The New German Illegal Immigration Policy: Discourage, Detain, Deport

A prominent CDU politician has just advocated (g):
  • Actually deporting the 500,000 migrants currently in Germany whose asylum claims have been denied and who have no legal right to be here.
  • Turning back illegal migrants at the border.
  • Turning back migrant boats launching from Africa and establishing a detention center in Egypt.
  • Sanctioning and then deporting people who "lost" their identity papers and refuse to cooperate in getting new ones.
  • Disallowing illness as a reason to prevent deportation (an extremely common tactic, enabled by sympathetic doctors) if the person migrated to Germany with the illness.

In other words, adopting the sort of immigration policies the rest of the developed world has always had. Any one of these proposals would have been -- and was -- denounced as tantamount to fascism in 2015. It's unlikely all of these proposals will be enacted, but the reaction will be a lot more muted, and many of them will have a chance at passage.

We're a long way from the heady days of 2015, when seemingly every German was entranced by the moistly sentimental dream of proving Germany's enduring moral superiority by throwing open its borders to anyone. A year of dealing with the resulting increased crime; soaring expense; dismal integration results; visible decay and danger in lower-class neighborhoods; abuse of the asylum system; child marriages; honor killings; street stabbings, terror scares and terror attacks; and conflicts over resources, cultural differences, and funding priorities has taken its toll.

Turns out there was no magic pixie dust.

Of course nobody could have predicted the problems or the backlash. Except, of course, me, and millions of other observers. Who were mocked, insulted, and even threatened for the crime of clinging to our common sense in a period of national self-delusion.

We're a long way from Willkommenskultur.

  


The World Will "Come to Terms" with Migration Flows...by Stopping Them

Holocaust survivor and Labour Lord Alf Dubs, sponsor of legislation to bring some very self-described "unaccompanied minors" from the "Jungle" camp in Calais to Britain, said: “The world has to come to terms with the fact that migration flows are going to become a norm.”

This the typical refrain of the Great and Good: They're coming, there's nothing we can do about it, so just lie back and think of England. The funny thing about migration flows, the thing Dubs doesn't mention, is that they are all one-way. From the Third World to Europe (at least in this hemisphere). Not a whole lot of people are clamoring to move from, say, Andorra to Angola.

So actually, he wants us to lie back and think of the millions of random strangers in Pakistan, India, Burma, Sudan, Chad, Eritrea, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Nigeria, Botswana, Ghana, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Georgia, Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, and Egypt who are sitting on packed suitcases, desperate to relocate to the (comparatively) safe, prosperous, well-governed, orderly, clean nations of Europe.

Lord Dubs is sympathetic to this undifferentiated mass of random strangers because he was rescued as a child from the Holocaust. But the Holocaust isn't happening today, nor is anything like it happening today (Yes, I checked). What's happening today is the same old stew of ethnic conflict, civil wars, corrupt elites, and economic stagnation which has always plagued the Third World, and -- in relative terms compared to the West -- always will. And in fact there's a lot less suffering in the Third World than there ever has been in human history, thanks to mankind's ever-increasing ability to solve conflicts peacefully and provide for a growing population.

The overwhelming majority of the population of Europe, however you define it, does not believe the solution to the world's problems is to allow millions of random strangers to stream across Europe's external borders:

“We don’t want them!” shouted the demonstrators in this village of 1,900 people, 80 miles from Calais, where the migrants were bused from a camp known as the Jungle on Monday.

“This is our home!” others yelled at the darkened, disused retirement home where the migrants were being housed. Inside the building, a young Sudanese man pressed his face to the window and looked out at the angry crowd, bemused.

All over France, tiny communities like this one, in the old battlefields of the country’s north, are being forced to deal firsthand with Europe’s migrant crisis.

It has not been easy. The effort to relocate many of the 6,000 or more people who had made the Jungle their home has thrust France’s divided view of the migrants into plain view....

But outside on the sidewalk, the mood was grim. “No migrants in Croisilles!” read a banner that more than 100 people — men, women and children — milled around. A half-dozen police officers, incongruous in the quiet country town, stood warily by....

