Monday, May 15

French experience with unlimited immigration has a lesson for the U.S.

>U.S. elites are constantly demanding that the U.S. needs to learn from the rest of the world.  That is, to adopt what they do.  Uh...except: when a modern, mostly-free western nation like France is having an experience that's totally relevant to what we're experiencing here in the States.  In which case the elites are "Pay no attention to that at all--it has no relevance whatsoever to the U.S."

"City Journal" is an excellent magazine with great writers.  Recently one of those writers decided to look at the dire situation in France regarding immigration from North Africa.

Starting in the 1960's North Africans began pouring into France--first by the thousands, then by tens of thousands--demanding citizenship.  The French government allowed this because Algeria had been a French colony. 

When the first few tens of thousands arrived no one thought it was a problem, so no one paid much attention.

Big mistake: now many areas in and around French cities are totally controlled by Muslim immigrants from Algeria--to the point that they have become "no-go" zones for French police.

Of course most French pols deny this, in part because they don't want to admit a fact that could get them thrown out in the next election, in part because criticizing any aspect of immigration is un-hip; and finally because they want immigrant votes.  This has led to increased support for political parties that have had enough of pandering to people who want to kill, rob and rape native French whenever possible.

Christophe Guilluy has written a book tying together France’s social problems—immigration tensions, ethnic conflict and economic decline.  The author sees housing in major cities like Paris as far too expensive for the native French working class, but immigrants can live there because of government housing--the blocs that form the core of the "no-go zones."  And now another wave of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East--the so-called "refuges"--is arriving by thousands. 

The prevailing culture in public-housing is heavily, intimidatingly Muslim.  In the rough northern suburb of Aubervilliers, for instance, three-quarters of the young people are of immigrant background.

Young French people--like the young in every western country--have been taught that anyone who expresses the slightest concern about unchecked immigration is backward, unsophisticated.  Un-cool.  In France--as in all western nations--anyone who even politely notes the huge amount of crime committed by immigrants, or calls for limiting immigration for any other reason, is instantly vilified as a neanderthal, xenophobe, raaacist.  Plus the "elites" constantly say how wonderful immigration is, so how could it be a problem?

Without exception, European "elites"--like liberals in the U.S.--see "diversity" and unchecked immigration as a good thing.  Example: After terrorists detonated bombs in New York City last September--just ten months after the attacks in Paris that killed 131 civilians--the New York Times published an op-ed signed by the mayors of New York, London and Paris titled “Our Immigrants, Our Strength.”  You think that can't be true, but it is.

Which side is clueless here?

So strong is this virtue-signalling compulsion among liberals that politicians in a dozen major U.S. cities and a hundred smaller ones--all controlled by Democrats--have ordered their police not to cooperate with federal immigration agents, by not notifying the federal agents before releasing illegal aliens that ICE has put on a "detainer list" for deportation--because they've committed *another* criminal act aside from entering the U.S. illegally.

Like all liberal policies, the policy of unrestricted immigration--including illegal--has a catchy name that utterly camouflages its truth.  It's called "globalism."

Very cool, eh?  Who could possibly object to a policy with such a wonderful name?

In France the Socialist party, like the Democratic Party in the U.S. or Labour in Britain, eagerly supports unlimited immigration.  While leftists would love to have the law changed to throw open the doors legally, they're fine with illegal.  And what might be called the "culture industry" strongly supports open borders--"globalism."  Conversely, they recoil with horror at the mention of nationalism, or when anyone mentions the benefits of throwing off the choking regulations imposed by the unelected ministers of the EU.

Of course the problem is that the "elites," though mostly well educated, are actually no smarter than anyone else.  They belong to the same class who believed Hitler could be appeased by giving him a few tens of thousands of square miles of someone else's country.  If they were surprised or apologetic about the result of their stupidity (for younger readers that would be the Second World War) I've never seen a word about it.

Public housing in France is not only an economic resource, it's also a battleground for dominance.  A native French person moving into a heavily North African housing project is treated as a threat to what the immigrants consider *their property.* 

And the immigrants in public housing feel a burning solidarity with their Muslim brothers in the Middle East--and often a violent loathing for Israel.  Jews in northern Paris have been the targets of many attacks, and the violence is increasing. 

To compound the problem, birthrates among immigrants are *five times* that of educated whites.  Add an exodus of a few tens of thousands of young, well-educated native French couples per year and the problem starts to become apparent.  If current trends continue, France will be majority-Muslim by 2050.

I know, I know:  Way too far in the future for anyone to be concerned about, right?

Interestingly, how people view unconstrained immigration strongly depends on class:  Over half of top executives are happy with the rate of immigration.  But only 38 percent of mid-level professionals, 27 percent of laborers, and 23 percent of clerical workers agree.  But why would anyone care about the opinions of the hoi polloi--the people Hillary contemptuously called "deplorables"? 

Or as a Democrat congresswhore from L.A. described 'em, people from "Podunk, America." 

Even if the stars happen to align once a century and let them sneak in a Trump, elites in the media and the Deep State can intimidate enough members of congress to block any significant policy changes until they can manage to impeach him.

The vast chasm between the way the elites view the world compared to working-class native French is why electoral results around the world last year—from Brexit to the election of Donald Trump—were so shocking to the elites.  The working class was--and remains-- invisible to the elites, who regard them alternately with horror and amusement.

Three years after graduating from high school, three-quarters of French youth without university degrees still live with their parents.  And they're dying young: last year the life expectancy for both sexes in France fell for the first time since World War II, and it’s the native French working class that's driving the decline.

American author Charles Murray described the same phenomenon among young Americans in his book Coming Apart:  He reports young Americans are worse off than earlier generations by every measure--life expectancy, education, family formation, mental health and income.

Politicians have rushed to exploit this--though not in the obvious way of cracking down on illegal immigration and immigrant crime:  Instead, French Socialists have proposed an easier fix:  They want to bribe the working class by paying everyone a "guaranteed minimum income."

Not a single media whore has asked the socialists how they plan to get the money to fund this scheme, because the media--there as here--supports socialist candidates.
Here in the States Bernie Sanders has talked about a guaranteed income.  And both Sanders and Hillary pushed for free college and forgiving student loans (meaning they'd make taxpayers repay those loans).

But of course none of this does anything to solve the fundamental problem.  Which makes it typical of every so-called "solution" proposed by politicians all over the world.  They will consign their countries to a third-world standard of living even as they themselves continue living in gated communities, insulated from the consequences of their stupid decisions.

Some conservatives have speculated that as the number of angry, uneducated immigrants who care nothing for the culture of the countries they've invaded continued rising, eventually they'll become so numerous that they might kill a family member of a Democrat pol.  Aside from not wanting to wish harm to innocents, this is statistically vastly unlikely.  And even if it happened, it would change one or two votes--not enough.

So we continue to live out the Narrative--the script written eons ago.  Despite their huge problems, a week ago the French elected a left-wing socialist--a blend of Hilliary and Canada's Justin Trudeau--as their new president.  This despite the fact that the guy is a guilt-riddled leftist apologist.

So at this point, is the predictable outcome set in stone? 

I don't know.  For France--as for the rest of Europe (aside from Hungary, Poland and Slovakia)--I think it's too late.  As for the U.S: I wish--deeply, fervently--that the nation most of us love might survive mostly intact.  But sadly, at this point I'm afraid the chances don't look good.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home