Let´s get serious (so it´s a no-post)
Mr. Fisher, you have no idea what EU is, how EU has been justified and what issues EO really has. Get out of your Americans lib narrative bubble. Stop this nonsense, please.
When it comes to EU philosophy and it´s actual issues this recent essay of Ms Lübbe-Wolff in FAZ is definitely among the best:
https://geomatiko.eu/forum/showthread.php?tid=1819
(free copy)
Ms. Lübbe-Wolff is a retired Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) judge. She´s undeniably one of the best thoughts analysts.
In general the essay says what most intellectuals of "Funktionselite" think here - those who regularly have to do their job as best as they can, subject to rules like "it has to work right, waffle forbidden, nice words are worthless, mistakes are punished immediately." They normally do not interfere in pointless biased opinion battles in notorious papers for several reasons - quite the opposite of most juste milieu people.
By her sharpest critic Mr. Münkler a political scientist seen as ally of Ms. Merkel she could not be refuted. His main allegation is: "This is destroying the political poetry the European project is based on!" But that´s a classic circular argument and he is unable to deliver better "narratives". This is no miracle. It´s another word for" fairy tales".
BTW: Many "Ex-Bundesverfassungsrichter" have published sharp criticisms of policies advocated by Ms. Merkel recently - without regard to their political views.
The EU has always been an idea doomed to fail, even before the current immigrant crisis and there is no comparison between the EU and the American experience. America had a common language and very similar experiences between the colonies. None of this is true of the EU and even within countries in the EU there is distrust of “those others” in the next village
Did not forget the key issue - European Union is run by unelected bureaucrats who impose policies which are not supported by most Europeans.
All of this is on top of an unsustainable welfare system, weak defense, and dying out population.
16
It is difficult to distinguish whether this article is misleading in purpose or because of misreading of facts. If Europe wants unharmed free movement for its citizens it simply has to enforce the schengen borders by keeping out unwanted / illegal immigrants while having zero tolerance for those who want to change the existing democratic order from whithin.
11
If you analyze opinions across demographics, you will find that Europeans wishing to reclaim an overly idealistic past tend to come from the same places they do in America. They trend older, more rural and less educated. In the United States, our ridiculously non-representative electoral college system makes us seem as just resistant to change. It has robbed the world of its greatest national promoter of global peace, freedom and justice. It has now done this twice in the twenty-first century. Progressive leaders in Europe desperately need the stalwart support of a hopeful and generous America. Instead of a noble leader, we have instead given the world a bomb throwing, self-dealing, demagogue. Donald Trump is not only indifferent to a failing European Union, he wants to take credit for it. This is the level to which the once great nation of the United States has lowered itself to. Only an epic political re-awakening has any chance of stopping it. If Europe is to be saved yet again, it may need to do it by itself this time.
8
..if Europe has a meltdown, it will have been because of its banks, not its borders.
4
The desire to preserve one's cultural identity and values is "baked" into democracy as a system. Why would I support importing a huge number of people with different set of values who will vote against my beliefs?
25
One only has to observe the curent World Cup tournament to witness the passion for what borders represent. Watch the verve with which the spectators sing their respective national anthems, the patriotic chanting throughout match play, the mass of like-colors in the stands identifying country, if not cult. While most of the players also play for a variety of European football clubs, it's only one country for whom they play that matters. No common currency or passport will ever change the fundamental fealty Europeans have for their own sense of place. Trying to grayscale Europe's borders was misguided and misrepresented from the start.
13
Want a tutorial in European feelings about national sovereignty?
Watch the World Cup.
I don’t see a “Europe Team” out there, and I don’t expect to.
14
Caution - The author states"These nationalist impulses, however dangerous, emerge from basic human instinct. It makes us feel safe; losing it makes us feel threatened. It is reinforced in our popular culture and built into the international order." Note the two words inserted "however dangerous". So the author paints nationalism as dangerous. It isn't. Nationalism and humanitarianism can and do coexist. What is dangerous, in my view, is being willing to promote the globalist view of one people with no individual or national identity and targeting anyone who disagrees with that position as being racist, hateful, etc. (in other words dangerous...)
Let's take globalism to a future conclusion where there are no nations, no cultures, no sports teams, no races, no genders, etc. Just one planet full of human beings with no identity whatsoever, so as not to offend anyone else. Doesn't that sound wonderful? Um, no. Look at the Olympics as an example. How can we allow nations to compete with their own flags and their own uniforms and traditions in a globalist world? Why that would be dangerous! The author and the globalist viewpoint are a threat to anyone who values identity in this world. And to quote the author again: "it's little wonder that national self-interest wins."
24
When I was on a graduate school study abroad program in Europe in 2006, I was shocked at the degree of nationalism among the students from all corners of the EU. One of the key differences between our union of states and the European's union of Nation States is that in their system, the states can't control their own monetary policy. The repercussions of that were felt across Europe over the past ten years after the financial crisis, and Europeans were already weary when the refugee crisis hit. That both of those crises were due to American actions, or lack thereof in the case of the financial crisis, is illustrative, in a negative way, of how integrated we all are. Now we bring them the trade war and harsh letters around defence. It's amazing they still talk to us. "Let's see..." what happens after the NATO meeting followed by Putin.
5
I enjoyed the format of this article.
Rather than judging and blaming, it examines the causes of people's behaviour.
3
The movement of migrants fleeing civil wars, poverty, drought and exploitation by dictatorships will not stop. How to deal with mass migrations will continue to be a problem for those countries which are not prepared to provide for their needs and numbers. Hopefully, there will be a slowing of these migrations, allowing the small EU countries to recover from the sudden large inflow of migrants from foreign cultures. The U.S. can block migrants from coming ashore; we have a Coast Guard to do that. We have border patrols to stop and detain those coming across the Southern border avoiding checkpoints. We are not connected to former colonies as are some European countries, i.e. France with Algeria and Morocco. We have a history of accepting immigrants needed to settle an empty continent. We are no longer empty; The EU is not empty. Canada is not empty. This will continue to be a problem in the future as those who are seeking safety and economic opportunity migrate towards countries they believe will provide those things.
6
This article sheds a light on an important and underreported aspect of what we seem to be calling the rise of populism in the West, from Urban to Trump -- the fear of losing one's identity, which is mixed in with the more obvious xenophobic and antiglobalist sentiments.
Trump voters, according to one recent study, were more concerned over a shifting American identity, away from a White Protestant norm, than any particular issue of global trade or economic uncertainty.
The same trend is apparent across Europe. But it is also part of the same trend that has brought AMLO to power in Mexico and fueled the Bernie Sanders campaign -- a deep distrust of the post-War world order. When the core institutions of governance grind to a halt, it calls into question the underlying core principles and makes it easy to succumb to tribalist siren songs that appeal to our deepest instincts.
1
A very annoying article for a range of reasons:
a) there is no "contradiction" between national and regional identity in Europe any more than there is in the US. If you can cope with being both Texan and American, I can cope with being British and European.
b) The day of the EU being an 'experiment' have long since passed. It's like calling the US post-revolutionary.
c) The demographic of those who fear the loss of their national identity is ageing. So it is a problem that will go away with time.
d) Europe has a problem with borders. It has had bigger problems before and it will have bigger problems in the future. The idea that the border problems with prove too divisive for the union to survive is hysterical. On a similar level, I have a problem with nasal hair, but it is unlikely to prove fatal.
4
One wonders whether European immigration would even be an issue if all the immigrants were blond, blue eyed Caucasians. Let's face it: the most powerful nations in Europe have a long history of colonializing people racially different than themselves. Literature of the colonial period (Kipling, Conrad, even Kafka) clearly illustrated the sense of European superiority among the peoples of the world. Missionaries from Europe were sent out to bring Christianity to "the heathens." Then came the businessmen.
So it is no surprise that there is a reaction to the migrating of non-Europeans, particularly people of color who have never been held in much more than contempt, to where the money is in Europe.
To add to the problem, global warming and the upsetting of the already delicate post-imperialist economies of countries closer to the equator will drive more people of color toward Europe (and the United States and Canada). How will all those culturally sensitive Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, and Englishmen deal with that?
1
My view is that a country’s border is an illusion and it is actually a political illusion. Physically, a border is a sieve that purposefully allows the wealthy immigrants to pass through with ease: those with little capital are blocked unless they can be exploited. Given that most of Europe and all of the US requires cheap labor to do the mundane dirty work, we have a huge political paradox.
Surely with 2 million humans born each day more than there are deaths, and resources drying up as fast as humans are born, this issue will remain with mankind for the rest of this century—- until equilibrium is restored. I shudder to think what that will mean.
6
As it should be the voters will be the deciders on whether the EU or any other democracy accepts an open border policy or not.
1
Ms. Merkel sounds like the one condo owner who feels it her right to play her music as loud as she wants and then insists as a compromise that everyone else should too then as a solution to not having to hear all her noise. This, apparently, is know as strong leadership and why condo owners can’t stand their neighbors.
9
Americans do not understand the EU which has always been a two steps forward, one and a half step backward organization. However, migrants and refugees are a real problem here as they are in the USA and a major challenge for any political organization.
If the US is really concerned about helping Europe than take on some of the undocumented refugees that are gorging our legal system with over 350 thousand open cases in Germany alone and eating away at our tax base and stop fighting and inciting wars in the Middle East and places like Afghanistan. Every time you start one, we pick up the tab afterwards for the rebuilding and the refugees.
It's easy to criticize, but imagine how you would act if you lived in a town of 50 thousand with over 3000 refugees not counting Turks and other longtime foreigners and now lived across the street from a mosque, a Doener kiosk and a shisha bar which weren't there 5 years ago.
No I'm not a racist and have successfully completed aid projects in Africa and helped Syrian refugees to find jobs in Germany. But there is one thing that scares me and everyone else here and that the is the number 78 million, which is the current number of displaced persons on the move and most of them want to move here. That is the Damocles sword over our heads that we live with everyday and that in a world where everyone is shutting their doors and hiding under the beds.
6
For the sake of sanity, Europe must retain its borders despite pressure from the Left to erase them. The United States is under similar pressure to do away with its southern border, to open up the floodgates to a sea of migrants who are coming to America for a host of reasons, not all of which are in the best interest of the nation. Worldwide migration must follow a set of rules which work for the best interest of the host nation, not the migrating hoard. National sovereignty must be preserved, national integrity must be maintained, and national exceptionalism proclaimed. Otherwise, chaos will prevail. Thank you.
22
EU simply expanded too fast before dealing with these problems, contradictions- however, without a strong EU defense force, or even national; defense forces !-this was inevitable vague news the Russian Bear. A hard exterior bride might work, but look at the problems we are having still with our southern border re immigration..
Merkel said member nations must “share the burden” of taking in migrants. Why? Why does any nation HAVE to take in any immigrants? Shouldn’t any nation be able to say we will not accept any immigrants? And I’m not talking about moral obligations, I’m strictly speaking about mandatory requirements.
7
I am Dutch and I can travel within the Schengen treaty zone without showing any passport. At our the borders are service stations for customs where freight trailers can stop for their paperwork. So can illegal persons that are inside the zone.
Point is, Europe needs immigrants and migration, whether from Poland or Rumania or from Africa or the Middle East. They keep up our economy, just like migrants from Latin America do in the US.
The point is, how do we canalize fit this nessecary and unavoidable migration into our societies. That is what the recent turmoil in Europe is about.
Migration consists of economis needs (nowadays mostly from african countries, asylum seeking (political or gender refugees) and refuge seeking (like Syrians) because of wars.
Distinguishing between hem is not always easy. We get the victims of other less rsponsible regimes on our doorstep.
Over time Europe will emerge into a superpower and a multi ethnic entity. Surrounding countries will be stabilized, as a kind of Pax Europeana. This emerges already, but it takes time to develop. Great avantage is that untl now this development grew without war. And the Yougoslav civil war made clear what the disadvantages of nationalism and bad government are.
Angela Merkel is the very exponent of this development and we are blessed to have such a leadership in our neighbouring country, also the most powerful one and in the center of the continent. It has been far worse in the last century.
A look at the short term history of the Middle East, where the refugee problem began, reveals the growing realization of many who study human ecology- climate change started a drought in Syria which destabilized the country and evolved into a civil war, which created a million refugees. If the Nationalists in Europe want to guard their turf against hordes of refugees, then why their reticence to intervene in a country that was destroying itself ? The same scenario is happening in USA , where climate change and gangs threaten people to flee to our southern border.
2
Warmongers Bush-Cheney helped things along in the Middle East--created their own firestorm. Mexico, Central America, and South America have suffered from political malfeasance on an extraordinary level, and will continue to, long before "climate change" became the exigent topic of the moment.
6
With the exception of France, most western European countries evolved relatively peacefully into democracies. East European countries have far less experience with democracy and have been under Russian control and influence for significant parts of their history. This creates one massive cultural split.The recent migrant issue obviously creates a second, even larger, split.
Ironically, the Poles and Hungarians who rally against Muslims are not warmly welcomed by many, many people in western Europe.
Europe has always had internal migration and a practice of encouraging criminals to go to the colonies. But they have no skills or infrastructure designed to achieve assimilation of large numbers of new comers.
Countries like Canada have substantial experience at managing the assimilation of new arrivals. It took in 10s of thousands of Syrians, at a time when Trump was imposing his first chaotic travel ban, without any obvious or substantial difficulties.
Europe can one of 2 things; pay people to return to their homelands or work hard to develop real assimilation strategies. If not, they will have a large number of marginalized and increasingly hostile people to deal with for generations to come.
There are no magic solutions that will suddenly appear if the EU does nothing.
2
"But ... their national identities, the more they came to oppose the European Union, studies found ..."
"Studies Found !!" Perhaps we need a study to prove breathing is necessary to remain alive !!
The dominant species on this planet is the Homo Sapien, the two legged creature we label as Human, all shapes, sizes, different colors (to those who are not color-blind), (Idea !! let's distribute a pathogen which renders all humans color-blind), several groups believing in similar but different Gods, and all possessed of one specific innate characteristic, such being the individual desire to survive at all costs, consequently, again, innately, willing to alternatively sacrifice (rarely), and savagely fight and destroy whomever and whatever seeks to deny the individual right to survive.
The only reason the current United States of America exists, is because the explorers of old, mostly European continent inhabitants, from various sovereign nations, having come upon this distant and relatively unknown sparsely populated land, eventually worked together putting aside national identities to create groups powerful enough to destroy its inhabitants, occupy the land, build communities and industries, essentially erasing its history and creating a new nation.
To presume individual nations, solidly established for millennia, on the continent of Europe, could and would give up their ancient identity and become blind to myriad differences, especially cultural, was the epitome of folly.
6
The EU as it is today is the child born from Jose Ortega y Gassett's "Revolt of the Masses", published in about 1931. He called for an EU, and he called for control by an elite minority.
Every one should read it.
1
For anyone interested in this, read "Skipper next to God" by Jan den Hartog. There is always a struggle between letting refugees in and fear of flooding with immigrants.
