There is a current problem with refugees coming in tens of thousands to the European continent. Seeking asylum, fleeing from their war-torn homelands, a country like Greece, Italy or Spain seems the ideal point of entry for them; thereupon the runaways can seek real refuge, perhaps, somewhere in Western Europe.
The issue of accepting refugees is two-fold: firstly, the West ought to be more attentive to its missteps during the last three decades that must have been part of creating havoc in the Middle East. That is not to say the West is entirely responsible. But this crisis should spur a broad debate regarding military intervention and its role in Mideastern power struggles.
Secondly, the more immediate concern has to do with the ability on our part to take more people in. Europe is clearly not ready for a substantial migrant wave (which is going to come sooner or later)—especially countries like the Czech Republic with a small immigrant population.
So before we reach the apex of this immigration wave, the struggle is internal. Some European people are not poised for seeing the demographics of their lands changed significantly. Be it in places like London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna where first-generation immigrant populations are already vast, or places like my home city of Prague where you rarely even see people of African descent outside the city center.
I don’t like the conflict being reduced to a reincarnation of fascists on one side and hippies on the other. Especially when each side has bait to flaunt before the general public—a point of reference which is nothing but a fig leaf that ought to divert people from thinking of immigration as a contextual issue.
On the one hand, popular movements that denounce Islam are often just plain xenophobic pseudo-fascist gangs. Look, I’m strident in that I don’t let any religion off the hook when I say
religion poisons societies and degrades people. That includes the essence of pure Islam, which comes from a book with especially nasty passages which encourage violence against the non-believers (thereby encourage violence against
me). But I don’t know of a popular movement against Islam which merits a secular enlightenment banner, which I could imagine myself to approve of and figuratively march under. Seldom are movements this focused on proclaiming they’re anti-Islam truly about the ideology,
not the person. So unless you
hate the Muslim people, there’s little way for you to embrace that sort of right to far-right warmongering.
On the other hand, the reverse side seems awfully reactionary. Some people advocating for multicultural enrichment via accepting people from different lands and cultures are detached from a case-by-case point of view. Not that the essence of that idea is not viable. But the pro-immigration movement is often
ad hominem ‘by-proxy,’ in that it negates the validity of what the other side is saying. The pro-immigration people are often reactionary in what they demonstrate on the streets, making a point of the fact that the ‘inclusive’ crowd dresses better than the anti’s, it has more diversity in race and gender and generally doesn’t smell bad. But again, the merit of the argument is sometimes reduced to logical fallacies: the more to the West you go in Europe, the more immigrants you find; we are the liberal West, hence we must first take in the immigrants.
So because I don’t feel like there’s a proper debate in the forefront, I’ll jot down my points.
1. There’s a semantic problem with the word Islam. I don’t want to import the religion of Islam, as—I suspect—few people do. But what some multiculturalists hear in that is the condemnation of an entire culture, an entire people. This is a large discrepancy. A culture in which Islam is the prevalent religion is not set in stone—cultures are dynamic and there is no defining holy book for culture outside religion. So, if you use the word Islam for any sort of prevailing cultural background in the Middle East, you’re using the word incorrectly, but I should do my best to try to understand where our language differs. I do not feel any sort of blanket resentment for the Muslim people, yet I reserve the right to criticise the ideology of Islam. With vigour.
2. No denying that immigration into Europe can bring about economic growth, valuable cultural exchange and some type of restoration of our moral credit (by undoing our part of the fault for the conditions which make people seek refuge here in the first place). But the premise of the debate should always be the following. No refugee, no matter the conditions where they come from, may claim the right to be accepted into Europe. The only incentive that results in accepting the refugee is the good will of the state and the people who decide to take them in. This good will is greatly encouraged, but not a premise of the whole dynamic.
3. On the internal level, the debate about immigration is not a binary battle. If the pro-immigration upheaval turns out to overpower the nay-sayers, there is no way to achieve assimilation of new immigrants unless even a substantial portion of the nay-sayers complies. Blaming the failure to integrate these people on the newcomer is easy and it is a good talking point in a debate, but ultimately, all of us will have to deal with this issue. On a personal level, civic day-to-day life will include some sort of communication between the ethnic European and the immigrant struggling to make it. In that situation, it is best to remain civil. Or, if you want to put it in somewhat nasty terms: do your part in maintaining the benefit of the doubt.