Some places have gritted their collective teeth and accepted the migrants without fuss. Others have haggled over the number and demanded that it be reduced, as in Saint-Bauzille-de-Putois, in the Cévennes mountain range.

In other places, residents, anticipating the migrants’ arrival, have hurled stones at the housing sites or set them on fire, as in Loubeyrat, in the Puy-de-Dôme department.

In Pierrefeu-du-Var, in the south, pro- and anti-migrant groups have held dueling demonstrations....

The divisions have been starkly evident this week in this plain-vanilla brick village, once an agricultural center. It was leveled by the Germans in World War I, then rebuilt, and is now largely a bedroom community for the nearby regional capital, Arras....

But it has been hard. “It’s been hell here,” said Raphaëlle Maggiotto, a City Council member and an ally of the mayor. She had not slept in days. “Demonstrations every day. They came to my home. They yelled my name.”

On Tuesday morning, the central square, with its monument to the World War I dead and its 1920s Art Deco city hall, was calm after the previous evening’s noisy demonstration.

“The village is divided,” said Sebastien Okoniewski, who runs the cafe in the square.

All around him, his customers grumbled about the new arrivals, but his own name testified to the immigration — a Polish influx in the early 20th century, along with Italians and Portuguese — that has shaped their region....

“There is hatred in Croisilles,” said a volunteer at the retirement home, Guislane Poutrain. “I’ve never seen this before. I don’t recognize Croisilles anymore. I’m really disappointed.”

Dubs still clings to the notion that "the people" can be convinced to accept mass migration. As this story from France shows (one of a million data points), he is deluded. French people like France the way it is. Or to put it more precisely, they like France the way it is infinitely better than they imagine it would be like after the influx of 5 million Africans. And the same goes for Italians, Poles, Czechs, and Finns. As someone who's come to appreciate the many achievements of European cultures, I agree with them.

The reception of the migrants in France shows the explosive power of this issue to divide people and erode trust in leaders and institutions. Following Dubs' recommendation to "come to terms" with non-selective mass migration flows is not just foolish, but dangerous. It reflects ignorance about how European societies actually see themselves right now (as opposed to how they might or should see themselves in the fond dreams of academics). It's an idiotic gamble, like taking a bunch of random volatile chemicals, throwing them into a big heated pot, and hoping the outcome will be gold. Or at least, you know, non-lethal.

There will still be a few years of haggling and last-ditch resistance, but the world will come to terms with "migration flows"...by stopping them. And that will be a good thing, both for Europe and for the countries from which the economic migrants come.


...And There Is an Alternative

It's 2016. Centrist liberal Barack Obama is still in the White House. And the policy of his government is to deport people who illegally enter the U.S. and commit crimes:

Uruchi’s sudden fall — from immigrant advocate to undocumented inmate — has stunned many who knew her. At Casa, the immigrants rights organization where Uruchi worked, colleagues were caught by surprise. Two weeks before pleading guilty to drunken driving, she had led a demonstration outside the Supreme Court urging the justices to support undocumented immigrants, but she never hinted she was one of them. She had spent threeyears helping others fight deportation. Now she faces that very fate.

Her arrest has exposed her husband’s undocumented status and upended her children’s lives. Any day now, Uruchi, 33, could be sent back to Spain. Under Obama administration guidelines, her DUI conviction makes her a priority for deportation. And under the visa waiver program she used to enter the country 14 years ago, she forfeited her right to legal appeal. Her only chance is a plea to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for a stay of deportation, citing her otherwise clean record, community service and two American-born kids.

“These stays are not commonly granted,” said Kim Propeack, communications director for Casa, which is helping Uruchi. “And they are not granted without a fight.”

Will she get a stay because of her overall good record? Maybe, maybe not. But she illegally stayed in the USA, and then committed a crime by driving while her blood alcohol was over twice the legal limit of 0.8. She is in a bad legal position because, unlike millions of other people, she did not follow a legal route to residence in the U.S. She could have, but she didn't. She took unfair advantage of a visa-waiver program which makes things a lot easier for law-abiding Spaniards, thus endangering the entire program.