Liberal ideals of elimination of identity, borders and cultures, is failing. And sadly, Italian and Spanish culture have been diluted along the way.
7
It appears as though we humans shall remain tribal in our core: all for ours, nothing for 'the other'. Solidarity and inclusion, and tolerance, once thought a communion of values to share, to make us stronger, are being scoffed at. Aside from our basic education in appreciating others being equal, if not better, than ourselves, requires some humility, sorely lacking when ignorance (and it's prejudices) displays it's cousin, arrogance. It seems, from the European experiment after years of stupid conflicts, we have learned nothing. And life, individually at least, is far too short, and precious, to be wasted in petty arguments of 'racial' superiority's nonsense. Can't we get along, suspend our ego, and enjoy what we are and have? Do we have to lose what we have to appreciate it, when all is lost and with no remedy at hand, just the crying?
"... a simple question of borders", you've got to be kidding.
We humans appear to be completely unchanged over thousands of years of clan/caste/racial/gender/I have more than you ..... history.
Of course it's a question of borders. It always has been, one form or another.
4
National identity as something inconsistent with mass immigration is stupid. Immigration supports national identity through absorption of arrivals into the society and, most importantly, acquisition of its language. Merkel was smart in her early enthusiasm for welcoming Syrian refugees who were arguably the cream of the crop in terms of education, skills and similarity in appearance to Europeans compared with the waves to follow. Likely declines in populations throughout Europe among indigenous Europeans are the great threat to national identity for which immigrants are the only salvation.
2
Europeans do not fear the Russians crossing the Rhine, as much as Africa and the middle east invasion.
8
Personally I’m waiting for Mother Nature to unleash a plague on humans, reducing our numbers by 60%, but in the meantime if the 1st world countries could help some of these thirds world countries stabilize and prosper, you would curtail the flow of immigrants. After all, here in the US, we don’t get immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers from a well run country like Costa Rica, but we sure get ’em from failed states like Honduras.
6
Yeah, how about this? Ask the voters, whom they want to allow in the country.
9
More like India than the US in that each state has its own language.
2
It’s for the first time when the concept of a post-national Europe as a melting pot of nations is publicly revealed. Angela Merkel’s “humanist” stance was hypocritical at best: her prime interest was to teach her countrymen a lesson in meddling with people of a radically different culture, language and religion - by the way, paid by the Germans’ taxes and hard earned & well deserved social services.
To frame the European project as “democratic” is a joke, as long as a handful of stubborn heads at the top (the German word is “stuhr”!) are lying to the people they have been elected by and try imposing their own agenda in order to manipulate and hold on to their seats.
1
Europe could melt down over borders; Same for America.
Trump attacks the #metoo movement.Say NO to Trump and all Trump allies. Speak up; Trump will walk all over you if you do not fight back hard.Trump did nothing at N Korea summit except give kim gifts. Trump takes away our healthcare;Trump kills any reasonable immigration legislation.Prescription prices increase.Wages are stagnant.Tax bill gave money to the rich.Prices are rising because of tariffs. Fight back against Trump with everything you have. Vote out GOP for change. Ray Sipe
1
Very interesting article. With all the news about immigration in the US and EU recently, this article nailed the real reason which is not so much about immigration as it is a backlash because people feel that their identity and cultures are being threatened. For decades the media, academia, and elites have been pushing this vision of a empty cosmopolitanism utopia on the masses and now many citizens in Western nations are pushing back and rejecting this idea flat out. People cherish their culture, identity, and traditions. In the EU these countries have cultures that go back a millennia or more. Additionally with the embrace of multiculturalism it seems that immigrants and minorities are allowed to keep and celebrate their culture and not assimilate while the majority are told it is wrong to celebrate their culture and heritage and are often called “rascist” or “xenophobic” when they push back. The masses are starting to wake up and this is just the beginning... thing are going to be very interesting in the EU and US for the foreseeable future.
8
European culture has created the modern world. The way to solve the problems of the Middle East, Africa and Asia is for Europeans to export that culture - not to import the world's problems.
4
When I travel to a foreign country, I want to be exposed to the culture of the land that I am visiting...language, food, music, etc. Will the current wave of migration and ethnic diversity hurt Europe’s tourist industry or enhance it?
1
The EU is doomed, and it will have fallen on the question of immigration.
The author, like so many 'thinkers', laments the nation-state. But the author, like all the Marxists, anarchists, and every conceivable -ism and -ist, never once offers a viable alternative to the nation-state.
When all of Europe becomes a nebulous, undifferentiated blob, when all the cultural differences between French, German, Slovakian, etc etc, when all those differences have been erased, then the dream of the European Union will have been completed. But Europe itself will have vanished, and for nothing more than greasing the wheels of commerce.
National identity exists. Cultural identity exists. Borders exist. And all these things serve a valuable purpose, which is national cohesion. Without cohesion, there is instability and conflict. We fought a Civil War on the question of what our national identity would be. Do not tell me these things are 'phantoms' and have little value.
Ignore these things at your own peril.
12
We seem to have all forgotten that this conflict over immigration is not about a political construct termed "nationality". It's about something far more basic to human survival- ethnicity. It just so happens that Europe's political borders were coincidentally drawn around the places that it's different ethnic groups happened to live! "Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance." It is ethnicity that people celebrate and unify themselves around and ethnicity that makes them proud of who they are as one interrelated people. Nationality is from the neck up! It's a construct of political expedience. Ethnicity is the shared heart and soul of a people that has served to sustain them for centuries. European leaders were foolish to think that any people would just universally surrender their ethnic identity and their sense of cohesiveness and just welcome another one as if they were all interchangeable. It was an anthropological blunder of monumental proportion! It's just not how human beings work.
7
European, and by extension American culture, colonized, looted and enslaved native peoples and stole their resources. They developed large and organized militaries to keep control. The extraction of fossil fuels and the consumption of these other stolen fruits has contributed strongly to the degradation in environment, particularly the scarcity of potable water. The descendants of the exploited without resources, water and arable land desperately try to escape their fate and are of course repelled and scorned. Not much else to say.
Well said!
All you have to do is watch the World Cup to see how important national identities are.
5
All over the world, white ruled countries are fretting over migration. America and the EU are confronting the reality of millions of people fleeing their home countries for a better life.
All these governments are now in the NIMBY phase of reaction for multiple reasons.
Why is no one addressing the reasons for the mass migrations?
From war to climate disaster (lack of water), the reasons are complex for sure. Just where are the Syrian war refugees 'supposed' to go? Should the Africans fleeing violence and draught stay on the continent and not head north across the Mediterranean Sea? Why do the people of El Salvador not head south to Brazil or Chile instead of America?
Why can't Muslims fleeing war go to Saudi Arabia?
Obviously these questions and issues are global in nature and very difficult to solve. Interference in the governance of other countries does not seem to work (Syria) and yet cooperation to bring water to vast areas of draught would make staying at home a viable option.
Migration is a global problem which requires global solutions, in other words cooperation. Cooperation is THE dirty word of the day. Those in power want their moneys to travel freely around the globe for greater profit but as for people, not so much. Getting rid of the Assads of the world is difficult but getting clean water and food to peoples is doable. We have to start somewhere or the reasons for migration will continue to grow at a faster pace than our 'solutions'.
4
Want to regulate massive flows of population from around the globe? Then maybe you should stop outsourcing important economic decision making to massive corporations and companies, whose executives are glad to tinker with major demographic change to find cheaper labor and fatten up their pocketbooks, all while they look down from their executive offices at their fellow (poorer) citizens who need to grapple with the reality of cultural clashes and social integration. Rich people who can buy private islands couldn’t care less about the strain that an increasingly deregulated immigration policy has on national morale or identity.
The current system of global capitalism is no friend to national identity. If populists or conservatives are actually worried about massive demographic change, they ought to put their money where their mouth is.
6
Parallels to the problems in the USA. Immigrants were supposed to come here and be part of the "melting pot" which, for many years, they did. For some reason, that idea became obsolete, and, today, we have to print government forms in 100 different languages, so they can keep their own identity, instead of becoming a citizen of the USA.
7
Despite the ambitions of Macron and Merkel, it's not "could"--it's when. Sooner than we might guess. Brexit and Trump lit the exit.
3
So too could America unravel over the borders issue. This upcoming election in Nov. will reflect this. And no blue waves occurring either. Most Americans have had enough of illegal AND legal immigrants. It is at all high levels and seriously affecting our quality of life. It's not about jobs alone. Nor is it 'deplorables' either. We have no more room. In our schools, medical centers, roads, public transportation and the big one, housing. Who is paying for those illegals? Middle class tax payers who get absolutely no government benefits and are struggling to stay above water. What with health insurance costing above 2 thousand dollars a month for a family of four and illegals getting everything for free? Hmm, think about how upset most Americans are. Also supporting illegals is a slap to the face to legal immigrants.
10
I think part of the issue is the European leaders, similar to American leaders of the last decade or so, tried to force changes on a top down basis. "We know what is best for you, now shut up and do it!" They tried to push change that the population did not agree with and at a rate of change that was too fast for comfort. When the population could not get their leaders to take their objections seriously, they used their ultimate power, the ballot box, to throw out the leadership. Even now the collective 'Liberal World Order' dismisses the changes demanded as ill conceived and ignorant.
We can still get to a world economy with liberal values, BUT, we must involve the people in the process. We must take care of those whose life is disrupted by the changes. We must be willing to compromise on those changes. We must be willing to slow down so that the changes come at a rate that people can absorb before the next one comes around the corner.
Lastly I would urge European leaders to look at the United States. Not the grade school version, but the political animal. We are a federation with different regional characters, we absorb a large number of refugees each year. We have been successful, but when our leaders ignored the people, the voters exercised their power to force a radical change, and we got Trump. C'est ce que tu veux?
4
I started thinking about European integration after Schengen and the euro. In my 50s then, I wondered what I was missing. I failed to comprehend how the Nordic countries’ cultural, political and social values would be assimilated by, for example, Greeks and Italians. Eventually I read commentaries about the possibility that Europe’s Union would expand to identical criminal, family and civil laws for all countries. I concluded that I had to be stupid because I believed that would be impossible. Well, 20-odd years later I’m starting to think that perhaps my doubts were not so unreasonable.
4
The citizens of the EU do not fear invasion by Russia they fear invasion by migrants from the Middle East and Africa. From failed countries with dysfunction governments and values antithetical to the modern world.
7
So why aren’t the US & EU addressing the issues in these migrants home countries?
3
Europe, China and Japan are the last remaining reservoirs of civilization. The unraveling of Europe, precisely at a time when the American civilization is coming to an end, might just be the last drop that opens the gates to worldwide barbarianism.
Sorry, there's nothing 'simple' about the borders, just the voters. Take 'Brexit' - the 51.9% who voted for it ignored their fellow citizens in Northern Ireland and Gibraltar to chase a xenophobic fairytale in which they would have less paperwork, fewer 'outsiders' and more money. There was no consideration given to the problems this would cause for Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, to which they lay claim and which, like Scotland, voted to remain in the EU.
England may get fewer 'outsiders' from now on, but most commentators seem to agree that services and the economy will take a hit. Guess who will be blamed for that!
It's a bit scary when things get this daft.
1
The author is confusing . He speaks of refugees instead of immigrants. He does not make the distinction between legal and illegal migrants. And he doesn't know ..or won't say that all migration in Europe is muslim. And yes, Europeans do have a problem with Islam ideology.
4
As long as there’s Iceland, one utopian place is enough. Focused global resentment is a great way to bring about cohesion. The EU was just an arrogant and vain distraction. Does anybody know if Iceland has ICE, anyway? That would explain a lot.
1
When the Etruscans and Ostragoths faded away, was there any lament? Cultures change, wholesale. They even vanish entirely. It's not a tragedy. Be a human, instead.
Dana's comment is "the fatal flaw was waiting so long to have honest conversations that assimilation is an expectation and not an option." I agree, but in the case of muslim immigrants this 'conversation' is construed as prejudicial against devout observers. We've already seen this in the strong objections agains laws restricting full-body religious garb and sharia law.
2
Europe is going to have to solve this problem. Things in Africa are going to get worse. South Sudan, and the Central African Republic are likely to end up like Somalia. Other countries will dissolve into tribalism and violence played out to a tune of gross over-population in an environment already overwhelmed and heading in the wrong direction. With the total fertility rate of around 7 in the Sahel, there will be an endless supply of economic and political refugees.
Although Europe needs a steady supply of migrants due to low population growth... they need to pick and choose. After all, if you lived in Eritrea, wouldn't the Netherlands seem like paradise with a difficult language?
3
The backlash to an 'open borders' policy is the main reason that trump was elected. I'm a liberal who, like many others, held his nose and voted for Clinton. But I was very disappointed by her advocacy for increased immigration. I was also disappointed with Obama's attempt to provide amnesty for millions of illegals already in the US. Taken together these *unrealistic* policies gave us our current president.
5
World wars have been fought over the question of borders, so thinking that’s never been a simple question!
Max Fisher needs to read history a bit more. Europe's main problem has always been borders.
It might be well for those citing the American model in attempting to force European integration, to remember the American Civil War. This tragedy in an environment where the protagonists shared a common language and cultural heritage that Europe lacks. One can work together respectfully for common goals without losing one's identity.
Citing Pennsylvania and Virginia might not have been wise as within less than 85 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence the two states were at opposite sides in a civil war. For a union to work you have to carry the people with you, unfortunately the EU is led from the top, not the bottom. It has become more remote from the electorate which is one of the reasons why we Brits voted for Brexit. The job of creating a United States of Europe is going to be harder than the creation of the United States of America. Whether EU politicians like it or not nationalism is pretty much ingrained as most European countries are fairly ancient and there are still national grievances between them e.g. the current dispute regarding Macedonia.
9
National identity is one's identity or sense of belonging to one state or to one nation. It is the sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, language and politics. This no different than an individual’s identity on a larger scale. The Europeans decided to waive this most important national and individual prerequisite and now they will be kissing the EU goodbye because of it. The Europeans lack of consideration of their national identifies for the pie in the sky (money) is regrettable for the future of their economic union. Silly is it not? The comparison to the US was not relevant unless they could start from the same point which they could not possibly accomplish.
4
You think about it, EU is not the first to try to unify Europe.
First, it tried by brute force.
Then, there were marriages between royals.
Communism came and went.
And now, EU and its aftermath.
The problem is that people, the Europeans include, are driven by opposing impulses. They want a community; but there are more than one opposing force against it. The in-group wants to hijack the community and an occasional loner wants none at all. A lot of people don't mind sharing but there are more people want to hoard for fear of missing out, not just for themselves but their direct descendants. There were attempts like communism and kibbutz to fix this of course. But size matters. The smaller the easier. America has had her share of utopian communities. When they became big and prosperous, they fall apart.
