border breaks our bodies”. Um, no, it doesn’t. The other reads: “The UK has space for us too”. Now that’s an interesting proposition. But first, the mentality of entitlement. Even if the UK had a population of only ten million, why does this young man imagine that he should be permitted to migrate to the UK just because he wants to? Where on earth did he get this notion from? As recently as 1964 a great many, for example, Italians wishing to migrate to the USA could not do so due to the volume restrictions based an annual intake of 2% of the number of Americans of Italian-origin as at the 1890 census. This was despite almost 100 years of Italian immigration to the States, successful assimilation and a notably large contribution of servicemen in World War 2. Most German and Austrians Jews in the late 1930s couldn’t get into the USA, as the Germany quota was massively oversubscribed.
What benefit would this young man bring to the host nation? As he no doubt sees it, that’s not the issue. The UK is a wealthy, advanced, stable, democratic country, and he wants in. It is as simple as that. Regrettably, a growing proportion of unthinking, indigenous Westerners see it that way too.
Does Britain really have space for him? It has a population density of 662 people per square mile. There are suburban areas in the USA, parts of Westchester, Marin and Los Angeles counties, that have lower densities. If Britain can’t say no to him, how can it resist any of the 190 million Pakistanis, 158m Bangladeshis, 184m Nigerians, 71m(!) Congolese or 256m Indonesians who might want to live in Britain?
Yemen is in the throes of a Sunni-Shi’ite civil war. Yemen has a population of 24.5m, up from 5m in 1960. There will be a lot of refugees and displaced people no matter the outcome of the civil war. Under current international humanitarian treaty obligations, Western nations will be obliged to take them in. Sweden, the self-styled “humanitarian super-power” is taking in all Syrians who wish to seek refuge from its civil war. One wishes that the Syrian civil war had taken place in 1980 so that we could all study the consequences to Sweden of its magnanimity. And draw policy conclusions.
Sub-Saharan Africa had a population of 800 million in 2007, has a population of 1.1 billion now and is predicted to have 1.5 billion in 2050 and, by the UN’s Population Division — which recently revised its estimate upwards, due to having previously underestimated the fertility rate by 0.25 — 4.2 billion in 2100. Sub-Saharan African countries top the international fertility lists with 40 of the highest 50, all with a Total Fertility Rate of greater than 4 in 2008. The political and/or economic basket cases of Mali, Niger and Somalia all have a TFR of 7-8 children — the highest in the world. How can Western countries possibly accommodate even a tenth of current Sub-Saharan Africans? And still remain stable, prosperous societies? They cannot.
Every Western nation and every Western voter has to ask and answer some hard questions. Is the current immigration level from MENA and the Third World sustainable in terms of economic and social absorptive capacities? Is it time to revisit international humanitarian treaty obligations as they relate to refugees and asylum seekers? Specifically, should the criteria for defining an asylum seeker and a refugee be tightened up?
Is anyone proposing a referendum on the question?
In Australia we have an archipelago of detention centres in the semi-arid, thinly-populated north and west of the country housing many hundreds of Chinese men who cannot be deported back to China due to Australia’s being a signatory to some international humanitarian convention. These men, who have entered illegally or overstayed their tourist visas, and have been convicted of criminal offences (and served their time in Australian prisons), cannot be deported back to China because they have been convicted of a capital offence there and face the death penalty. So they are kept at taxpayer expense, guarded 24/7 by a population of live-in officials (who are flown in from distant metropolises, 14 days on, 7 days off, from memory), and will be so until the end of their days. Call me harsh, but I fail to see why Australian taxpayers should be saddled with the burden of keeping foreign criminals from the fate that awaits them in China. Naturally, if you know you’re going to be charged with a capital offence in China, it makes a lot of sense to move hell and high water to get yourself to Australia. The odd thing is that once here they routinely commit further criminal offences. One would think they’d keep their heads down and noses clean.
There needs to be some honesty in the public sphere. Honesty which thus far has been lacking. Apart from Socialists and Green Party people, politicians in the West well know there is a huge problem which is only going to grow more serious. Even some on the Left do. They simply don’t have the courage to acknowledge it. Publicly.
Jean Raspail had this to say about French politicians who wrote to him privately admiring his “Camp of the Saints” whilst the book was being roundly excoriated:
“ … all these people—on the left as well as the right, I emphasize — who participate or have participated in the government of the country or opinion-making, practice a double language: one public and proclaimed, the other personal and hidden, as if they have a double conscience, the one they wave like a flag and the one which hides in the underbrush of unmentionable thoughts, which they only express in small groups of trusted friends.”