Despite what you read, the U.S. is not a police state. It has an immigration policy far more liberal than Germany's. For instance, it grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil. Even if Trump were elected, its attitude toward immigrants would still be far more accepting than almost any other country. 

But it also has enough self-respect to pass laws saying:

  • if you lie to gain access to the country, jumping in line past people who obey the law,
  • have no valid reason to be there because you don't qualify for asylum,
  • and then violate one of its laws --

-- you're gone.

I would call that  a wise, sensible, balanced immigration policy. If it were applied in Germany, the drug dealers in the Görlitzer park and the Frankfurt Central Station would be long gone. And the benefits to everyday Germans would be enormous.

In the immigration debate, it can't be repeated often enough: the current German mainstream consensus on immigration is, in international comparison, way off on the crazy extreme fringe. Other nations governed by the rule of law and (comparatively) humane ideals have a mainstream, centrist policy which permits controlled, beneficial, legal immigration and actively combats the other kind. As it should.

Germany, alone among advanced nations, abandoned border enforcement and allowed its laws to degenerate into such chaos that almost nobody can be effectively deported. The AfD has a lot of positions I disagree with. But on immigration, a vote for the AfD isn't a vote for repression and quasi-fascism, it's a vote to bring Germany back into the mainstream after a bizarre experiment in which it allowed its legal system to collapse into a state where deportation is nearly impossible, then opened its borders to hundreds of thousands of people who have no business being in the country.

The winners of this bizarre experiment are the AfD. And they'll keep winning until Germany moves much farther back into the mainstream on immigration than it has so far.


Getting High and Assembling IKEA = Hikea

When I was growing up in the 1980s in the USA, the anti-drug hysteria which had gripped the country was at its peak. The massed forces of mainstream pop and political culture drummed a constant message into us youngsters: drugs are dangerous, they permanently damage your brain, they're for losers, one criminal conviction and your entire life will be ruined, you'll have flashbacks, the people you buy them from are dangerous predators.

At least once a week, some prime-time television show would feature a Very Special Episode in which a character took that first fateful toke and then dropped off the deep end, reappearing several episodes later as a scabby-faced ruin selling herself at the truck stop, snorting evil-looking granules through her Harvard diploma.

As might be expected, this drove the more adventurous among us young people to try all the drugs. But doing them was a frightening experience -- what if one of those warnings turned out to be true? What if we really were frying our brains forever? What if the trip would never end, and we'd end up gibbering in some mental ward?

And yet, every time we did drugs, it was fine. We had loads of fun, learned a lot, didn't get addicted, and there was no permanent damage. Even a bad trip was just an unpleasant few hours, afterwards everything was back to normal. In the early 2000s, American pop culture gradually changed, and began treating drug use as just a part of growing up. People noticed when the HBO series Six Feet Under featured characters doing drugs, having fun, and returning to their (relatively) normal lives, none the worse for wear. Just as I and all of my friends had done.

And now we've come full-circle. The two young folks above allow themselves to be filmed taking LSD, a crime which, in the worst-case scenario (which won't apply to nice middle-class kids like this), can still earn you a prison sentence in all American states. Yet I'm certain no police department is ever going to bother to track them down, arrest them, and get them to snitch on their dealer, threatening to destroy their entire fucking lives unless they cooperate. And after the trip is over and they've sort of tried to build that dresser, they're fine.

And despite modern America largely abandoning terrifying anti-drug propaganda, drug use among young Americans has declined steadily. You could almost conclude that the propaganda had the opposite of its intended effect.

There might be a lesson here for all of us, no?


Wait, Since When Are Fifth Columns Supposed to be Reassuring?

Every time there's a terror attack, open-borders sympathizers cross their fingers and pray to the Magic Pixie that it wasn't one of the young men who came in through...open borders. To them, the only terror attacks that could possibly "count" must be committed only by people who entered Germany in the summer of 2015. And even then, they are "regrettable one-off cases".

But why are we supposed to be reassured by the fact that the perpetrators of IS-inspired terror attacks had been in Europe before 2015, or were even born and raised in a European country? What this means is that there is a large group of alienated, disaffected young males who are susceptible to radicalization even though they enjoyed every advantage (and all the disadvantages) of living in a prosperous European nation since birth. 