So the half-hearted attempt of EU has its work cut out
But after"overcoming" nationalism what can you offer people as identify (positively) that is larger than the self? Is there anyone in Europe who would buy "eternal peace" after the history of Europe (and the United States as a nation-state founded by Europeans) from 1914 to today? Money and power still run the world, but when they are succeeded by justice and morality then we could start talking about "transcending" and "overcoming" the imperfect structures we've built to organize our groups of humanity. Don't hold the proverbial breath.
2
Identities in Europe frequently are defined not by country, but by region.
For example, my pro-European family in Germany considers themselves to be Europeans first, but Upper Silesians second. The concept of being German doesn’t really mean much to them. I’m sure similar feelings are not uncommon in Catalonia, Scotland, Bavaria, and many other regions.
This might provide a counter-intuitive way to strengthen the EU. Regional identities and even political structures are more feasible when there is a larger structure that provides common security and access to markets. The EU might actually be stronger if they embraced regionalism rather than nationalism.
There are certainly downsides with such an approach and national governments would resist it. But resistance may ultimately be futile unless national governments can better establish strong national identities among citizens.
7
It's pretty interesting seeing these top-voted comments and how they diverge from the norm on these articles. Europeans seem to really have an undeveloped sense of how badly "assimilation" as an ethic of integration has functioned for them in the past, not only for the countries which ended up having outbursts of persecution and killing but for those who made a genuine effort to "assimilate" (Jewish people for example). Europe has never had a genuine interest in assimilation, if history is any guide, and that still seems to hold true sadly.
It's worth remembering that the American failure to build long-lasting socially democratic systems like universal healthcare are the result of our own challenges with integrating former slaves, their descendants, and successive waves of immigrants. But at least we have a 14th amendment that nominally defines membership in society according to access to rights and the market, and all our struggles have been a result of attempting to live that ideal.
It seems formerly imperialist countries have a long way to go before they address that legacy even as concretely as America has attempted to. Many of these comments treat nationalism as if it's a part of human nature. That's an absurdly regressive view to hold in the 21st century, as is blaming unwanted immigrants from former colonies or Eastern Europe for the "failure" of the host country to integrate them.
5
It's hard to tell what the future holds for Europe. The European Union is far from becoming one country, and it seems not to be trending that way. Still, it is quite different from past Europe, which was torn into warring nations.
For me, an American in my 60s, I dislike greatly the trend I see in the United States, and particularly in California, of a new elite aristocracy seizing power.
On the national level it is the judiciary. Judge after judge is taking the law into his or her own hands and out of the hands of elected officials. In California, it is the unelected bureaucrats, who use their power to put in place laws that the people have no say on.
Both the judiciary and the administrative state can ignore the will of the people. I say, July 4 having just passed, that it's time for another revolution. We never gave these people that power. They just took it. And it's time we took it back.
11
Ignoring just for a moment your claim that judges are "seizing power", and accepting for a second that a revolution would be necessary:
Frankly, why should such a revolution be more successful then the last one when you continue to squander your votes to whomever "your team" nominates? I mean, seriously, if your political engagement is limited to rubber-stamp your parties nominee then what's the point?
And as to judges "seizing power", I think this is nonsense. The judiciary has to work with the laws that is given to them by the legislative. Yes, right, exactly by those people you just rubber-stamp into office.
Every nation gets the government it deserves.
1
I'm surprised at the first paragraph. I always thought the EU was a practical undertaking for cheaper products, easier money flows etc, sold to its citizens as a lofty experiment for eternal peace.
4
The NYT writes in almost every piece on this topic that refugee arrivals are down sharply. In another piece in today's NYT, it is reported that 'In 2016, when the numbers reached their zenith, more than 62,000 people sought asylum in Germany on average every month. This year, that average has fallen to little more than 15,000 — the lowest since 2013.'
Leave it to me to break it to you - >15, 000 per month is still a drastically high number. It is literally the straw that is currently breaking the camel's back. The EU and the US for that matter cannot go on indefinitely like this. The rates are unsustainable in the long term, and we are approaching the long term.
It will be interesting to see if the EU will implement the vague plan successfully. If not, it will only be a matter of time when other nations will elect a strictly controlled borders leadership as we see in Austria, Poland, Hungary, Italy, the Czech Republic, etc.
29
I used to think that economics was the most powerful force in people's lives. What I have learned is how powerful culture is as a source of stability and identity in people's lives.
The more the world is destabilized politically and homogenized economically, the more insecure people feel, and the more they cling to their culture and traditions for a sense of self and stability.
In the U.S. we have a working class who votes Republican against their own economic self-interest, because the GOP promises a march backwards to the "old ways," where people know their place, white people and men rule, and hardcore religion and faith trump secularism, science & education, professionalism, and globalization. Think culture and tradition are not important? My Lord, we are still fighting the Civil War in this country.
Americans love to travel to Europe. Why? Because of each EU nation's rich history, culture, and traditions. Maybe Merkel was trying to be humanitarian, or maybe Germany needs a labor force, but you cannot open borders to a flood of people "from far away" who are mostly poor, cling understandably to a very different religion and culture for their sense of security, and are reluctant to integrate and be integrated into European culture.
The refugee crisis was predicted several decades ago, as was climate change, but all evidence indicates humans, especially in politics, are not good at planning ahead of a crisis or anticipating the consequences of their decisions.
14
I'll take peace and prosperity over national identity, every time. My personal comfort, financial security, and life satisfaction, is way more important to me than being an American (which isn't so popular, or admired, these days, anyway.) Canada, I'm retired, and not working, but I have some money to support me--can I emigrate, anyway? Please?
2
Funny how this article blames 2 world wars in Europe on the demands of the masses of citizens. I rather think it was the elite leaders of Europe who wanted the wars and created the policies that caused them.
19
The refugee invasion is destroying NATO and the European Union. The EU wants to be Politically Correct but the people want their national identity.
23
The pivotal facts are ignored. Why do refugees exist? Because their countries of origin have fallen into disorder or because they belong to a discriminated group. And: why do the great nations not impose order on the world (I mean the world's first ten nations)? First, because they loot the populations of the world to attract human capital, the world's most valuable resource, to their countries. The brain drain (the gene drain). And second, because the great countries further use the entire world as the suppplier of their needs. When they need minerals, or energy sources, or food, or cheap labor, or anything, they go around the world and find it and take it. Eventually their immorality comes home to roost: first, immigrant populations from exploited countries swamp them (and this is only BEGINNING to happen). Also, countries become so disordered that they become unsafe for investment and capital is condemned to swirl around in the capital markets, creating bubbles and concentrating wealth that, increasingly, is based on nothing. And,,leaving two-thirds of the countries of the world with no capital and no projects and no infrastructure and no social services and no jobs. China's massive international development program has now run into this impoverishment of the world: it is being limited because the recipient countries simply cannot pay- Here's how this ends: the rich (0.01%) take all the money and then the poor (99.99%) have no money to buy anything. And everything stops.
9
A border is a means of security and order. The U.S. works because our federal government is tasked with and provides a robust external border so there is little need for stringent border enforcement internally among the states. The EU does not have a functioning federal border patrol or a unified disaster response organization equivalent to our FEMA. It is one thing to have free movement of goods between common markets, but another to have free flows of people requiring massive social services. The EU evolved from the European Common Market, which works well, into a European federal government, which it was not designed for and fails miserably in it’s attempts. Over population, technology growth, and climate change will stress test the EU in the near future and any realist knows it will shatter along nationalistic fault lines out of self preservation.
18
The US isn't working in case you didn't notice. We have a minority of US citizens who control all 3 branches of the government. Our courts are being packed and most of our public institutions including the military is being privatized.
1
I wonder if many people know that the idea of the EU, based on the Schuman Doctrine, was heavily pushed by the Truman Administration. The Europeans were very skeptical but the Americans twisted their arms and the CIA funded public relations campaigns to convince the populations. Why was this done? The Americans wanted a unified Europe because they believed it would be easier to manage in the expected war with the USSR. The USA only cared about the EU because they believed it would be beneficial in the Cold War.
6
That's not accurate and is a very Ameri-centric view of the EU history. In fact, the origin of the EU was the Common Market, a trade agreement much like NAFTA. Charles de Gaulle envisioned the expansion of the common market into a political union which would eliminate war on the continent. The US considered de Gaulle's "third way" as a threat to American dominance. There is little evidence that the CIA had any involvement in creating the EU.
9
The whole immigration thing is just a hate-anger-fear rallying cry for the Top 1% Global Financial Elite International Mafia Robber Baron/radical religion Good Old Boys' cabal, just as their attempts to persuade us that "christianity' is under attack is a smoke screen while they try to rob us blind.
They feel their power slipping. They WANT war. It's profitable for them and creates chaos so people don't pay attention to how they are robbing us blind and destroying OUR lives in their demented quest for power.
NOW is the time to stop them, before they can wage WW3. The Con Don, Putin, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Duerte. Sisi and the other supposed "strong" men who are being money-mastered into office around the world think they are winning.
Sorry, boys and girls. The vast majority of average people around the world do not agree with your death-destruction-rape-pillage-plunder- LIES, LIES, LIES- WAR vision for OUR world.
WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones who can/will stop you and WE are coming for you in every election in the foreseeable future. WE will make your lives living hell by confronting you and your family at every opportunity, at work, at home, at election offices and through marches, rallies and demonstrations. Most important WE will use OUR votes to throw you out of OUR governments at every level.
WE are many. You are a few weak, fearful inherited/stolen wealth, socially unconscious greedsters. Time for you to be thrown onto the heap of bad ideas forever.
7
njglea,
When you decide to comment you don't hold back, which is admirable.
There is nothing in the general gist of what you say that is untrue, in fact volumes could be written about the methods used by the elites, the .01%ters, the Masters of Mankinds' quiet insidious takeover of the wealth of our planet, and the now nearly complete disenfranchisement of the people, from having any say in their future, a likely terrible future.
I wish I had your optimism with respect to taking on these charlatans, and perhaps winning.
Eventually, decades ahead, as basic survival becomes a daily major effort, people will slowly unify, slowly, because the effect of the demoralizing tactics of the rulers will be long lasting.
Its likely we are witnessing the birthing of Orwells dystopian reality, with the elevation of Trump being a sign that if we ignore what is occurring, life, for the masses, in these United States, and throughout the world, will become the hopeless listless existence depicted in his 1984 story.
1
Max Fischer's penetrating analysis exposes the challenges that confront all multiethnic societies when there's no prevailing common identity. It also begs comparison with the multinational Habsburg empire that, like the EU, provided a quality of life far better to countries farther east and south, but could never create a common identity that could supplant the ethnic ties that divided its dozen language groups. Until World War I its citizens enjoyed its benefits without having to surrender their cherished separate identities, much as EU citizens could prior to 2015. Deja vu.
8
The European elite thought they had the answer and used the Trojan horse of ease of passage and financial integration to lull the masses. While I'm sure their goals were noble their tactics reeked of paternalism. It is indeed a grand experiment to bring so many countries and cultures into one tent. This is nothing like the US which for the most part had much in common when it became a country. Perhaps Europe should have kept the confederation loose until a few more generations went through the system. However unelected bureaucrats could not help themselves and started taking power. Hopefully the EU relinquishes some power back but that will a hard sell to the true believers. Bureaucracy is the greatest form of repression and we are seeing it play out before us.
14
There will be over one billion inhabitants in Africa before the mid-century, and climate change will displace tens of millions from around the planet. No way for Europe ( and North America)to escape these realities.
A double goal: helping those people and limiting or even avoiding cataclysm. If one keeps in mind the big unpleasant picture, there is no other choice but a strong, self confident Europe if humanistic values must prevail. The founding fathers far reaching views may be brushed aside in current times but are the only ones to believe in to build a livable future, for everyone.
18
I agree. No walls or camps will stop the movements of people to places that seem to promise a better life. The people of the wealthy western countries must plan ahead--and not for the humanitarian nightmare of concentration camps or the easy appeal to xenophobia that is the building of walls, but for programs to help people and for the constant message that we are all human beings and we must work together to make this life work for as many of us as possible. I do not think governments can do this alone. We the people of the world must connect and find our own ways to lift each other up, while ever drowning out the voices of division and hate with the practical work that we must undertake if we are to stave off the chaos that authoritarians thrive on.
1
The “founding fathers” had just taken over from the original inhabitants. The Europeans are, more or less, the original inhabitants. They have different sentiments.
2
Word up EU - Perhaps it was only natural at the end of WW II for the Europeans to emulate the United States, but to unify a number of 1000 year old nations proved to be more difficult than to unify 13, 100 year old colonies. Even with border law changes the European Union can still be successful with monetary and trade policies, etc. But perhaps the EU should defend its own borders and at this point grow less dependent on the US and NATO? Perhaps the EU would feel more unity if it saw itself defending its external boarders from the Russians, the terrorists and whatever comes next? The US is about $20 trillion in debt and can not police the entire Earth forever. The EU would be wise to unify for its own defense before the US either can not, or will not do so any longer.
7
There were no "1000-year-old nations" at the end of WWII. Europe lived under feudalism for most of the previous 10 centuries. Class and kinship among the ruling class were the important factors, not "language" and certainly not "culture." Brand of Christianity was the most salient issue beginning in the 16th century and has strong influence today. Territories were divided up continually in those 10 centuries. The "nation state" concept was born and came of age in the 19th century.
9
The why is pretty simple. Everyone ages to have open borders among themselves e.g. all the members of the club agree anyone can come into the other’s house to visit and then one members invites a whole other neighborhood to come in without any consultation.
I’d be ready to leave the club, too!
28
The EU experiment was destined to fail because a few dreamers cannot wipe out a thousand years of history. All the major states in the EU - the U.K., France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy - have been major colonial powers and to this day control lands far from their borders.
A sense of cultural power, identity and language is a lot more strong between the French and the Spanish, than between Virginians and Pennsylvanians.
Nations can be integrated - look at India and its 600 princely states before independence now living under one constitution and one flag - but it is awfully hard. It requires central control of both fiscal and monetary policy, a common flag and a common army.
The EU wanted to have the cake and eat it too. It wanted to protect the legacy of each individual nation but simultaneously impose a collective sense of purpose through rules-based officials in Brussels.
This was bound to happen.
18
Yeah - and one currency with radically different tax systems: crazy.
2
People are people, and for better or worse prefer their own. Culture, language, history, national pride etc. They also are highly resistant to being governed from abroad.
34
I question of the Euro Crisis had anything to do about what is going on with national identity. It was more like a feud between the EC, the World Bank and the IMF with average European citizens that had no hand in the collapse but yet was paying the price for the failures in policy that preceded it.
As for the other issues: after 9/11, security concerns caused serious issues with air travel in the world. After time, we found both procedural and technological solutions (although not without controversy or headaches along the way). There are solutions that do not require caging people like the U.S. has. The only reason the situation is so bad is because the top of the pyramid ignored the problem for so long.
If national leaders had addressed serious economic issues on both sides of the Atlantic over the past 20 years ago, we may not be here today.
