The migrant crisis becomes an international problem.

Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.

At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience.  We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others.  The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media.  The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria.  The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem.  Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?"  In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked.  Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live?  Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states.  Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause.  These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?

I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants.  The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings.  Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem.  The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico.  We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway.  The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family.  This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system.  Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change.  Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry.  The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth.  The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families.  Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa.  The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice.  But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation.  This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself.  Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.

In reality, it may be too late for the United States.  President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States.  Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party.  But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees.  The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people.  Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis.  But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria.  The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft.  Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest.  South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited.  Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War.  The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees.  The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.

Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees.  Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life.  But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source.  Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence?  Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines.  Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort?  In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption.  Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another.  Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account.  If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs.  We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home.  The same is true for Mexico.  I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again.  But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.

It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor.  I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week.  But what about next week, and next month?  What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands?  The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling.  They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off.  Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?    

Just How Many Muslims Have Immigrated To Europe, Anyway?

Link A. Immigration To France, Wikipedia
         B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
         C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
         D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia

The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated.  When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible.  With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research?  Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities?  Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories?  Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt?  Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back.  A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater.  The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years.  Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe.  For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe).  During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased.  But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe".  Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).

The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism.  Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well).  North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia.  In most instances, they put down roots and had children.  In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies.  For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies.  England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea.  Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese.  Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome.  As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation.  Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer.  Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism.  And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today.  In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off.  Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing.  This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.

In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim.  Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind.  Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing).  As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic.  Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls.  Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well.  No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity.  But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source.  Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism?  Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well.  These young men and women have no distraction.  They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go.  And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night.  The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy.  If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.

Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago?  Those kids had nothing to do.  Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States.  The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority.  And sex?  It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination.  What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe.  We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are.  The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology.  That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage.  These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well.  We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers).  Has it been so long since we were at that age?  The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become.  You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five.  There is a reason for that.

The Advent of the Functioning Failed State....

Link: Has the West Failed Eastern Europe?


The Balkans region is the national nursery of Europe.  With the establishment of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and the renewed attempts at economic and political rejuvenation in Albania, the Balkans seem to be alive with growth.  South of Kosovo are Macedonia and Greece, and to the east you find Rumania and Bulgaria.  The people of Kosovo recently celebrated their Declaration of Independence, with the hope that economic growth and political stability would follow.  But Eastern Europe, regardless of the recent developments in Kosovo, is home to stagnating economies and political instability.  In fact, you would be hard-pressed to identify a country in the region (possibly Serbia) that does not fit the description of a "failed state". 

With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the subsequent collapse of totalitarian regimes in Rumania and Bulgaria, there was great excitement and hope for national rebirth.  Unfortunately, both Rumania and Bulgaria suffered from an endemic type of corruption deluxe.  Every branch of government seemed to function on a unique form of bribery and nepotism.  It would take much more than a change in government to reform the corrupt judicial and administrative systems that had atrophied under communist rule.  In order for Bulgaria and Rumania to succeed, it would be necessary to build from the ground up, and would require immediate sacrifice from every level of society.  And many people were not willing to make the sacrifice.  Since the fall of communism, both Bulgaria and Rumania have stuttered and staggered towards a pseudo-capitalist economic system, still fighting corruption in government, still dealing with the presence in power of some of the old communists that had been part of the original problem.  The average person doesn't see the big picture.  the average citizen realizes that their standard of living has no improved since the defeat of the communists.  In fact, crime has increased and the trains don't always run on schedule anymore.  They blame the political changes for all the problems they face today, long for the stability of the past, and vote communist.  Both Bulgaria and Rumania are failed states.  They function almost out of habit.

Greece is the country that wants to be European, but doesn't want to make the sacrifices and the reforms necessary for the long-term economic stability that exists in places like Austria and Denmark.  The Greek people do not seem to understand why they are different.  They refuse to examine their economic and political system, where lies the answers to their question.  It was probably wishful thinking on behalf of the European Union that allowed for Greece's acceptance into the EU.  The Greek economy was not structured to compete effectively with other European markets.  Socialist governments in Greece had created so many loopholes and exceptions to the tax code, not to mention pension growth that far outweighed economic growth, that the Greek economic system bore very little resemblance to its European Union partners.  The Greek economy is also dependent upon a vibrant tourist industry.  When political problems (and the threat of terrorism) discourage tourism, the Greek government must look elsewhere to make up the lost income.  The EU has been willing to bail out Greece, but repeated requests for permanent reform (including hated changes to the pension system and the tax code) have met with demonstrations, riots, and revolving-door governments.  Greece has become a failed state.  It also still functions, but at the end of the day the economic forecasts promise more conflict with the EU.

Macedonia was born on the rump of the former Yugoslavia.  At birth, the Macedonian economy was in no position to support an entire nation.  Efforts to build a diversified economy have resulted in less dependence on foreign imports for foodstuffs, but Macedonia is also in great need of improvements in infrastructure.  Macedonia is landlocked, and all trade must be transported on a less-than adequate road network that was heavily damaged during the Kosovo conflict.  Macedonia lives on loans, just like its neighbors.  At least the possibility of a Civil War with Albanian separatists has diminished, and the political system seems to be vibrant.  But Macedonia is a young, failed state.  On the other hand, Albania has been a political entity for roughly a century.  The Albanian people, God bless them, have suffered heroically through repeated corrupt administrations, both socialist and "democratic".  It seems impossible to find an Albanian politician who isn't "on the take".  The Black Market, smuggling cigarettes, booze, and women, functions much more effectively than the national economy.  But the people, with a trust in traditional methods of subsistence, persevere.  Albania functions, but it certainly fits the mold of a failed state.

The link I have provided questions the European commitment to Eastern Europe.  When Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Rumania threw off the yoke of communist/socialist control, the diplomatic response was very supportive.  But the money and the assistance (to rebuild infrastructure, train and educate workers, etc.) was either non-existent or slow in arriving.  For all practical purposes these nations were left to their own devices.  Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina both have the misfortune and the fortune of being temporary home to various European military elements.  But both Kosovo and B-H have healthy, ingrained Black Markets that won't hesitate to compete with legitimate businesses.  Kosovars benefit tremendously from an Ex-Pat community (particularly in the United States) that continues to pay for improvements in infrastructure (although power is a real concern).  The EU has made its presence known (the Office of European Cooperation in particular) recently, in a Johnny-come-lately fashion.  But it may be too little too late.  The people of Eastern Europe have lost faith in the EU, and European taxpayers are growing weary of expenditures into "nowhere".  The future is not bright for the functioning, failed states of Eastern Europe.