By David French
Monday, July 30, 2018
On Friday the New
York Times published a deeply disturbing story about the rise of
anti-Semitism in France. It began like this:
The solemn boulevards and quiet
side streets of the 17th Arrondissement in Paris suggest Jewish life in France
is vibrant: There is a new profusion of kosher groceries and restaurants, and
about 15 synagogues, up from only a handful two decades ago.
But for residents like Joanna
Galilli, this area in northwestern Paris represents a tactical retreat. It has
become a haven for many Jews who say they have faced harassment in areas with growing
Muslim populations. Ms. Galilli, 28, moved to the neighborhood this year from a
Parisian suburb where “anti-Semitism is pretty high,” she said, “and you feel
it enormously.”
“They spit when I walked in the
street,” she said, describing reactions when she wore a Star of David.
And why would French Jews need a haven? It’s because of
shocking statistics like this:
Nearly 40 percent of violent acts
classified as racially or religiously motivated were committed against Jews in
2017, though Jews make up less than 1 percent of France’s population.
Anti-Semitic acts increased by 20 percent from 2016, a rise the Interior
Ministry called “preoccupying.”
None of this is news to readers of National Review. Back in 2015, Charlie Cooke traveled to France and
observed the stunning level of security at synagogues and Jewish schools. For
example, he saw this at Sarcelles, a town just outside of Paris:
In the center of Sarcelles, we come
across one of the town’s two synagogues and, to our considerable surprise, see
three armed soldiers standing outside the gate. These, evidently, are no mall
cops. Each one of them is decked out in camouflage-pattern battle fatigues, a
flak helmet, and a suit of upper-body armor, and carries a FAMAS automatic
rifle around his shoulder. They wouldn’t look out of place in Basra.
And while security had been stepped up because of the Charlie Hebdo attack, the default security
procedures were extreme:
Looking around the town, however,
one sees clearly that security was a grave concern in Sarcelles long before
anybody heard the name “Kouachi.” The other synagogue — which also has a
considerable military presence — is set back from the road, behind thick iron
gates. To enter, visitors must first announce themselves to a remotely viewed
camera and, if deemed acceptable, undergo a brief interview with a security
guard. Similar rules are in force at the school, which is completely surrounded
by a tall, spike-topped, steel fence and guarded by a patrolman in a wooden
hut. The locals have seen this coming.
As a consequence, Jews are increasingly fleeing France.
As the Times reports, more than
50,000 have moved to Israel since 2000, double
the number who moved to Israel in the previous 18-year period.
The secondary effects of mass migration from the Middle
East and North Africa aren’t confined to France, nor are they limited to
anti-Semitism. Politico last week
reported that Sweden was struggling to deal with child marriage in its
immigrant population. Last year Cheryl Benard, writing in The National Interest, described a “mind-boggling” Afghan crime
wave in Europe.
I share these stories not to print yet another
conservative story about the problems of mass migration in Europe but rather to
make a different point. Identity politics often works to block a full and fair
debate about immigration and culture until after
the facts on the ground have changed — until after the consequences of mass migration have presented themselves.
The process works something like this. The left side of
the debate presents the staggering humanitarian challenges and deep economic
needs of migrants and refugees. Those challenge are real, and the needs are
profound. The right side of the debate raises questions about clashing
cultures, violence, and misogyny. Rather than deal with the actual and very
real cultural differences among the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe, the
Left not only shames right-wing cultural critics, it essentially creates a fictional people — the idealized
immigrant population.
Leftist identity politics creates a false choice. Open
the borders to the good people of the Middle East, or yield to the bigots. With
the left largely in charge in Europe, the answer was clear. Open the borders.
While there are racists in this world, not all cultural
criticism is racist. There is a need for the great Western democracies to be
compassionate and humane, but not every material limitation on immigration is
xenophobic. It’s just a fact that migrants were arriving from regions that are
awash in anti-Semitism. A recent ADL global survey showed that a stunning 74
percent of North African and Middle Eastern residents registered anti-Semitic
attitudes. In multiple Muslim nations, overwhelming majorities of Muslims
citizens express support for the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy.
But in some quarters, it’s racist to call out racism and
intolerant to call out intolerance.
This disease is now infecting the American body politic.
On some days, it feels as if the entire immigration debate is conducted about
fictional immigrant populations, with identity politics often afflicting both
sides of the debate.
In part of the Right, immigration is all about MS-13, and
the story of modern mass immigration is the story of Kate Steinle, the young
woman shot dead by an illegal Mexican immigrant who’d been deported five times.
In part of the Left, immigration is nothing but a
glorious blessing, and virtually any concern over economics, wages, or — yes —
culture is nothing but a dog whistle for bigotry. To the extent that you can
even acknowledge culture change, the change has to be positive, because
everyone on the left knows that more diversity is better, all the time.
Last week lots of folks piled on GOP voters for embracing
demographic change less than Democrats. They see racism as the only explanation
for answers like this:
Make no mistake, there are racists in the GOP, but does
racism fully explain why half of Republicans think that racial diversity has a
negative impact? Yes, there are some members of the GOP who have fictional
views of immigrants. But aren’t there Democrats in the grips of their own
fictions? For them, immigration is perceived as a key to greater electoral
success; after all, it’s an article of faith in much of the Left that greater
diversity will guarantee Democratic dominance. Further, they see no possible cultural, economic, or political
downside to greater diversity.
Yet more anti-Semitism isn’t making France better. More
child marriage isn’t good for Sweden. In immigration debates — here and in
Europe — ideology should be tempered by reality. We’re debating the presence of
real people with real problems (and real gifts). Identity politics all too
often obscures that truth. We’ll never have a healthy debate about immigration
until identity politics is defeated in the marketplace of ideas and confined to
the margins of American political life.
In other words, idealized symbols don’t immigrate. Real
people do. And it’s always worth debating and carefully considering which real
people should join any nation’s family.