Our legislative bodies need to have more blunt-talking members like Austria’s Ewald Stadler, who coined the expression “Tolerance romantics”: see YouTube “Austrian Member of Parliament Goes Ballistic on Muslim Hypocrisy”. Or Swiss People’s Party legislator, Oskar Freysinger: see YouTube “Swiss Member of Parliament has had enough!”. People who are unafraid of being demonized by the Left with its gag labels of “Islamophobe”, “Racist” or “Fascist”. People who regard the denunciations of the Nick Lowles of the world, he of “Hope not Hate” infamy, as a badge of honour. People who are unafraid to offend the likes of the infinitely offendable Tariq Ramadan. Now there’s a man who should be relentlessly targeted by the Western commentariat, the Western political establishment. Instead they treat his transparently mendacious spiel as if the man were saying something worth listening to.
Circumstances have rendered normal conventions of politeness as redundant: we must be rude, very rude, to people like Tariq Ramadan. There is no scope for and no point in dialogue with the torch-bearing grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, even if he speaks English like Maurice Chevalier and dresses like a stylish modern Western man.
Some people reading the foregoing concerning MENA immigration and that from Sub-Saharan Africa might say: “This is dog-whistle politics — your real objection is to Muslim immigration!”. Yes, it most certainly is. Does any Westerner want their country to be 20% Muslim, 50% Muslim? Only those who are willfully blind to the ugly impact Islam has on the societies where it reigns, or is practiced even by a 5% minority, could be relaxed about such a scenario. Anybody who has spent any time in an Islamic country would be horrified at the prospect.
So the task before us is to make it possible for there to be a robust and honest public discussion, free from multi-culti pieties and wholly unconcerned about staying within the narrow, constrictive, boundaries of “niceness”. If somebody makes a ludicrous immigration proposal, such as the one to repopulate Detroit with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, the public discourse should be centred around the question: why should the USA do that? A starting point is to assert unapologetically that, for example, the Syrian Civil War was not caused by the West, not even by the French due to their brief colonial overlordship of Syria some 70 years ago, and it is not the West’s responsibility to deal with the results of it. The West’s responsibility is to protect itself from any ripple effect arising from the conflict. If Sweden wants to be a “humanitarian super-power”, let it: more fools they. Unless you are Swedish and get to vote in that country. Ships lining up along Libya’s coast to traffic people across the sea should be disabled by commandos and if some crew members get hurt, so be it: don’t work for people smugglers.
What can a concerned person do to make such a robust public discussion possible? In practical terms, in the private sphere:
- Learn. Engage at every opportunity with people who have lived in Muslim countries. The amount of facts and anecdotes one can learn from casual encounters with Nigerian Christians, Indian Sikhs and Malaysian Chinese can be enormous. For example, we all know that consanguineous marriages, i.e. between first cousins, are endemic in the Islamic community: 70% of Pakistanis (and 55% of them in Britain) marry their first cousins; 67% of Saudi Arabians, 64% of Jordanians and Kuwaitis, 63% of Sudanese, etc. However, less well known is that such marriages are always with cousins from the father’s side, never from the mother’s. Makes sense when one thinks about it, given how devalued women are in Islamic society. Engage with Muslims in a non-threatening, non-judgmental way to elicit opinions and information from them that they may not otherwise share. I find the expression of a mildly anti-Jewish sentiment is a marvelous method of getting them to open up. If you’re too squeamish for that, just say something negative about Israel, that’ll do the trick. Unless you are a public figure and/or in a public space, say being interviewed on TV, never genuinely engage with Muslims by offering your honest opinions; there’s absolutely nothing to be gained.
- Build awareness. Urge people to read, watch and listen sources other than the MSM. Drop casual positive references to people such as Pat Condell or Brigitte Gabriel into conversations and urge people to look them up on YouTube. Mention the name of this website. If you elicit a hostile reaction, stay calm and don’t react in kind. Don’t feel the need to “win” the exchange. It is truly remarkable how PC multi-culti nincompoops are usually satisfied if their voice is the last one to be heard. Just watch Susan Abulhawa on YouTube “Cross Talk: Kerry’s Shuttle” to get the idea. Let it be obvious that you are supremely indifferent to what they think. Regard them as you would a street person spewing incoherent abuse at you. Others watching will observe your equable, self-confident, unfazed temperament and then think twice about what you have said, not the mindless platitudes of the nincompoop. As an exception to the above, do ask your interlocutor if they have spent any time in a Muslim country. If they assert they have, ask if they approve of the society/ies they experienced and leave it there. This doesn’t always work: a fellow who had travelled in Iraq and Syria in the late ’80s stated to me that what struck him was how well the people looked after the poor compared with Western societies! There’s nothing one can do with that. Do urge people travel to a Muslim country: suggest Egypt, Jordan or Morocco.
- Develop a thick skin. Get accustomed to being denounced/derided as an Islamophobe, a racist, a bigot, etc. On the first, simply respond that the term is a ludicrous neologism invented to suppress discussion of Islam. On the second, simply respond that Islam is not a race. On the third, shrug your shoulders and reply “If you like, in relation to Islam, I am.” It’s a small price to pay to advance the cause of the Counterjihad.