2
you forget -- maybe -- the role of post 2008 austerity. at the same time refugees head en masse to europe, european leaders implemented austerity policies for european wokrkers. government spending and wages were slashed for citizens while minimal programs to aid refugees were instituted. what we are seeing is a the predictable result of specific policies. not the mystical mumbo jumbo of nationalism. the role of europe and america in directly causing the refugee crisis from the middle east is a subject for another day
8
It goes without saying, of course, that the USA is wrestling with the same issues of national and regional identity. Colonies planted by several European nations — colonies which spoke different languages and adhered to different laws and were established on this soil with varying models of society — came together, gradually, into a Union, first of necessity, then by agreement which included a very weak federal government, then by agreement which required states to cede power to the whole. We have never been at ease with that last step, and that unease was exacerbated by the severe conflicts of the Civil War and the Civil Rights era, each of which advanced human rights and freedom immeasurably, but at the cost of wounds we have been unable to heal. Now we, like Europe, face the anger of those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that their local and particular identity is threatened by the advent of a larger and more spacious one. There are no easy answers for any of these questions.
4
The main structural problems are that the EU did not nationalize debt and EU not is not supreme. A common currency doesn't join individual states without also nationalizing debt. So long as each state can go its own way, they remain separate. The US nationalized debt of states after the revolution, making every state equal. US federal law from the beginning has been the supreme law of the land. Europe is still separate states, and will remain so, unless there is true integration into a nation. Immigration is a symptom, not a cause, of the weakness of the EU as a union. When immigrants from Europe came to the US, they were leaving Europe behind and adopting a new approach to country. That has never happened in Europe and probably never will. Throughout Europe, the question always is "What are you?" So long as that is the attitude, there will be no structural European unity - just the same old little nation states that cannot get along.
10
One of the issues in internal migrations is the level of labor restrictions in each country. Germany requires educations (2 year programs) and/or apprenticeship to qualify for many jobs, while the UK is more wide open. This is why there are more Poles working in England than in next door Germany. That is why there are migrant camps at Calais waiting to get a job in England.
Germany has been quietly taking care of it's native workers, it's now just more visible.
The debate should be if other countries should follow the German model.
The UK rejected it, and opted out of the EU. Should it have stayed in the EU and just tightened its labor market to basically exclude non-local workers the way Germany does? Business would hate it as they loose low cost workers, the Left would hate it because it sounds discriminatory - and now you have the unholy alliance that gave you BREXIT.
Should the US and Canada overhaul their Worker Visa rules, as they give all the negotiating befits to the Company/Employer and depress wages through low cost workers that can be fired and sent back at any time. I would covert the Visas to actual Legal Immigrant Status - that way more wage negotiating power is given to the employee.
5
This article repeats the confusion frequently shown in news reporting.
The E.U. is not Europe.
In the same way that U.S.A. is not America.
6
There is no confusion. We all know what these terms mean in common usage. It's a settled matter save for the occasional pedant.
3
For a different take on the EU, and the long history of pan-European unity and the world/s prior to now -- look at writer Stefan Zweig's 1942 autobiography "A Farewell to Europe." It was the two World Wars that shaped the foundation for national unity/distrust, for immigrant intolerance, and more. Despite the founding of the EU, a baseline of nation-state territorialism had been laid. Though change is inevitable, and pre-WWI life itself was hardly idyllic for all, borders, passports, visas, walls, currency exchange, and the like did not create the kind of protectionism we now take for granted.
This is NOT to call for a return to monarchies and such - but the awareness that citizens (and leaders!) of nation-states, even in a collective agreement, can revert to tribalism when naiveté, anxiety, anger, and fear reside beneath -- and on top of -- more laudable goals. The day after Zweig sent his autobiography to his publisher in 1942, fyi, he and his wife took their own lives, unwilling to go further into the cataclysm of a shattered world.
3
Generally speaking, not a great deal of currency conversion was required in pre 1914 Europe, due to the gold standard. Sovereigns, say, would pass anywhere.
1
Let us not forget that the EU migrant crisis was caused in large part by American's wars and military adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya that made those countries unlivable. sending their desperate populations fleeing to seek any way of keeping themselves and their children alive.
Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Palestine are in hell, and American foreign policies contributed to these wretched conditions too.
More than 50 million women, children and men are now refugees in that part of the world, a figure so staggering it is hard for the mind to conceive. And how many of these refugee crises could be marked "Made in the USA?"
18
Sure - the failure to control birth rates in Africa is America's fault, the low standing of women in Africa is America's fault, the corruption of so many African governments is America's fault - don't look now, by the way, but China is busily colonising Africa economically. I wonder if they'll then blame it all on China. Do you know how much money the West has funneled into Africa, how many appeals Oxfam and the rest of the lot have begged for over and over again to stave off the latest "humanitarian crisis" brought on by yet another drought, and in the footage you see women with five children clinging to them?
I know it's both easy and satisfying to blame the West for why Africa never turned into Europe, but you know - it's rather an oversimplification. 500 years ago, Europe hadn't set foot in Africa, and Europe already had Shakespeare, philosophers, great universities, literacy - while Africa, excepting the Egyptians of course, hadn't come up with so much as an alphabet, never mind the printing press and universities.
Africa just didn't succeed the way Europe did, for a wide range of reasons. The bottom line is, everything Africa has of modernity: technology, medicines, vaccines, parliamentary government, literacy, etc., it got from the Wicked Wicked West.
6
And the fact that the US then abdicated it's responsibility to help Europe mitigate the impact of thousands of refugees by taking our fair share of them.
We could have done so much more, as well as begin changing the ISIS hate narrative brainwashing amongst refugees by the radicals by demonstrating kindness.
Instead, we retreated in fear with our hammers and continue looking for nails to pound. It's a repeated and vicious cycle that calls for new solutions.
1
Let us also not forget that the troubles in those countries and elsewhere began long before the US got involved, dating back to European colonies and Euro-geopolitics, especially after WWII.
3
If the French lose their Frenchness or the Italians lose their Italianness, then the whole world loses.
34
This article addresses a serious problem but also contributes to it by reporting/repeating in an unbalanced way the populist claims. I am certain, that there are many Europeans who see more in the Union than perks, and who know what it is to suffer from war and persecution. Articles like this should not focus on the spectacular, on the all the tools of populists, and on the people to follow them. There are dangers, and identifying the dangers is a proper role for the media, but they need to work harder and also find the less flashy, more serious thoughts people cherish and sacrifice for.
4
You have identified much of media's blind spot in reporting. Covering for the loudest contrarians who offer simple soundbites and drama, but little coverage of those offering sound deliberation and reasoned evidence that can't be wrapped up into nice, neat headlines.
I often much prefer the long form of documentaries and podcast, and programs like Frontline that delve below the surface of issues and provide better context.
1
America has melted down over a simple question of borders. Why not Europe?
11
Fortress Europe is at it again.
1
I get that you are terribly disappointed in Merkel, but this article is as ignorant as it is idiotic. First off, if you read German and had followed the German media, you would have known that Merkel backpedaled on migration two years ago, when she brokered a deal with Erdogan, and instituted border controls.
As a matter of fact, Schengen has been suspended hundreds of times (before G-7 summits for instance), and here is how it works: Police is stationed at border crossings, airports, and train stations and pulls overs cars and checks the papers of passengers. Does this involve racial profiling? Absolutely. Do all migrants get caught? No. But it works well enough.
And then there is your ur-American left-wing definition of nationalism, which is tied to the migration of people of non-European ancestry. Yes, there are plenty of nationalist racists in Europe who don't like the EU (though in smaller numbers than in the US). But if anything, Europeans are Islamophobic, and not necessarily resentful of the EU and other Europeans.
For instance, Catalonia and Scotland would want to remain in the EU if they gained independence, as would Seehofer's Bavarians if they ever seriously considered leaving Germany. And as matter of fact, regional nationalisms have flourished recently, because of the European project is attractive, and offers a way out of 19th century nation states, which like Italy, Germany, and Spain encompass strong regional cultures and multiple traditions of statehood.
12
Give it a rest, will you? The European project was never about equality among nations, it was about imperialism and economic exploitation of "inferior" people like Italians, Portuguese and Greeks by "superior" Germanic and Anglo-Saxon cultures; only this time by peaceful means. As recent research has shown, right-wing and fascist ideologues were heavily involved in the earliest planning for the EU. Those chickens are coming home to roost.
13
Well said - the wholesale worship of the EU by people who don't live inside it is absolutely staggering, despite the glaring inequality of power amongst the 28 nations. As if, you know, Latvia and Germany had equal standing in the setting of economic and political policies!
I doubt anyone will listen, though, particularly the liberal left.
2
I thought it was because Germans thought it would make it easier for them to get to the nice beaches. To me that made practical sense.
..Europe could Melt Down...? This is only the typical American Press playing up Fascist Forces & Mocking the efforts of Leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel to Stand Up for Human Values. This is the same American Press which nurtured the 21st century frankenstein Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Elections. Over the last 9 months the American Press has missed no opportunity to spell Doom for Chancellor Merkel’s relentless fight against Fascist Populist Forces in Germany & Europe. In stark contrast, the German & French Press have always supported Chancellor Merkel’s Championship of Human Values even while warning against the workings of populist nationalist fascist forces. Now Chancellor Merkel has once again Triumphed on the issue of Immigration with a European Solution promoting Human Values.
The American Press must learn to practice its Duty in 21st Century democracy from the responsible Press in Germany & France.
1
For some people their identity and culture is more important than money, their financial condition. Congrats to the New York Times for finally figuring this out.
29
Remember, for humans, like all other species, it all revolves around territoriallity. Your niche, your space, where your economy and reproductive success can survive and prosper.
1
We expected too much from Europeans when in our own country we have states that can't agree on capital punishment, abortion, cannabis, etc. -- and we've been a nation for over 200 years. As we become increasingly more polarized I wonder if we expected too much from ourselves.
1
Now we understand why Britain passed Brexit. The Brits want to keep their nation integrity. They do not want to be diluted by Merkel's immigrants.
25
The Brits gutlessly prevented their own citizens from coming home when China took back Hong Kong.
The British empire was one of the most diverse in world history spanning the globe. They even have a mail box on Antarctica.
They're national identity is a fallen empire that has been shriveling, shrinking and become almost irrelevant for almost 2 centuries. Brexit is just another indication that British leadership in the world is becoming irrelevant.
Just imagine what the human world could look like if the weak lead rather than the strong. We see how the converse works in the animal jungle but we supposedly don’t live in that jungle, just our own now. I don’t really think we’re as smart as we think we are.
"...whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation."
If "race-based identity" contributed to bringing disaster "twice in the space of a generation" why is it being touted by a particular political party in the United States as a winning formula?
8
"It might seem strange, then, that such a policy could be seen as indulging public demand."
Why? Why assume the Europeans are any less inclined to shoot themselves in the foot than their ideological brethren across the Atlantic?
1
Intended or not, this story reinforces the conclusion that the U.S. is still humanity's best hope to overcome ancient divisions. The goal of sharing allegiances around ideals of personal freedom and justice, rather than genetics or geography, seems to be working. Thank you for the reminder.
9
The glories of one nation chock-full of people from other lands needs to be tempered with a sense of reality. You live in a 4-bedroom house, have two children. Your spouse learns that 30 co-workers have lost their jobs and are now homeless. Spouse graciously invites these strangers, without consulting you, to live in your house. You protest at the now-teeming household. Are you racist? cruel? Or is the built-in wiring for survival kicking in. Is this a workable situation? Was the bank account for food budget checked? Can you afford the needed bigger house?
41
The elephant (do we still have any?) on the European and world "couch" is human overpopulation driving 28,000,000 migrants worldwide. The world order is under threat because open borders can only lead to constant immigration from primarily Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. Nothing against Muslims, but they have depowered their women's right to choose, get an education, and compete with men in the workplace, all of which determine how many children a woman will choose to bring into this already overcrowded world, including Europe. Furthermore, population density stress is the primary cause of all of our "diseases of civilization" and they are killing us ever more effectively. Crowded animals have reduced fertility and fecundity, just like Europe currently. However, this effect is much studied with lab animals and ultimately ends with species extinction. This runaway train is headed for a bad end and open borders are part of the problem. Muslim countries (and Catholic, as well) will only be forced to change their cultures and give women reproductive choice when they can no long er feed their starving children or are dying from AIDS. What the prescient Malthus called "misery and vice". The great European migrations to the Americas saved Europe then, but there are no more frontiers, unless we infect other planets with our unwanted billions. This is not a difficult problem, if we're willing to face the truth. Stress R Us
18
Denying the facts of over population is central to liberal thinking in the west. The right relies on their "holy books" to excuse having lots of kids. Nature and the planet however, are only interested in the numbers and it is clear to anyone without a political agenda that we are moving toward disaster if we do not come to grips with the fact that the planet cannot support the number of people we have now or are expected under our current projections.
1
Why should immigrants assimilate. That is xenophobia.
3
Folks - this is only the start and everyone knows it.
Nigeria alone will have a population larger than the US and close to the total population of the EU by 2050. We are on a trajectory for a major human catastrophe at a level that will dwarf the two world wars last century.
So, what do we do? Open doors / Close doors?
If we learnt anything from Merkel's 2015 decision to open the borders it is that you cannot make society altering decisions without the democratic mandate from citizens. At least in a democracy, you can't.
Her decision has clearly destabilized Europe. The largest survey conducted on the reasons behind the Brexit "Leave" vote should that migration was the key issue. There is no doubt that a sense of "loss of control" was magnified by TV scenes of thousands of migrants passing uncontrolled across the continent with Police helpless to stop them.
As a European, and as a humanist, I think the right thing to do is to protect the stability of Europe. If the EU fails, if Europe crumbles, far more life will be lost.
42
The numbers are clear for all to see. The globalization of the economy is near complete, the globalization of population is beginning. If allowed to continue, everywhere will look the same. Over crowded, poverty stricken, resource depleted, polluted, in economic free fall. As a species we have opted for quantity over quality. The left continues to tell us that all that diversity "makes us stronger". Africa is incredibly diverse. The problem is, when it is that crowded, it doesn't matter how diverse a place is, it all boils down to a grim struggle for survival and all the PC arm waving in the world doesn't change that.
2
The US started as union of very similar "states" (same language and history) and it continued by constantly having external enemies (Indians, Mexico, Canada, UK). Having a common enemy is a strong identity builder.
Those things are not present in the EU and for that reason a "United States of Europe" was doomed from the start.
Unfortunately the Eurocrat bubble in Brussels has a dynamic of its own and has continued building the "ever closer union" - a term that with me always evokes the image of a tightrope.
The present immigration problems are just a symptom of the damage that the overreach from Brussels is causing. Just remember that there wouldn't be a Brexit if Brussels had allowed its member states a bit more freedom to regulate its borders.
12
We had the American Civil War because the states were not economically and culturally homogenous
Great article and one that should be read over and over by anyone in politics who is thinking about engaging in social engineering.