A very small -- but very steady -- number of these fellow citizens can be convinced by foreign propaganda to murder dozens of their fellow Frenchmen or Germans at random, and then either blow themselves up or run into a hail of police bullets shrieking "Allahu Akbar!" Since they know the customs of the country they're living in, they can conceal their activities much more effectively.

And as we've seen, the authorities often (1) have no idea the risk they pose; or (2) know the risk, but do not have the legal tools to effectively counter it. See, e.g., the terrorist who slit the throat of an 84-year-old French priest while wearing a police ankle monitor. Or the mentally unstable man who was able to remain in Germany and commit a suicide bombing even though he had already been ordered deported to Bulgaria.

If you find this state of affairs reassuring, I don't think that word means what you think it means. And given that 83% of Germans (g) (the highest percentage in Europe) think immigration and integration are the most pressing challenges facing Germany today, they don't think so either.


Giovanno di Lorenzo on the Shameless Pro-Migrant Cheerleading of the German Press

In mid-2015, every single mainstream national media outlet in Germany formed themselves voluntarily into a phalanx of pro-Merkel propaganda organs. They ran huge headlines announcing 'Refugees Welcome!', uncritically relayed propaganda claims that migrants were well-educated and would rescue Germany's economy, insisted on labeling all migrants 'refugees', and spewed venom at anyone who dared spoil the party atmosphere.

Giovanni di Lorenzo, editor of the weekly Die Zeit, frankly admits this in this recent interview. The mood all over the press landscape was firmly pro-refugee, he says, and newspapers routinely stepped over the line into open advocacy of the German government's policy. He includes his own paper in this indictment. He admits that skeptical voices were ignored, and that the German press inflicted lasting damage on its own credibility by openly embracing and cheerleading for the current governing elite. He says the mood in various editorial offices only began to change on a deeper level after New Years' Eve in Cologne.

This comes as no surprise to those of us who politely declined the Kool-Aid™, but still, di Lorenzo deserves credit for stating obvious truths that many other media bigwigs still haven't acknowledged.

As Orwell once said, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

 


Why Most Migrants Will Never Learn German

Learning German is the key to successful integration, goes the platitude. Unlike many platitudes, this one is probably accurate and relevant. But what peddlers of magic pixie dust don't mention, often because they don't know it themselves, is that learning German is extremely difficult, and, for many people, impossible.

This is because learning any foreign language to proficiency or above as an adult is simply beyond the capabilities of most uneducated people. Period. Final. Add to that the fact that migrants to Germany from the Arab world are often marginally literate themselves, must struggle with an unfamiliar alphabet, and, as this documentary points out, are confronted with dozens of other challenges and distractions as they attempt to adapt to life in Germany.

There is no hopeful 'but' to add here: people with low levels of education and academic ability in their native countries will be unable to learn anything but a few necessary phrases of German. Ever. Just as they will never be able to solve a quadratic equation or learn to play the saxophone.

A blog post from OUP reminds us of this:

Adult migrants often struggle to learn the language of their new country. In receiving societies, this is widely seen as evidence that migrants are lazy, lack the required will power or, worse, actively resist learning the new language as an act of defiance towards their new community.

Unfortunately, most of those who point the finger at migrant language shirkers vastly underestimate the effort involved in language learning. The consensus in applied linguistics is that language learning takes a long time and that the precise duration and final outcome as measured in proficiency level are almost impossible to predict. How long it takes to learn a new language as an adult depends on many factors, most of which are outside of the control of an individual language learner, such as age, level of education, aptitude, teaching program, language proximity, or access to interactional opportunities....

The list could go on and on. The general point is that your success at language learning is related to who you are and which hand you have been dealt in life.

The factors listed above – age, prior education, socioeconomic status, gender, race, religion, luck – are by and large outside the control of the individual. What second language learning research shows above all is that learning another language is not an easy feat. It requires a considerable investment of resources and it makes a huge difference whether you are learning in a supportive community or one that rejects you. The ultimate outcome of second language learning efforts is not purely an act of willpower or the result of the learner’s personal choices.


