By Ross Douthat
Saturday, January 09, 2016
ON New Year’s Eve, in the shadow of Cologne’s cathedral,
crowds of North African and Middle Eastern men accosted women out for the
night’s festivities. They surrounded them, groped them, robbed them. Two women
were reportedly raped.
Though there were similar incidents from Hamburg to
Helsinki, the authorities at first played down the assaults, lest they prove
inconvenient for Angela Merkel’s policy of mass asylum for refugees.
That delay has now cost Cologne’s police chief his job.
But the German government still seems more concerned about policing restless
natives — most recently through a deal with Facebook and Google to restrict
anti-immigrant postings — than with policing migration. Just last week Merkel
rejected a proposal to cap refugee admissions (which topped one million last
year) at 200,000 in 2016.
The underlying controversy here is not a new one. For
decades conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have warned that Europe’s
generous immigration policies, often pursued in defiance of ordinary Europeans’
wishes, threaten to destabilize the continent.
The conservatives have made important points about the
difficulty of assimilation, the threat of radicalization, and the likelihood of
Paris-style and Cologne-style violence in European cities.
But they have also trafficked in more apocalyptic predictions
— fears of a “Eurabia,” of mass Islamification — that were somewhat harder to
credit. Until recently, Europe’s assimilation challenge looked unpleasant but
not insurmountable, and the likelihood of Yugoslavian-style balkanization
relatively remote.
With the current migration, though, we’re in uncharted
territory. The issue isn’t just that immigrants are arriving in the hundreds of
thousands rather than the tens of thousands. It’s that a huge proportion of
them are teenage and twentysomething men.
In Sweden, for instance, which like Germany has had an
open door, 71 percent of all asylum applicants in 2015 were men. Among the
mostly-late-teenage category of “unaccompanied minors,” as Valerie Hudson
points out in an important essay for Politico,” the ratios were even more
skewed: “11.3 boys for every one girl.”
As Hudson notes, these trends have immediate implications
for civil order — young men are, well, young men; societies with skewed sex
ratios tend to be unstable; and many of these men carry assumptions about
women’s roles that are diametrically opposed to the values of contemporary
Europe.
But there’s also a longer term issue, beyond the need to
persuade new arrivals that — to quote from a Norwegian curriculum for migrants
— in Europe “to force someone into sex is not permitted.”
When immigration proceeds at a steady but modest clip,
deep change comes slowly, and there’s time for assimilation to do its work.
That’s why the Muslim population in Europe has been growing only at one
percentage point a decade; it’s why many of the Turkish and North African
immigrants who arrived in Germany and France decades ago are reasonably
Europeanized today.
But if you add a million (or millions) of people, most of
them young men, in one short period, you get a very different kind of shift.
In the German case the important number here isn’t the
country’s total population, currently 82 million. It’s the twentysomething
population, which was less than 10 million in 2013 (and of course already
included many immigrants). In that cohort and every cohort afterward, the
current influx could have a transformative effect.
How transformative depends on whether these men
eventually find a way to bring brides and families to Europe as well. In terms
of immediate civil peace, family formation or unification offers promise, since
men with wives and children are less likely to grope revelers or graffiti
synagogues or seek the solidarity of radicalism.
But it could also double or treble this migration’s
demographic impact, pushing Germany toward a possible future in which half the
under-40 population would consist of Middle Eastern and North African
immigrants and their children.
If you believe that an aging, secularized,
heretofore-mostly-homogeneous society is likely to peacefully absorb a
migration of that size and scale of cultural difference, then you have a bright
future as a spokesman for the current German government.
You’re also a fool. Such a transformation promises
increasing polarization among natives and new arrivals alike. It threatens not
just a spike in terrorism but a rebirth of 1930s-style political violence. The
still-imaginary France Michel Houellebecq conjured up in his novel
“Submission,” in which nativists and Islamists brawl in the streets, would have
a very good chance of being realized in the German future.
This need not happen. But prudence requires doing
everything possible to prevent it. That means closing Germany’s borders to new
arrivals for the time being. It means beginning an orderly deportation process
for able-bodied young men. It means giving up the fond illusion that Germany’s
past sins can be absolved with a reckless humanitarianism in the present.
It means that Angela Merkel must go — so that her
country, and the continent it bestrides, can avoid paying too high a price for
her high-minded folly.
No comments:
Post a Comment