7
Europe, close your borders. US, close your border, mandate e-verify, stop chain migration and the visa lottery. Go after those who overstay their visas. The West cannot take in the billions of the worlds poor. They have to fix their own nations which includes birth control and one child only, which worked quite well for China.
45
National identity is not nationalism (nationalismus in German, pronounced natsi̯onaˈlɪsmʊs, natzionalismus). Nationalism is the violent twin-brother of patriotism, racism is it's malevolent half-sister. That is the lesson Europeans learned from a half-century of industrialized slaughter brought on by populist rabble-rousing. "Never again" is the pledge made against the return of madness and the foundation of European integration.
Identity is culture, culture is language. Neither one is a static, permanent structure, but an ever-evolving process of assimilation and adaptation, i.e. progress.
It took ten years to sort out the refugee problem created by WWll. The mess created by military adventurism in the Middle East will not be resolved overnight.
13
Security and prosperity. Promises the political elite guaranteed when the EU and the Euro were created. And for a while, it was working relatively well.
But then came the economic crisis of 2008 and the massive financial bailout of Greece. That promise of prosperity started to seem dodgy, especially when people learned that Greek politicians had been lying about the scope of their financial problems leading up to the crisis. "How could the EU not know this was happening", people asked. This shock turned to outright anger when people learned that the designers of the Euro initially didn't think Greece qualified for inclusion due to their shaky economy, but in the end were allowed to join due to German intervention.
Then came the migrant crisis that started in 2015 and the threat of Islamic terrorism. While waves of migrants arrived on European beaches, EU leaders basically sat and watched, unable to arrive at a collective agreement to stop the influx. Maybe they were more concerned about their personal legacy than developing a comprehensive solution that was sure to leave an unpleasant aftertaste. After all, what mainstream politician wants to be remembered for deportations and internment camps, practices more identified with the Nazis, the Communists and others from Europe's dark past. Europeans started to feel far less secure as they watched their leaders come up with one ineffective solution after the other.
7
Europe s treatment of refugees is much harsher and barbaric compared to the us
4
It is remarkable that Progressives can feel this way:
“Maybe when populists talk about restoring sovereignty and national identity, it’s not just a euphemism for anti-refugee sentiment (although such sentiment is indeed rife). Maybe they mean it.”
But when it comes to their own countrymen feeling the same way, Progressives spew rage that it must be racism or some form of White Supremacy.
25
Each European country has a unique culture. Every European I know believes that these cultures are worth preserving. To suggest that these "nationalistic" impulses are dangerous is to imply that people have no right to preserve their cultures.
The curse of liberal morality is that there are no limits on helping those whom liberals believe to be downtrodden and victimized. Yet, countries have always had the right to impose limits on immigrants and refugees that they will accept. The concept that anyone who enters the country by whatever means has to be accepted is just ridiculous. The NYT keeps repeating the line that the refugee issue is significantly decreased, implying that no one should prepare for the problem to recur. It demonstrates how propaganda, repeated often enough, becomes reality.
The other curse of liberal morality is that they believe everyone should be treated equally. So, someone who believes in a dogma that is misogynist, violent and racist should be as acceptable as one belonging to a culture that spent the last 500 years fighting for enlightenment. To criticize Islam and its adherents is Islamophobic, as if Martin Luther was Catholophobic. Kebab shops are as acceptable as the cafes of Vienna. The liberal version of "let the market decide".
At some point people throw up their hands and vote for extremists, because they are the only ones able to put limits on this nonsensical liberal thinking. Talking only leads to being accused of racism and immorality.
32
The ideal of vasudhaiva kutumbakam - the whole world as one family is possible if God is placed in the center. One can treat others as brothers only after acknowledging the common father.
6
I wonder if anyone has considered that this attitude might indeed become popular here in these so-called "United" States.
More and more, it seems that the individual states are acting as so many individual countries -- at least, politically. We travel easily, now, from one state (red) to its neighbour (blue), and find ourselves in a completely different social and political opinion. This is how it now seems in the modern Europe.
While this doesn't seem like a possible idea now, fifty years ago it didn't seem like a possible idea in Europe, when the European Union was being formed.
Hot heads and ideas cemented in concrete are not the way to guarantee a free world for everyone.
My compliments to Max Fisher: a nicely written, balanced, and--I am afraid--realistic article. I only wonder why nobody mentions the problem entailed by different languages.
5
Merkel is directly to blame for this.
Open borders were intended to be between the EU states and not to millions or migrants from the Middle East and Africa, free to roam across Europe.
33
Europa visionaries made significant progress in uniting the continent, making war an obsolete method for problem solving. As long as EU focused on free movement of land, labor, goods and capital things ran smoothly. Creating an European identity on political and social lines went too far and some EU citizens resented Brussels interference in those areas and continued to resist that intrusion. The refugee or migrant crisis was a game changer that allowed populists and opportunists to expose the "threat" to those things people held closely. Now the elitists politicians in Berlin and elsewhere are faced with bringing down the whole Europa idea by allowing millions of people from distant cultures into the center of Europe without adequate controls over who was entering the countries and why. The Europeans I talk to are livid with the politicians in the EU and some capitals for allowing this indiscriminate migration. There are some real refugee cases but around 70% of those migrants are men between 18-25 years old. People are fed up with the amount of money the governments are spending on this issue, but more importantly, people are reasonably fearful that some "refugee" will rape their women, rob them, or stab the with a knife. These are not imagined fears and the news travels quickly. The politicians better do something fast or the whole EU project might collapse.
7
I think we have to free ourselves of the idea that preserving culture and putting down lines is automatically bad or racist. While the hard right wing is vile, it doesn't mean western democracies can't talk reasonably, sensibly and make deliberate decisions about the shape our societies take.
20
Merkel is completely disingenous.
She wanted her place in history thinking she could import some factory workers and it would work out like the clean living hard working Turks a generation earlier.
Egged on by the virtue signallers (I dont call them left because the true left wants to decrease population and so migration) she made the most naive decision and threw open the doors.
Now she is pretending this is something to do with sharing of burden when it was she, and she alone who did this, created Brexit and brought us Trump.
No, Merkel, the first world does not have to accommodate every poor person in the third world. Because now its different. They all have phones and want what we have, and if we throw open the doors billions, yes billions will come and destroy what is here.
There are too many people. Way to many.
Birth control is the only answer.
29
The assumption that the influx of Muslim migrants is what is threatening the cohesion of the EU is mistaken. It is merely the straw that is breaking the camel's back. Rank and file Europeans have come to understand that the EU is simply another word for Germany and German domination; that once again the German sense of superiority, entitlement, power and 'uber alles'-ness is imposing its economic, political, cultural will on all the inferior nations, which means all other European states. Ironically this is most keenly felt in the more marginal countries like Hungary, and less so by France which deludes itself yet again into a sense of parity with the vastly more powerful and determined Deutschevolk. Indeed it may well turn out that the 'refugee' problem will have been a godsend and may save Europe from a third German driven transcontinental catastrophe in a century, and the need once again, for a bailout by the United States.
8
I am not at all what one would call a right leaning person or a republican or a Trumpist. But I start to think that multiculturalsim may not be a good concept. Of course, there have always been countries with mixed religions such as Nepal. But in general, it is difficult to integrate cultures into other cultures. Often biology is underestimated when feminists spread their ideology. Often DNA is underestimated when sociologists make studies. The same holds for the underestimation of culture. I have collegues who came from other countries 15 years ago, but, for example, still they consider women as less valuable than men. After 15 years in Switzerland they didnt change their mindset, which seems deeply shaped by their parents.
Cultural differences are large!
Moreover, we are being cheated by big companies and states when it comes to their "openmindedness". States want cheap labor and economic growth (for example, if Switzerland didnt have certain influx of people, the construction industry would collapse). Big companies (like Google) want the highest section of high IQ people. So, no wonder they are pro-immigration; the more people they can sieve for high IQ, the better. Then when one immigrant out of 1000 manages to work at Google, everyone cheers it as a success story of immigration.
Nevertheless, these above-mentioned facts must not lead us to vote for demagogues such as Trump. We must help other countries. We must help people in danger and let them find rescue.
9
Of course racial profiling will work. All the migrants arriving in Europe look significantly different that the Europeans, it is a no brainer.
7
There is a myth among liberals in the U.S. that undocumented immigrant workers "pay taxes." If a majority of them are working "under the table" and paid in cash- they are not paying taxes. The IRS estimates there are over 1.2 million illegal residents using fraudulent SSN's. Those people are paying taxes - but many do not file a federal return. The other liberal myth is that every time an illegal resident buys diapers at Walmart or a tank of gas at Costco- they are somehow contributing to the domestic economy - this may be true in states that have a "sales tax" - but most states don't. And here's what grabs my goat: 60% of all revenue earned by illegal labor is wired back to Mexico- where the Mexican government rakes in millions of dollars in transfer fees - no wonder they want them to come here. The solution is let them in- but have them taxed differently and do everything we can to keep their money in the U.S. to fund public education and health services - the two services which the undocumented routinely exploit. You welcome to come here -- but please pay your fair share- Reality is many of them don't and they are just gaming the system for a free ride.
31
Your comments are very astute and totally on point but do not expect many “Recommends” from your comments based on who we all know reads the Times. I would like to award you 100 recommends. Congratulations!
7
I believe your comment belongs with another article or you need to re-read this one.
2
Undocumented immigrants pay sales tax. Money paid under the table still enters the economy and taxes are taken at the grocery store, etc. and therefore helps the economy, despite your assertions to the contrary.
“One option is to screen selectively for possible refugees; in essence, racial profiling.”
Anyone who has traveled around Europe, especially from Italy into Austria, Switzerland, or France knows that racial profiling has been going on for years. Whether it’s police dogs coming on to busses or security on trains it’s clear as day that they are going directly to people that look Middle-Eastern or African.
2
Agree. I currently live in Sicily and one constantly sees trucks and vans pulled over on the roads to check for migrants. Especially if the driver in not light skinned enough.
This could be solved so easily. Brussels should just explain to the countries of the EU that their traditions are not important and that many are obnoxious anyway and they should listen to their betters, the leaders in Brussels.
12
I think Merkel will solve all the problems that Europe has, she is smart person.
1
"National policy is *suborned*, on some issues, to the vetoes and powers of the larger union."
Subordinated?
3
I would not be surprised when the first concept of open borders within the EU was discussed, it was based upon the merits of free trade and travel. All the countries still had their nationality and cultural identity. A Frenchman was a Frenchman, a Brit was a Brit.
But as the EU grew, and became very unwieldy, the free borders policy was not about free trade, but legal immigration. It is misused by people of the poorer/eastern block countries as a way to legally emigrate to the wealthier countries.
Ironically those who abused it in the past are the ones complaining the most today.
4
"I would not be surprised when the first concept of open borders within the EU was discussed, it was based upon the merits of free trade and travel."
It was based on an explicite principle of "Free Movement of Persons" also. This aspect has been very important, particularly as response on the Iron Curtain fences. All foreigners allowed to enter EU should reap benefits also. Before Schengen border controls were already eased. But nobody had ever the idea to favour unauthorised persons in EU by this. The simple idea was "Once carefully examined when entering - then free movement in entire Schengen area when cleared"
But this system is completely dysfunctional when there is no check on arrival, later controls - when crossing internal borders or by simple identity checks - are forbidden or always deemed as racist or what else, legal procedures are open to abuse and excessively long and finally justified and necessary extraditions cannot be enforced in practise.
Internal freedom of movement and Schengen were never intended to favour such grievances but because of the practical "no control" effect enabling abuse it became an element of the defects.
In the moment control of external borders is the only viable way. Substantial reforms of EU Asylum laws including uniform legal procedures are badly required but beyond reach. Reforms to tighten national laws can easily circumvented by changing countries abusing open borders, known as "asylum tourism" in practise for a long time.
1
To be continued:
But as long as there is no working protection of external borders and as long as the result of an exaggerated open borders-policy is enable to free-float all around Europe by Schengen all effective measures like internal controls and checks are required just to stem the issues and to get things as straight as possible step by step until the situation is mastered again. We can only do this by solving most factual problems involved and not by yelling "xenophobic" and "racist" hundred times a day.
This is why Mr. Macron had closed French borders 2 years ago and Mr. Seehofer had tried to get back to a working check-and-control policy in Germany recently bitterly combated by Ms. Merkel and her - in this case few - friends.
This debate was sometimes fully covered by clouds of absurd spin by incompetent and/or malevolent people or hopelessly naive gooddoers even in political parties. Irrational
This is not perfect, an "European solution" would have been a bettter choice, no doubt about it. But there is no and there will be no so every nation has to use what it can do now anyhow.
When this crisis is over even RW populists will come back to pleas to open inner borders again. No AfD or PVV (NL) or Dansk Folkeparti (DK) voters love half an hour delay at the Brenner on their way to their beloved Lake Garda. This "close the borders" debate is all about illegal immigrants and nothing else. The issue was raised by this and it will go away with it.
Analysts have already predicted that rising seas, extreme temperatures, drought and weather events will result in mass migration on a scale we can only imagine, and it might happen sooner than we think. How do we prepare for a global flow of people in search of potable water and dry land? If Europe cannot solve immigration on this small scale, what will happen when the real migrations begin?
3
Who's to say the migrations will be INTO Europe at that point?
1
I noticed recent articles on this issue point out that refugees are no longer arriving in great numbers. This is being reported problem solved” as if refugees could never ever begin arriving in large numbers again.
7
It has NEVER been "Catalonia for the Catalans." Please get your facts straight. Catalan identity is not racial or ethnic, but above all social and civic, a democratic space of possibility in which people give particular substance to their forms of participation. Often this is linguistic; we share a common language, Catalan, although this does not diminish the fact that more than 200 languages are spoken here. Among my own friends, colleagues and acquaintances, there are people with Spanish, Italian, Finnish, Moroccan and French surnames. The current Catalan minister of labor, social affairs and families is Chakir El Homrani, a Catalan of Moroccan ancestry. The Catalan government's attempts to accept and resettle refugees have until recently been systematically frustrated by the right-wing party that governed Spain from 2011 until last month.
4
Even if borders remain as open as they currently are, Germany will never be overrun by the French, France will never become predominantly Spanish. German will always be the lingua franca in Austria. And Hungary will always be almost completely homogenous, no matter what baseless fears Viktor spews forth. The same is true for every European country. None of them will ever lose their "identity". This "melt down" is a complex, perfectly executed, Putin fabricated ploy to entrench corrupt, authoritarian regimes - it's that simple.
2
It is hard to read all the comments about it's only natural to hang on to one's cultural heritage like some mass immigration is going to come in and destroy it. Really? America is the greatest country in the world because it is multicultural. No country on this planet that is unicultural has our advantage. Asia has to steal or copy all its technology, Japan is losing population, Europe needs our protection to survive, most of the rest are religious states, authoritarian regimes, or poor and corrupt. Immigration is an asset when embraced and allowed to develop. Multiculturalism and Globalism does not negate one's heritage. It is the only viable future. The young know this and embrace it. We have only one place, Earth, and lets get on and unify it. This will be the future, or we have no future. Go ahead, call me naive. I see no hope in your clinging to a tribalist "ideal" past. It is a dead end.