The World's Most Pro-Immigrant Societies Have Strict Border Controls

A Canadian friend sends me this op-ed from the Globe and Mail with a hearty endorsement:

Fortunately our policy makers ... know that support for immigration is highly conditional, and that the social contract with the public can easily be broken.

What is that contract? People want immigration policy to serve the national interest, not the immigrants’ interest. They want skilled immigrants who have something to offer Canada, who work hard, learn one of our official languages and won’t be a burden on the welfare state. Immigrants who have already settled here are among the first to agree.

People don’t sour on immigration for economic reasons. As a recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out, they sour on immigration if they feel it is a threat to national identity. Nor is race a big factor. The biggest factors are culture and assimilation. People want immigrants who will embrace our values – Western liberal values – of tolerance, inclusion and women’s equality. We also expect newcomers to put down roots and pledge their loyalty to Canada first. (If they embrace hockey, so much the better.)

Europe is in crisis because too much European immigration doesn’t look anything like this. The British ran into trouble because they’ve had too much immigration, too fast. Countries that can’t control their borders always face a backlash.

...Australia solved its border problem by diverting asylum-seekers to remote offshore processing camps. Humanitarians and refugee advocates are outraged, but Australians aren’t. They must be doing something right – Australia, like Canada, is among the most successful immigration countries in the world. About 28 per cent of Australians are foreign-born, according to the Pew Research Center.

When a boatload of Tamils arrived in Canadian waters in 2010, the Harper government detained them (some were eventually accepted as refugees), and the public heartily approved. This was widely taken as a sign that Canadians are racist. In fact, we’re no more racist than the Australians or the English. We simply think it should be up to us to choose who gets in.

As I've said many times, neither this blog nor its author is anti-immigrant. The questions, as always, are How many? Which ones? It would probably be a good thing if Germany simply copied Canada's immigration policy. Literally translate the laws into German, and be done with it. If Germany did that, it would soon begin attracting capable, talented immigrants who have the intellectual and cultural qualities that will enable them to adapt quickly to German society. Soon, they will begin finding and creating jobs.

Instead, Germany seems perversely dedicated to inviting huge numbers of immigrants who lack any of the prerequisites for successful integration. They will enter the social-welfare system, and many will never leave. The ones who do leave will compete with working-class Germans for low-skilled jobs, sparking rage and resentment. This is the worst immigration policy imaginable. It will drive ever-deeper wedges into German society, and will permanently associate immigration with crime and dependency in the minds of German voters. It will also lead to crumbling support for the welfare state.

This policy continues to be supported by the delusional belief that there are no significant cultural differences between potential immigrants -- that there is essentially no way to determine whether any immigrant is likely to adapt successfully to life in Germany. Therefore, it is impermissible to discriminate among potential immigrants -- inviting the ones who are likely to succeed, and keeping the others out. Although just about every other nation on earth (like Canada) agrees that this kind of selection is possible and is in fact essential to sound immigration policy, large sections of the German political elite cling to the opposite belief.

The idea that there is something wrong with choosing among immigrants is one of the most dangerous political delusions shared by the German political class. Fortunately, the number of people in power who believe this seems to be dwindling every day. I will keep blogging occasionally about the issue until it dwindles to a tiny fringe belief, and Germany finally abandons its dangerous Sonderweg and adopts an adult immigration policy.

That may take a while, but progress is slow and steady. To paraphrase something Churchill once said about the US, Germany always does the right thing -- after trying everything else first.


Suspiciously Sickly-Sweet Sentimental Stupidity

We all love the Internet, and not just platonically, but it does have its unsavory corners. No, I'm not talking about Pornhub, I'm talking about those videos offering us Moral Improvement™ in the form of 90 seconds of manipulative piffle.

Let's take this example, showing a somewhat dusky-complected 6-year-old child actor on the streets of Tbilisi.  

First, she's dressed in shabby clothing. Everyone ignores her. Then, they dress her up in nice clothes, and people intervene to ask where her mother is, if she needs help, etc. They totally ignore a precious, beautiful, pure, innocent, doe-eyed six-year-old girl angel as if she didn't exist, based solely on the fact that she's not dressed nicely. 

