In the past few months, the issue of immigration has come to the forefront of European politics. As the brutal Syrian civil war continues on, scores of Syrian civilians are abandoning their country in flames and seeking out a place to rebuild, if not a better life than the one they had prior to the civil war.
It is arguable whether or not these migrants should be classified as migrants or refugees. The argument for classifying them as migrants rests on the fact that most are looking for jobs and a better economic situation abroad. The argument for classifying them as refugees rests on the fact that most of those coming from Syria are not looking for a better life as much as they are fleeing from an awful one--one that comes from a literal warzone in which the combatants have little to no regard for the Geneva Convention or minimizing collateral damage, exemplified by the Syrian military's use of barrel bombs, which can level whole city blocks, and chemical weapons. Others fleeing from Syria as well as Iraq are doing so because of territorial gains by the Islamic State.
A quick trip to any video hosting website that hosts more real, graphic videos (such as LiveLeak or VidMax) can yield a litany of videos demonstrating the terrors and horrors of the life that these migrants are fleeing.
(EDIT: Brandon, the creator of "Humans of New York", spent some time among refugees in Greece and delivered these testimonies from refugees themselves.)
It surprised me very much then when the common European values of inclusion, compassion, cooperation, and empathy have seemingly run away at the same time as these migrants have shown up on the doorstep of Europe. The modern world has been witness to American immigration policy enough to have formed highly critical opinions. It has often been suggested to me that Americans are racist and xenophobic. It has often been suggested to me that the extent to which America has gone to persecute and deter illegal immigrants is selfish and merciless.
And yet, now faced with a similar situation--that is, a significant and sudden influx of poor migrants of a different ethnicity, culture, history, and language--Europe's collective reaction is not just lacking; in some places it's outright hostile. Considering the ability of many European countries to provide for its own people through vast and effective social safety net programs, the reasons for opposition are remarkably similar to the same arguments for which America has been critiqued:
--------------------------------------
As far as arguments go, I would like to address Nick's first as I believe it is the most ridiculous but one of the more widely accepted arguments against providing help and care to migrants (Piotr shares a similar sentiment).
The suggestion that "indigenous" culture is under threat by an influx of refugees is a suggestion based on absolutely nothing empirical except for small "enclave" examples like Cubans in Miami, the various ethnic neighborhoods in New York, and other insignificant and isolated examples. Moreover, evoking the image of Europeans as suffering the same onslaught as Native Americans is a distortion of reality so severe that it may as well include the postulation that the European unicorn population is threatened by refugees as well. Let's get to these in detail.
First and foremost, native cultures in Europe are very old, generally very homogenous, and very strong. They endure, and have endured, through hundreds if not thousands of years of highs and lows, war and peace, crisis and renaissance. Some nations and cultures have come and gone, but those remaining today are largely stable and have been for a long time, changing only with fashion and zeitgeist and largely changing from within.
Throughout the history of these cultures, immigration has always been present. To address both the first and second point of the anti-migrant argument, it is prudent to look at Germany, Britain, France, and Sweden today. For each, a slight change in ethnic homogeneity brought on by immigration has occurred within the past century.
In 2011 in Germany, the citizens with a migrant background was declared to be 19% of the total population. An additional 7.7% of the population was defined as foreign nationals. The majority of those percentages are from a Turkish background (about 9% if 2.4% of the German population is ethnically Turkish and 26.7% (19 + 7.7) of the population of Germany is not ethnically German).
In 2011 in Sweden, it was estimated that between 14.3 to 19.6% of its inhabitants are foreign born or not ethincally Swedish. The second, fourth, and fifth most populous nationalities of immigrants to Sweden are from the Middle East.
In the UK, the ethnically non-British population amounts to less than 10%.
In France, the population of inhabitants with neither parent from an EU country is 5.6%.
In all of these countries, as immigration has continued over time, national and cultural identity has continued to persist strongly. Ethnic and racial tensions have occasionally been in the news, but these societies continue to remain peaceful, progressive, and successful.
Even comparing the United States, nearly the entire population of which is composed of immigrants from different time periods, maintains a strong national and cultural identity despite being the most popular country for immigration by percentage and numbers. It is also the most economically successful country in the world, has one of the lowest unemployment rates, and is one of the freest. Clearly, the mixing of cultures foreign and domestic in the United States has not led to its downfall in the slightest.
Presently, there are 503 million inhabitants of the European Union. In 2014, it was measured that 33.5 million of them were born outside the EU. With a collective total of 469.5 million native citizens in the EU and the present refugee/migrant numbers somewhere between a conservative 500,000 to a liberal 2 million, the "attack" on indigenous culture is being undertaken by 0.1% to 0.4% of the native population.
It is undeniable, therefore, that if the high foreign-born populations of some EU member states and the United States have not destabilized those countries, there is no reason to believe that this big-number-small-percentage number of migrants/refugees poses any threat to "indigenous culture" in any of the countries in Europe.
It is additionally foolish to invoke the example of Native Americans as a parallel to what Europe is facing with migrants from the Middle East. First, Europeans coming to the Americas were conquistadors and imperialists from cultures of racial, cultural, and religious superiority. Second, Europeans had superior technology to Native Americans particularly in the realm of military capacity. Third, while numbers were initially small, settlers of the American continent eventually grew to a number rivaling that of Native Americans, using superior technology and a society that favored more rapid population growth than tribal societies.
Conversely, migrants from the Middle East are not traveling to conquer territory for their homeland but to escape its destruction. Migrants from the Middle East bring with them no superior technology to what is available in Europe, military or otherwise--essentially, they have no edge over Europeans. Third, their numbers are incredibly small compared to the European population and there is no reason to believe that they will significantly expand to rival local populations in any given period of time. For all intents and purposes, these refugees are at the complete mercy of Europe and its citizens.
In conclusion, when looking at the numbers, it is embarrassing to hold such a xenophobic and backwards position as the owners of these comments do. It derives solely from selfishness and sentiments of ethno-cultural superiority. In an abstract situation where one person has the ability to help another, the simple-mindedness of allowing nationality, cultural differences, and even religion to upset the obvious conclusion that the person with the ability to help should do so is shameful, particularly for Europe's track record.