This article is nonsense and tries to tiptoe around the main issue the EU is facing. The immigrants have vastly different cultural values and many, if not most, are Muslims. This situation was not envisioned when Jean Monnet et al were proposing European unification. It is one thing to erase borders when the cultural differences between different countries are slight. But that is not the situation now and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
If it was simply a matter of you going to your mosque and I going to my church, or not go at all, and we break bread together afterward, much of the present problem would not exist. But many, though not all, of the Muslims have no intention of assimilating into European society under conditions that respect European values of tolerance and modern attitudes toward women. Rather than adopt European values, they insist that Europe become Muslim. The author largely ignores this.
Also, the author's emphasis on the lower level of immigration is fatuous. The only reason for the decline is the recent and understandable fury over the clear threat to European values from large scale immigration. And the population trajectory of Africa makes it obvious for all but the willfully blind that the European ideal will end well before Africa becomes politically stable enough to stop sending its citizens across the Mediterranean.
20
Once we were a league of nations buy now we have the scourge of globalisation.
The problem is we have deified the economy and it just can't be all about the economy.
A world with borders and a wonderful diversity of nations, races, cultures, traditions, religions and even economies is a far better world than a homogeneous McWorld.
11
Especially when Australia can be kept mostly white, no?
Those of us with historical knowledge of Europe in the last century would be amazed at the lack thereof among the last two European generations. Oftentimes they do not even really identify with their nation (Germany) but more closely with their region (Bavaria), forget any kind of EU identity felt by Europeans. Also, very few young people know or understand what happened in WWII and who was on which side, so it is an easy stretch to see the same right wing nationalist tendencies appear as in the 1930s. Just scary how little the human race appears to learn about self-destruction through hateful politics.
1
The migrants want a better life in America and Europe.
The harsh, harsh truth is that 'better life' can ONLY come at the expense of the good lives of many who already live in America and Europe.
Life is a zero sum game. You cannot do well unless it is at someone else's expense.
It is only rational that the people who already live in America and Europe don't want to forfeit their lives so that foreigners can do better. Who can blame them for that?
8
"Life is a zero sum game. You cannot do well unless it is at someone else's expense."
I think this gets it backwards. You cannot do well if it is at someone else's expense. Of course, it depends on what one means by doing well. What is a life well-lived? You seem to be saying that a life well-lived is one that oppresses others to gain some advantage over them. I would counter that such a life is not worth living. We are all in this together and we need to have one another's backs. If life is a zero-sum game, as you put it, then I'm constantly awaiting for you to stab me in the back. That's not a live well-lived. That's mandatory paranoia.
When it comes to your assertion that life is a zero-sum game, count me as a non-believer. There is more to life than self interest.
1
The EU has created an economic and monetary union before they actually created a political union. The European political union is worse than the states under the Articles of Confederation. At some point Europeans must make a choice to be European first or not. The EU has allowed Europeans to kick this political can down the road. Unless or until the nations in the EU commit to a stronger centralized government, it will not work.
3
Last December, Bloomberg News did a piece on the growing presence of the populist right in Europe. It was called "How the Populist Right is redrawing the Map of Europe". In their analysis of this trend they ask what caused this surge and they write: "Uncontrolled immigration. National sovereignty. Globalization. Disappearing manufacturing jobs. Corrupt elites. Rising income inequality." In this light, given the number of Europeans who are voting for populist leaders, it sure looks like the EU has failed many. Re-establishing borders and taking back sovereignty from Brussels and the Bankers would just be the first of many steps to correct this trend. Rather than "melt down" perhaps "regain autonomy" would be better.
8
Think Europe would sign up for a version of ICE right about now?
It's no wonder that Brexit prevailed. Britain wants no part of this impending disaster.
7
At last, an analysis of the deeply buried racial basis of the imperfectly rational wave of resentment now sweeping the north Atlantic nations.
The author will be denounced as a racist. So what?
In this age when post-modernist sanctimony oozes over society, those working to ameliorate racial antagonisms by dragging them into the light are battered by those whose silly and paranoid claim is that such antagonisms are shallow and recently constructed by the rulers.
At least the north Atlantic Establishments aren't pushers of post-modernism. But otherwise they too seek repression of deep-seated drives. In Europe, they have sought to end primal racial conflict by constructing a humane society behind the backs of the population.
That is, the tool for ending the most deeply hidden motivations of the masses is manipulation.
In the US, the same stealth technique has been used for forty years to overcome the unemployment generated by excessive wages, and then to keep them low by globalization and shifting US industry to the South.
Both are distorted versions of good policies. Their fatal error is contempt for the population.
But people are not as stupid as the manipulators think. They have become aware that they have been deceived and ignored and have become "populists". A good word: it refers to a mass that is ready, finally, to take on the elite which has betrayed them.
Sadly, because of the scorn and default of the Left, it is a Right populism.
4
I'm English. The result of the vote was deeply concerning. But the fact is the referendum should never have been held at all in that form because the "No" vote did not set out the alternative future allowing people each with their own vision of Brexit to come together and outnumber the people who felt upsetting our allies and risking our economic stability was a terrible idea.
Europe will have a tough time trying to negotiate these issues. My concern is that as the effects of climate change kick in, panic over decreasing resources will lead people to support governments that are for closing ranks and borders. We had this same sort of "we can't afford compassion" any more mentality going on in the UK from 2010 onwards after the recession and during the Coalition government. I believe setting the people against each other ("strivers" vs "scroungers", "old vs young", immigrants vs working class") created the ugly national mood that led to the no vote.
3
When the Brits were warned that Russia was pushing Brexit, and trying to dessimate the European Union, they were unbothered. But Russia succeeded. And even better, they put Trump in power in America to complete the destruction of the Western democracies.
Maybe next time, if they remain countries, they will LEARN that the latest frontier of war is in the cybersphere. And HACKING is a very odd term to discuss break-ins, theft and destruction.
Next time, we will all sit up when we see a presidential candidate, Trump, openly calling for Russian assistance.
We live in unimagined bedlam. The chaos in EU is nothing compared to us at home, here in the U.S.
5
" Maybe when populists talk about restoring sovereignty and national identity, it’s not just a euphemism for anti-refugee sentiment (although such sentiment is indeed rife). Maybe they mean it."
Good Lord, this just drips with condescension. No wonder the people in these nations are upset.
10
"The human desire for a strong group identity — and for perceived homogeneity within that group — runs deep."
That's right. Some day we may all be just humans, and I hope I see that day, but we are not there yet. That is the reality.
2
Migration is the hot item for understandable reasons in these times and seeing its cause’s seldom mentioned but easy to find with little effort.
But the notion of a unified Europe never ran deep enough to avoid the underling problems of number one a unified currency – the Euro. Back up five, ten years and that was the hot item in the media – Northern vs., Southern Europe, add Austerity and Brussels and central banking control and another flash point.
Solutions of a sort have been imposed but anger and resentment left raw. Add the additions of Slavic lands still in stressful conditions and EU attraction of linking with the wealthy western democratic nations was drawn very thin, e.g. Poland, Slovakia whose populations rushing west prompted Brexit.
EU prospects not bright – not as perceived – sad. The European Coal and Steel Community such a good idea.
1
I am very proud to be a citizen of the European Union. Like many Europeans I am grateful to European integration for having ended warfare in Europe. I also take delight in the increased cosmopolitan mobility that is due to the end of border controls. I have lived in six European countries and speak seven European languages. But what is most important is that I was a refugee in Europe and therefore have a real solidarity with all immigrants and refugees. I had to leave America forever in 1968 because I was unable to buy health insurance here.
2
The Times’ reporter travelled across Germany with a colleague “heard the same concerns over and over. Vanishing borders. Lost identity. A distrusted establishment. Sovereignty surrendered to the European Union. Too many migrants.“
The same Germans must have complained about crime surge after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1991, when criminal gangs from Eastern Europe – many had served in the military and security apparatus of a communist regime – flooded into Western Europe, where affluent countries saw a crime surge. As many of the criminals had a military background, they didn’t hesitate to be violent and brazen in holdups, and ram-raids on cash machines and luxury jewelry stores etc.
The dilemma is that politicians have a broader vision of the freedom of movement that the EU stands for, than ordinary citizens in general, who have their immediate interests at heart –they just want to live in a familiar and secure environment with law and order. This is where far-right populists score points and offer the return to national borders and nativist policies.
Whether closing borders will reduce crime has become a heated debate in America too, even though we in the West enjoy relative safety most of the times.
7
Why should the misery of the world be the West problem? Because those fleeing their violent and impoverished countries can't or won't change their homeland, we should welcome them, and give them all the benefits our elder and ourselves built ? This is not compassion but foolishness.
We are electing more and more leaders who are want to defend us and our way of life, and they are called extreme right. We experience only a part of what is coming, namely millions upon millions who will insist they have a right to move in. I don't blame any government wanting to close the borders. I blame those organizations that not only bring this economic migrants into our countries, but dare to call us intolerant for not accepting invasions.
15
“Our elder and ourselves built” - We did not build it in isolation. We have long involved mass quantities of laborers from Africa, the Americas, and Asia in our building, and we destabilized or destroyed entire nations in our quest. I don’t think you or I personally are responsible for that, but it cannot be ignored. You are arguing that “winner takes all” - we got what we wanted out of other nations and continents, then retreat into our wealthy homelands convinced that we had no part in the chaos of the rest of the world. I don’t think we need to throw open the borders now, as Merkel once argued. But we have to engage in this complex problem half a century or more in the making - OUR making. I can’t say what that looks like, probably neither the extreme right or left has the answer. But we have to continue to wrestle these complex issues with an understanding of the inheritance our ancestors left the entire world. And that inheritance isn’t just aspiration to equality of the sexes or economic prosperity; it is also the legacy of destabilized and impoverished regions worldwide. I know many people my family would be angry with me for arguing that, calling me indoctrinated by liberal university and media. Do you have another explanation for what centuries of enslavement and colonialism has wrought?
I think back to the time when France and Germany were preparing for war. A Frenchman would read his news in French and a German in his language. Each would interpret events differently and see a different picture. Two World Wars were the outcome. Has it really changed that much? The US colonies were, and states are, united by language. We have more in common than European nations. But there is much more they have in common than with the rest of the world. The world stage is bigger. They need unity to engage with the US, Russia, China. It will slowly work itself out.
1
German was the second language at the time of the Revolutionary War. And was until WW1. When xenophobia rulled. Like what's happening in Europe right now.English beat out the vote for German, as our national language, by a small margin.
1
It's true, nationalism is still very much alive and for obvious reasons. To compare the union of the 13 colonies with Europe's is simply unfair. Europeans have two thousand years of history and wars that determined their national identity, it's not easy to just put that aside when we fought each other for so long.
What is also true though is that each European strongly feels as part of a European civilization that shaped the world into its current form. I think EU leaders should try to play this card if they want to reinforce the European identity, even though it may awaken our colonial past.
3
Max,
I've got news for you, the immigration crisis while it will continue for a long time, will not bring down the EU.
The EU is based on a set of rules that have never been written down, rules that started our from the EU being a "coal and iron union of trade and prosperity" that was made into a social union by a number of leftist dreams that never worked for a day outside politics.
Their ideas of open borders and caring for the entire world simply did not work in the realities of an economy in which people need to earn money before they could spend it and in which differences cannot simply be "defined away".
What happens in the EU is a return of reality that will change some part of the EU but will also strengthen the bloc as it will learn the hard way that you can only stay an open society if you are safe from negative outside influence.
And that sadly needs borders that are closed to uncontrolled migration.
The EU will have to learn that it cannot safe all of Africa and Afghanistan without becoming Africa and Afghanistan.
Once the EU has learned this, the EU will be still around and stronger than ever.
Don't pretend to worry about the EU while in real life you only worry about your own political agenda.
25
I am an American who has lived and worked in Europe (Brussels, London, Madrid) for almost 30 years. Immigration has been a challenge for the prosperous, Western European countries that entire time, even as it continued and, in 2015, became a crisis. Immigration policies were national, not centralized in Brussels. Managing the crisis of 2015 and uncontrolled immigration in general required cooperation among member states; as we've seen, it hasn't worked very well. This has provided an opening to nationalist groups to stoke fears and seize on sometimes invented anecdotes to sell their snake oil. Sound familiar?
12
I voted to leave the EU, but, I consider myself a European. I know that sounds odd, but, the idea is right, but, the time is not right. The policies which have there origin in Brussels are not attending to the most important factor of the present situation, which is Disparity of countries outside The EU to those within. For those countries outside the EU, there citizens see the EU as place where they can work, which gives a better standard living, education for there children and above all, Liberty. Sounds familiar. If was fleeing from many of the Third World countries, I would be doing the same.
So, how can the West curtail these mass immigrations. As a Political block, the West could invest within these countries, building up the backbone of that Nation, which in the longterm will make the Citizens of that Nation stay at home.
Are the Western governments including the U.S. prepared to do this, are they prepared to get to grips with big multinationals for planned investment. When I was born in 1948 the population of the world was about 3 billion, it is estimated that about 2050 the world's population will be close to 10 billion people, this problem of immigration will not go away.
17
Can't help but think of the phrase, "What goes around comes around." The West had no problem expanding itself around the world and transforming the rest of the world including the formation of the United States today. Colonialism relocated people and cultures. I guess it's acceptable when the West is doing the migrating, but when the pendulum swings it's a bit disconcerting. Granted there are huge differences in today's migratory movements compared to the colonial period, but cultural influence goes both ways. What needs to be considered are the universal needs of food, clothing, shelter, and security. With more attention to these fundamental needs perhaps there would be less need for migration. Unfortunately, the trend towards authoritarian government and nationalism, which is routed in fear of the other, is not helpful in that regard. Rather than addressing problems and solutions, I think the world is creeping towards war. It's a waste of of our collective life, world, and potential.
7
The European Union made a fundamental mistake in allowing free movement of labor (people) as one of its principles. Demography is destiny, and citizens cling to their tribal national identities and do not want to give them up. And they are not wrong in that. It is their culture, after all.
And now they are rebelling against open borders, especially when those borders are being violated by Third World peoples. Their leaders need to become much tougher in repelling refugees if the EU is not to disintegrate, not least because they now are seeing only the beginning of massive potential migration flows to the First World (including Europe) due to global climate change.
5
Those of us who embrace Churchill's original vision of political unity across Europe are effectively invisible in the UK. The right-wing press tries to frighten us with tales of a dastardly plot to move Europe towards a federation of states. Bring it on is all I can say.
Do you think it is a mistake that there are open borders between the US states?