Conclusion: people -- in this case Georgians -- are monsters.

Damn you, Georgians! Damn you all to hell

Black-hearted hell-hound that I am, though, I cannot seem to take the moral message to heart, even though it's so superficial simple. Twin demons of Skepticism and Worldly Experience bar the way.

For those readers who don't live in large European cities, let me explain. Everywhere large numbers of people gather -- tourist attractions, train stations, outdoor events, etc. -- you will see many children looking exactly like the one in the video. Dusky complexions, shabby clothes, the whole nine yards. And yes, people will generally avoid and ignore them.

This is because these are gypsy child beggars. And many aren't just beggars, they're thieves as well. How do I know this? Because I personally have been robbed by them twice. Once in Cologne, once in Piraeus.

In fact, I actually wasn't robbed by them in Piraeus, but that's only because I literally kept swatting them away. I was waiting in line for a ferry which had a one-hour delay. A group of 4-5 Roma beggar children were moving up and down the line, snaking in and out between groups of passengers. Some were begging, some were staging diversions, and some were trying to snake their little hands into travelers' bags. People with hard-sided suitcases were relatively safe, but backpacks were much more tempting targets. Two children surrounded my backpack, constantly probing the sides for hard objects, trying unzip pockets and reach under flaps. 

They literally paid no attention to me. I shoved them away, and they simply came right back. This lasted for 15 minutes. Only when I began shouting at them, which drew attention, did they finally move on to the next guy. Eventually, a police officer appeared, and they drew back somewhat. He immediately divined what I was shouting about. The guy spoke some English. I asked him why they didn't do something about them. "Eh," he said, "we'd like to, but there are just so many of them, and we don't have enough manpower. Same thing is happening at all the docks. If you make eye contact, they beg. If you have a soft bag, they try to get inside it. Either way, they just keep trying until they get something. They have nothing else to do, and if they don't come back with enough at the end of the day, their boss beats them. Sometimes their boss is their parents. My advice -- get a hard-sided suitcase."

Deciding to play the naive American, I asked whether they shouldn't be in school. "Sure they should, but we have no idea where these ones live. They always run away from us, and even if we catch them, they don't speak Greek or English. They're gypsies, that's what makes a gypsy a gypsy. Their parents are all illiterate, they don't care about school, they just want quick money. They've been living like this for hundreds of years. There are some gypsies who are decent people, but there's lots of them who live from sending their children out begging, and there's nothing we can do about it. Sometimes we raid the camps and register the children, but if we try to force them to enroll in school, almost all of them just move on. A couple stay, though, so there's some progress."

The guy seemed eager to practice his English, and both myself and the rest of the people in line wanted to keep him nearby, since the ferry was nowhere in sight, and he was keeping the Dickensian urchins at bay. I asked him whether they could be taken away from their parents if their parents were proven to be involved in sending them out begging and keeping them out of school. "Nope. We usually can't even determine who the parents are. They often don't have any documents they're willing to show us, they're usually illiterate, and often there's nobody in the entire family who speaks Greek or English, and definitely nobody who's willing to speak it with a cop.

"You can't terminate parental rights if you can't prove who the parents even are. And even then, you're not supposed to take Roma kids away from their culture. Although frankly, if you ask me, if this is Roma culture I say it's not worth saving. There are plenty of Greek families who can't have kids or who have room for one more. These kids could be learning Greek, learning to read, eating properly, going to school, going to the doctor, learning to play sports and finally getting a job and supporting themselves. I'm not going to say they could be going to Church because I'm a Communist. But still, this is no life for anybody."

So I bet if you asked the people in the UNICEF video above, they would say: "I asked them to remove the girl from the restaurant because we have a lot of Roma beggar children here who do exactly what she was doing, snaking between the tables, stealing anything they can find. They are a terrible nuisance we deal with every day. I feel sorry for the children, but they do not want and will not accept assistance, that's not why they're here. Giving to them supports criminal gangs who exploit children. I give to charities that provide meaningful help."

And as much as that 120-second video wants me to think otherwise, I think that's a perfectly fair, rational, and humane response.