Dear Mr. Fisher,
I find it appalling that you would publish a story about people fearing the loss of their national identity with the only hard evidence being people outside a rally for the radical right-wing Alternative for Germany (populist clearly is incorrect, as they have demonstrated numerous times) and some nondescript workers in a Yorkshire town in the UK, who have most probably also voted for Brexit and are thus no proponents from the beginning.
What you fail to mention is that the European Union isn’t just a project, it’s reality and it has more proponents than it has opponents. You conveniently leave out that the struggle between preserving national identity and transcending the nation state isn’t a new one, but one that is in fact frequently discussed (not avoided, like you claim). It even lead to the rejection of the European constitution in the beginning of the 2000’s.
I find it dangerous to assert that this current fight is anything more than populist leaders, fearing power loss due to an extremist right wing push powered purely by fear of the unknown. It is not some deeper concerns about the most profitable, peaceful thing that has preserved this continent for over 70 years. I’m not saying all pieces of reporting have to be completely balanced - but don’t lend legitimacy to a purely power-preserving move (by fanning fears) by pretending there is a deeper rooted concern amongst the leaders that mirrors the people. As one of the people: that is clearly wrong.
30
Please - it is NATO that has preserved peace in Europe for 70 years. The EU itself isn't even 70 years old. And Germany still isn't paying its fair share toward NATO - I, the American taxpayer, have been ensuring that Putin isn't marching into Vienna, not the virtually defenceless EU.
Germany hasn't been using money for itself that it owes to NATO. As an American taxpayer, I resent that. And if you think the TIMES is overstating the case here, I suggest you look next door and see who now has the leadership of Austria. And the Czech Republic. And Italy. The Danes gave the DPP enough power to push through laws that have stemmed the influx of Third World migrants most successfully. And I'd wait until the Swedish elections in early September before pooh-poohing the rise of nationalism of just a few hooligans in the AfD in Berlin.
Let us just do some basic math: if the Western world wants to maintain the levels of social welfare we provide our citizens, it cannot also take on unlimited number of immigrants from other countries. There is not enough money for the Western world to provide a comfortable life for its citizens and also do the same for a planet that mostly does not believe in birth control.
It's just math.
As for European identity, this article fails to mention that the Europeans were doing their best to work as the unified E.U., until they saw the millions arriving from other parts of the world also expecting to partake of their government sponsored free education, free health care, welfare checks, subsidized housing, etc.
Just do the math: The Western countries, from Poland to Australia do not have the money to feed and provide First world quality of life to the whole planet.
It would be beautiful if we did, but we don't, just do the math.
58
Remember, though, that the "western world" caused or contributed heavily to the conditions from which these refugees are fleeing, through colonialism, unchecked exploitation of resources, and support of dictatorships. This isn't the time to claim we don't have the resources to share with those we have systematically deprived of their own.
1
Western wealth was built on colonial exploitation and enslaving the ancestors of the people now looking for refuge from intolerable situations. Situations which have historic roots in this exploitation and subjugation of its people. Does that change your math.
2
Let us just do some basic math: if the Western world, with its aging demographics, wants to maintain the levels of social welfare we provide our citizens, it has no option but to take on young immigrants from other countries to adjust the age-sex pyramid
Just do the math!
1
"Allowing in refugees, even in very large numbers, does not mean Germany will no longer be Germany, of course. But this slight cultural change..."
Slight cultural change? Did the author really travel around Europe. I have been in every country in the EU over the past two years and have been aghast at what I have seen. For the most part the immigrants are not refugees, most are economic migrants, most are men and most are failing to learn the language or intergrate. While there has been an overall decline of crime in parts of Europe, the pockets where migrants live are often rife with crime. I was always amazed at how crossing a border in Europe meant a completely different culture: different music, different language and even different food. Europeans are exasperated, they see that certain groups, especially from Islamic countries, are not integrating. They see them failing to work, but still collecting benefits from their host countries. They continue to have more children and complain about conditions. They arrange themselves in ghettoes further isolating themselves. This is not a 'slight' cultural change as the author states. This is not about racism, it is about a right to ones own history and traditions. A modern western country cannot hope to integrate certain cultures which deny women and gay rights. And certainly importing millions of under or uneducated young men will not help. They have no future and this breeds resentment.
101
As a USA expat who has _actually lived_ the past 9 years in Paris (in the 17th, which I guess is a "ghetto"), Copenhagen (in Nørrebro, which I guess is a "ghetto"), London (in the East End, which I guess is a "ghetto") and now Stockholm (just arrived, but definitely looking to move to "the ghetto"!), this comment does not match my experience at all. The only thing of which I have been aghast is the scapegoating of immigrants I have seen _by some_ in each of my host countries. Most of the immigrants I have met (through language courses, through my teaching at university, etc.) were making considerable efforts to integrate, learn the language, share in the local food, sights and sounds, etc.
2
Every bike I ever owned in Europe was stolen in neighbourhoods that were overwhelmingly majority white and native. The people I went to school with were also poorly educated, poorly "integrated", suffered from a variety of health problems, including drug and alcohol addiction, from a young age, and were without hope or future.
What you're describing is not particular to any ethnic group but to the contemporary underclass in countries that have dismantled working class cultures, communities and opportunities.
4
The thorny issue that at the end of the day is probably a requirement for creating a European entity is a common language. They are giving it their best shot with the educational requirements for learning three languages, the common language used to develop relatinships and break down barriers is what ultimatley binds a union together. Good luck and I applaud he effort!
3
When I was a teenager, and we had exchanges with Germany, we tried to speak German, because the Germans were bad at English. (They dub foreign language television programs, which really has a bad effect on foreign language learning.) Nowadays young people in Europe all communicate in English with each other. I learned English, German and French, and I am glad I did, but my kids treat all languages other than English in school as a bother and a probable waste of time! There can be no doubt that English is and will be the main means of communication, even without Britain in the EU.
6
Inderdaad. I’m a boomer and when in Europe during the 60s & early 70s everyone in Belgium spoke French. My generation in Flanders, the Dutch speaking region, still speaks French, however, the newer generations speak English, instead and with an American accent. I have run into cashiers in French supermarkets and Portuguese stores, languages I speak fluently, who upon hearing us speaking English, have asked us to swith to English so they could practice. Never mind Holland. We’ll be speaking Dutch with someone and the minute they hear us speak English they tell us, oh, I can speak English, never mind how often we say “dat hoeft niet” (that’s not necessary).
You are absolutely correct, except you belong to the educated, and there are more lesser educated who can speak nothing other than their native tongue. Also there are so many degree variances in English ability. The communication among English speakers is also not self-evidently smooth.
There is a reality here that much of the EU is ignoring - the continued migration into Europe from Islamic societies could (and indeed, would) completely obliterate most European nations within decades. The army Merkel welcomed into Europe will increase. These were mostly young men. They will take wives from their homelands. If granted residency, they have a right to family reunification and the original million or so could quickly swell to much greater numbers. They would become a formidable voting block within a few decades.
58
There are some 600,000 Muslims living in Greater London.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan's margin of victory over his nearest rival was around 315,000 votes. I'm curious to know what part "identity" played in the choices of London's Muslim voters. I don't have the answer. But I think it's a question worth pursuing.
This is not helped by media coverage that mostly focuses on the hardships and experiences of young mothers toting a child around. It has obscured who the real population of economic migrants are.
3
I was in Munich a few years ago and was amazed at all the women in head scarves and burkas with three or more kids in tow. I occasionally saw a lone German woman with one kid. It's pretty simple to see where this is heading demographically.
6
I beg to differ. The people who think that retaining national identity simultaneously means shutting out others are the minority on our beautiful continent of Europe.
Those biographies that Adenauer and de Gaulle envisioned exist. As a German living and working in Italy, with a Greek stepfather and an Irish and a French godparent to my children, we enjoy the inspirations resulting from this setup immensely. Which does not mean that we don‘t hold on to traditions we love, to food and song and our ridiculously unsuccessful football team.
28
The times they are a-changing. In 1950, Europe held some 550 million people, Asia 1,400 million, and Africa 230 million. In 2018, there are some 740 million people in Europe, 4,540 milion in Asia, and 1,280 million in Africa.
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria (total population of the order of 460 million) in Asia, and many countries in Africa (say containing some 1,000 million, increasing by say 20 million each year) have been the sources of would-be economic migrants. For most of them, the most accessible target destination is Europe. (In Africa, some head for South Africa.) The population of the preferred parts of Europe (that is, Europe excluding Eastern Europe) is some 450 million.
How many people can Europe absorb without ceasing to be Europe?
4
No it can't.
1
It is fascinating to watch how the EU's push for rapid expansion both geographically and through it's ultra-liberal ideology unleashed the forces that will most likely bring its demise. The Arab Spring revolutions in the Middle East which were at minimum supported by EU's liberal elites (if not created) opened the doors to wars, chaos and the flow of migrants. Ms. Merkel not only failed to forsee it but is also failing to adjust her course to deal with the crisis. It's a grave error in leadership that will cost her everything.
33
If countries begin to leave the EU it seems unlikely that it will result in a war between those who want to leave and those who want to stay, as happened in the US. However, a breakup of the EU might encourage some US states to resurrect the Confederacy by democratic means (CSexit?) given the current state of US politics.
2
One can hope. We need a divorce. When one partner holds the other in contempt it's time to move on.
4
As the global population increases, there will be more and more pressure on wealthy countries as people try to move from places plagued by poor governance, violence and poverty. Wealthier nations will need to focus more on assisting poor countries in solving their internal problems. Otherwise, people will vote with their feet and take tremendous risks for a better life We see the same set of circumstances here in the U.S. Women and children do not walk thousands of miles for the fun of it - they are willing to risk life and limb for the chance of living without fear and extreme poverty. People are generally compassionate - but at some point people also do not want to feel as if their own economic security and way of life is being overwhelmed by waves of immigrants who hold very different cultural and religious values. Coming up with solutions that can humanely deal with the problem is not going to be easy.
49
"Coming up with solutions that can humanely deal with the problem is not going to be easy." It will not be possible -- the truth.
3
"Wealthier nations will need to focus more on assisting poor countries in solving their internal problems."
This is what I would like to see happen. But what I'm seeing is countries like Libya blackmailing the EU by refusing to do anything within their borders to stem the human trafficking unless the EU pays them billions.
1
Animals migrate en masse all the time seeking food, water, shelter and better weather. Human beings are part of the animal kingdom. The difference for the human species is their higher abstract thinking abilities. They care about tribal identity, languages, ideologies, legality of borders etc. Free migration passages do not work in human society.
Invasive species is a serious problem in many parts of the world for both the animal and the plant kingdom. Native fauna & flora could become endangered species and going extinct while invasive species multiply and out compete native life-form. It is an existential issue. Utopian political leaders who fail to acknowledge the people's existential worries are not serving the people well.
70
There are some that think the 1951 Refugee Convention is outdated and a rethink is needed. One is issue that I do not think is adequately addressed in regard to the implementation of the Convention is whether it is sustainable. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron have both said we can't take everyone, we can't take them all.The population of Africa is set to double to 2.5 billion by 2050.
Europe is facing its greatest refugee crisis since the Second World War, yet the institutions responding to it remain virtually unchanged from those created in the post-war era. (Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World, 2017)
50
Seems to me we could be doing a better job trying to create the conditions that encourage people to return to their homelands once the problems are reduced. The flow only ever seems to happen in one direction.
It also seems to me some places/countries have shown themselves to be incapable of creating safe living conditions for their people. Maybe a UN mechanism needs to be put into place to create caretaker governments to help countries get back onto their feet.
26
Unfortunately J Jnecks, that is now called colonialism and is seen as a dirty practice. Never mind that the nations who came up under it are for the most part much better of than those who did not.
---“The keen feeling of national identity must be considered a real barrier to European integration,”---
It's interesting how one of the foundational leaders of the unification movement could have gotten it so wrong at the start. It's no surprise things are not holding together. It's NOT about NATIONAL identity. It's about CULTURAL identity dating back many hundreds of years.
European citizens welcomed the prospect of peace that cooperation between nations promised. The open border scheme symbolized that beautifully. Yet never were common people asking to have their cultural identities eliminated.
Look at how languages such as Welsh and Breton have seen such a resurgence in the last 30 years. When I first went to Europe 40 years ago (I've spent about 1/2 my life there) both those languages were nearly extinct.
Look at the importance of the AOC scheme. People take tremendous pride in their local region's produce.
Many French people I know, in the village where I have my own home, are living in the homes their grandparents were born in... But they love the freedom of being able to hop on a train and visit friends in Germany or take a summer holiday in Portugal, without a lot of passport hassles. This is peace.
Unfortunately, the unification project was gradually taken over by a cosmopolitan, wealthy elite who have used it primarily for the purpose of supporting the interests of Big Business...
104
Cultural identification is fine, and having traveled in Europe, it is what makes it fun and interesting. Europeans have a far longer history than the US does so it's not surprising that their cultural identities are deeper.
However when cultural identitity leads to a feeling of superiority or exclusion it turns into nationalism. The big bugaboo of Europe in the 1930's and 40's.
There were millions of people in Europe during WWII who lost everything - homes, possessions, family, and their lives. They didn't have nice little villages with homes their grandparents lived in to come back to. The ones that did are the lucky ones. The destruction of Europe was massive and created the greatest refugee problem the world had seen up until today. Refugees forced to emigrate have to give up their cultural identities to assimilate. It might take a couple of generations, but it will happen.
Common people may not have "asked" to have their cultural identities taken away. But the fact of globalization and the need for integration requires that we DO give up a bit of our cultural identification. Young people in Europe are doing that. They will be the leaders of the future. They are the ones who will consider themselves citizens of the world, not of one nation state.
21
Big Business, privately owned capitalist organizations whose economic power is so large that national boundaries become constraints... They use their economic power to obtain political power, to restructure policies so that they can continue their bloated expansions, free to move their money from country to country searching for the lowest taxes, searching for the cheapest labor and weakest environmental policies, while continuing to sell their products in countries where people have finally won a decent wage and a reasonably clean environment.
When the Brussels leadership started cozying up to Monsanto/Bayer I knew that the wall was cracking. I and my European friends see now who the EU "leaders" are serving.
The people I know who voted for Brexit are determined to fight for restraints on fracking and the introduction of GMOs. We'll see whether the politicians who promised them that keep true to their word. If they don't there will be yet another revolution.
It should be apparent after 1200 years of well documented history that the people of Europe are not going to be destroyed by a moneyed elite. In the end the peasants have always won, even when all they had were pitchforks.
4
The young people of Paris and Berlin are not necessarily representative of the young people of France and Germany. These are the young people who have revived Welsh and Breton. They are not so keen on having their cultural identities taken away and may, in the end, not agree with it.
I wish the moderators would put up the second half of my original post. Maybe they will before this shows up. It was relevant.
This is what you get when you have unfettered migration into your country.
60
It is not migration-it is immigration.Call it by its name.
13
For those in the sending country it's emigration. For those in the receiving country it's immigration. For everyone else, it's migration.
2
The unspoken fear is Islam. Muslim countries are considered backward by the West, just as many Muslims consider Western people decadent. But it is Muslims who want to migrate to Western countries, not the other way around.
Here in Québec, Muslims integrate well, probably because we have no colonial history with the Muslim world. Not so in the former imperial powers whose disdain for the Prophet's disciples is great. The fear of Islamisation is great in Europe. Islamist terrorism does not help.
38
I had the good fortune to live for 5 years in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It certainly added nuance to my views, and I met some really sweet individuals. But overall it did NOT improve my views of the traditional society of that part of the world as a whole, which is so deeply immersed in its religious world view that it, like fish in water, has no clue there is any other world out there.
That said, in major cities like Riyadh and Jeddah, in just that short time, I saw that it may finally be breaking free. The current generation of young people seems to be trying very hard to reach out to the West and view the world with a more secular and humanist viewpoint.
I could write a whole essay ... Overall, I'm optimistic based on what I saw. Coming from a very dark place there appears to be the seeds of something good sprouting.
28
I had the same experience in UAE.But it will take time and leaders prefer to be cautious so there is no backlash from conservatives.
1
You undersell the more vigorous integration requirements in Quebec. When I was in Montreal last year, our friends and my wife’s businesss colleagues described a much stricter integration protocol which was combined with a much harder attitude about becoming Québécois. These were highly educated and liberal people with no shortage of criticisms of Anglophone Canada and the US, yet their attitudes about immigration and integration would have been at home in deep Red states.
My take is that as cultural minorities in Anglophone North America they are very defensive of their own culture, a stance that makes perfect sense.
1
Immigration throughout the world will continue into the future. Subsistence farmers who can no longer feed themselves will move. The civil war in Syria began when farmers endured years of drought. Arable land, diminishing water supplies and population growth will fuel the movement of people. The developed world can help to alleviate these issues or live with the consequences.
19
It is actually conceivable that Vladimire Putin threw his support to the Syrian government in power to create this mass exudus into Europe which, in turn, would create the upheaval he wants to make his western neighbors unstable and ripe for the picking.
1
This is not easy. US interventionism has stirred up a lot in the ME, climate change is making huge swathes of the planet uninhabitable. Europe has a huge border with Asia or countries bordering the near middle East, not easily policed. Then - due to the instantaneity of information - people easily can see that the lifestyle in the EU is good.
No easy answers
13
People in other horrible countries can easily see that life is good or better elsewhere. All's they have to do is go to Youtube.
1
The history of Europe is the history of great migrations for economic reasons and refugees fleeing warfare, droughts etc. The Romans policed the borders of their empires to prevent “barbarians” from settling or invading their lands. Some of these were “barbarians” were Germanic tribes, others like the Huns were from Asia. Today’s Europeans are a mix of many different people. They have their lands and do not want the other entering it just like the Romans of yore.
5
One slight detail or difference and that is the population of the world today as in comparison to ancient Roman times.
What a pompous and condescending column. Oh, please forgive me for thinking that there is nothing wrong with nationalism and identifying with my country. I am so sorry for clinging to such outmodes, inferior ideas as pride in my nation. I guess embracing identity is only for brown and black people in Mr Fisher's point of view.
Seriously, though, the issue is money. Germans pay taxes to the German government to, primarily, take care of German citizens and their interests. Yes, foreign nationals pay German taxes on income in Germany, yes, foreign nationals contribute to German well being, but foreign nationals are ultimately guests in the country. And when you are swarmed with refugees who are unable to pay taxes to cover the services they incur, the citizens should rightly ask why they are being asked to shoulder that burden.
66
in every religion, including Christianity, charity is cherished and encouraged.We have to share our good fortune to keep peace, prosperity and help those, who through no fault of their own find themselves immigrants and refugees. Obviously Islam is very difficult to accommodate and having seven plus child families is not the European way of life, but we have to work to find a solution and be charitable and open hearted.In the least, we need to help reconstruct the countries, where European and American leaders' misguided and brutal interventions wreaked havoc. American, European forces are bombing the houses of families in Middle East, Afghanistan, Africa and calling them 'collatetal damage'.
The European wars of the past century were fought among European people. It is sobering to to consider the endgame for the 50 million Muslims in Europe today.
13
It is entirely understandable that people want to preserve their national identity and way of life. Mass migration is disruptive and destructive, and attacking opponents as racist merely on the basis of their opposition is simplistic to the point of being vile.
56
Agreed. "It's only natural that people WANT to preserve their cultural identity and way of life." But in the end it's all about power. Native Americans lost their land and culture to superior power. So did Australian Aboriginals. Indigenous peoples all over the world were wiped out or subjugated to the greater power of Western, and particularly European, colonialism.
So what people 'want to preserve' and what they 'get to preserve depends on - do they have the POWER to preserve it.
You are mixing up issues. Catalans do not want independence so they can kick anybody out (Catalonia has a large Spanish minority). They just want to rule themselves.
As for the rest of the border crisis, it is about the migration crisis that has been created by wars (started, at least in part, by US intervention in the Middle East) and climate change, for which the West is responsible.
We can't seem to deal with the effects pf the problems we have caused. These refugees should be coming to the US. UIt is we who caused their problems.
10
Regarding climate change - unquestionably the industrialized world is much at fault. But having reaped the rewards, we are also becoming aware and doing something (not enough) to improve things.
I encourage you to look at the link below. You can sort the country list by emissions, based on CO2 per capita. The USA is definitely too high on the list. But I find it surrounded by some surprising companions.
France, my second home and where I will soon retire, I'm pleased to say is producing just 30% of the CO2 per person as the USA.
10
When I read "Catalonia for the Catalans", the article lost all credibility to me, as it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here. It's about self-rule, and, while there are concerns about maintaining Catalan identity, there is little of the ugliness or desire for exclusion that such an expression implies.
Jencks,
You wrote, “I'm pleased to say is producing just 30% of the CO2 per person as the USA.”
You know, of course, that is because France generates 90% of their electricity using nuclear power. As you well know, but did not admit, off-peak French nuclear sells electrical across Europe, so even if Germany thinks they are “nuclear free” in fact they are buying French nuclear power. Oh, yeah!!!
Methinks in the Vulgarian Empire of the so-called president, we can, step by hate-filled nationalistic step, walk backwards into the sacred, righteous autonomy of states that Europe has experienced and maybe, if we're unfortunate, relive some of the blood times. It worked during the Civil War, why shouldn't it work again....?
6
What a condescending, patronizing pile of rubbish this article is. The nation-state is not evil, and borders are not unjust, and it is not immoral to defend them both. The EU is in trouble not because of open internal borders, or open external borders, but the combination of open internal and external borders. Having refused to control the external EU borders (and Merkel presumptuously inviting the entire third world on behalf of everyone in Europe) what other reaction should rational people expect than a desire to re-establish national border controls?
81
Why is it that cosmopolitan, educated, well-paid journalists (and other 'elitists') are unable to understand and predict the most obvious forces confronting western societies today? We have Trump primarily because of his ability to play on American's (NOT totally unjustified) fears of unlimited immigration and forced social change. For lack of wisely handling these fears we have Trump and all he represents. European populations are moved by the same emotional forces. EVERY time these emotions are downplayed or minimized the backlash is terrific and certain and the side effects are far worse than any original issue. It is the backlash caused by thoughtlessly imposed polices (even more than the details of the polices themselves) that is tragically undermining liberal institutions around the world. How stupid, how sad. Yes, blame the right wing nationalists for taking advantage ... but shame on the liberal establishment for so stupidly playing into their hands.
45
And the most amazing thing is, Angela Merkel is quoted as having said, "This could break the European Union as we know it."
And yet she encouraged it.
Affluent liberals don’t practice what they preach. They send their children to elite schools, live in tony neighborhoods and have jobs as secure as any in 21st century careers or professional positions.
Yet they consistently demand changes real and in attitude of other people who are not insulated from the effects of these changes. Of course their children in private schools won’t face budget cuts and a decline in quality which limits opportunity, their neighborhoods won’t face crime or social conflict and their jobs won’t see salaries slashed and their positions replaced by migrants asking pennies on the dollar.
The unsophisticated middle classes are their obstacle, their affluence undeserved and selfish, driven by an ignorant and likely racist attitude.
The irony here is that most were once firebrand leftists aware of capital’s desire to consume all wealth. That’s still real and the affluent left now runs PR for the capitalist class, using shame and provincialism to coerce the middle classes to give up what little they have been able to maintain.
3
The articles proves that Trump is right to call for halting illegal and uncontrolled immigration.
40
Absolutely. Makes you wonder about those out protesting Trump's immigration policies. They want to destroy our country. And are against sealing our borders just because T is for it. Dangerous people.
2
The title of this article is just silly. There is nothing at all simple about borders. Wars are often fought over borders.
25
Why can't all the world's migrants and refugees [as well as our domestic homeless] settle in Detroit? There is plenty of open land and thousands of unoccupied homes.. We can have the EU pay for Detroit's modernization and transformation to an international city of culture and diversity! Detroit is the future! Detroit is OUR future!
15
Sarcasm, hopefully.
2
Stopping the invasion, that is Merkel's fault, is the only way to SAVE Europe.
The big scam of "guest workers" has exploded on them.
They always wanted the cheap labor, but didn't want them to vote or become citizens and they have the nerve to lecture us?
Amazing
24
Reaping what we sow. As America pillaged Central America with their Banana Republics in the early 20th century so too had European nations colonialized Middle Eastern nations, thereby ensuring multiple generations of authoritarian rule that have prompted today’s migrant waves. Neocolonialism was once thought to be the deserved spoils of superior nations. It’s funny how today’s progressive mindset looks dimly on predatory governments who interfere with lesser yet sovereign nations to expand their own wealth. America has long favored dictatorial rule in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras so we could get cheap bananas and other tropical fruits. In doing so, those nations remained mired in corruption, violence and stark poverty. Thus, a never ending wave of migrants. Europe did the same in the Middle East. It was just the natural course of governance and business until these poor souls ended up on our doorstep. Reaping what had been sown.
5
Authoritarian rule is about the only kind of rule the world has ever known. Do you think Morocco was a democracy before the French colonized the north coast of Africa? Algeria? Egypt? Lebanon? Describe what is factual!... Europe had authoritarian rule. China. Japan. India, Africa, Russia, the Muslim world, the Aztecs and Incas, everyone- emperors, kings, queens, tribal chiefs, pashas and warlords. So pls don’t try to rewrite human history as a bourgeois morality play.
2
I love the responses. From the heart. As the late Tom Wolfe wrote, in the end it’s “ back to blood.” Our parents and forebears founded this country. With sweat and tears. Take care of your own country. Etc. it’s primordial. Can’t gloss it over any more. Not in Europe, not in USA.
But the little people as individuals, their hopes and longings, the drownings, the separations, the daily tragedies are so God-awful.
4
Heaven knows Europe has struggled mightily over 500 years to discover and then enforce identity, be the issue religion, language, ethnicity or race. They have spilt oceans of blood over their cherished notions.
Now they must live in a world where their own populations are shrinking fast. There will be no one to take over the work, taxes and caregiving they once did. No one.
Identity isn't all it's cracked up to be.
4
Although the current EU dynamic has (some) racist elements, it's not intolerant for citizens to expect immigrants adopt cultural norms, language, and contribute economically. That's not happening in the Eurozone. Heck, line jumping annoys most people. Are you intolerant if you express your displeasure (gasp) to the perpetrator? There's lots of line jumping in the Eurozone these days. EU leaders need to take heed and stop insulting people for having human emotions for something that's intuitively understood.
40
This is not a simple question of borders. Nobody could have predicted that the Neocon experiment in Iraq would spread like a cancer and put millions of refugees on the move.
We have virtually no real issue with illegal immigration in this country and you would think people in Michigan, Ohio, etc., etc. are being overrun by a handful of asylum seekers crossing our southern border. I live near the border, it's a complete fake outrage that is being ginned up.
I don't believe a great culture and what unites us as citizens is built on racism or nativism. There is an alt right movement that is racist, nativist and ugly and if burning bright across the globe including right here in the good old USA.
National identity is food, wine, landscape, art, music, love, languages, architecture, style, laughter, pain, justice, history, education, the future... and it can and does evolve. It doesn't just have to be about nativism. Europe isn't that pathetic and neither are we.
Stop trying to justify hate, nativism and racism. It may well be the reason but it has to be called out and stopped in its tracks.
25
So, you would condemn those who seek to maintain their "great culture?" I for one, am happy with my culture, heritage and national history. If one wants to experience and embrace other culture(s), they should immerse themselves in it by relocating and assimilating to it, where that culture is prevalent.
18
I embrace the "food, wine, landscape, art, music, love, languages, architecture, style..." of other cultures.
But I don't embrace some of the ideas that come with them, like inequality towards women or gay people. I will never embrace those things.
2
Amazing! USA is a country built by immigrants over the centuries, they were not all British.At the very least, you had the French, Italian, Scandinavians, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Blacks. Iranians, Russians, Polish, Indians and yes Latin Americans and Vietnamese, who came later and are all assimilated and contributing to society.
1
Provided that they behave themselves and don't go to war with the world, what's wrong with nation-states?
Who wants a homogenized Europe?
16
I remember the time I lived in Japan [early 90's], the Japanese government thought it would be a great idea to have a "Friends with Iran" program and over the course of 6 months hundreds of Iranians arrived, overstayed their visas and the Japanese went nuts! It took over two years- but they eventually rounded them up and deported them. I don't recall once ever reading or hearing any, "International condemnation" for the way the Japanese government chose to deal with their immigration problem. In fact- it is still one of the most difficult countries to enter and stay without the proper medical vetting, visas and sponsor. Their borders are locked tight and to this day nobody is complaining about the Japanese.
43
Rest assured, the identitarians still complain vigorously about Japan, but Japan is a strong country with a very advanced economy and a highly educated workforce. They cannot be bullied.
Japan, China, Korea...strong countries that invest in their people. The West would do well to emulate them.
Great point - that Japan is not expected to become a borderless utopia, while Europe and the US are under pressure to become such utopias. This is because both Europe and the US have influential media organizations that have been infiltrated by, and are controlled by people who don't value strong native cultures. They see strong national/ethnic cultures as a threat to their interests. After all, excessive diversity leads to divisions, and divisions weaken.
1
Read Bloomberg article called ' How Japan Needs to Change to Welcome Immigrant: The country has to do more to assimilate foreigners and offset population decline.
Sept 3 2017
One very important aspect that Germans and other European nations now realize is, that many migrants have much larger families and many more children than Germans and Swedes, for instance, whose appetitie for "traditional 2 children units" has vanished over the years. It is obvious that migrants will very soon, by simply producing ever multiplying offspring, change the much beloved "identity" of those small countries, and their demands for Europeans to adapt to migrants' customs will exponentially get stronger and affect laws and education. It is already happening. There are areas in Middle European cities, where small enclaves of immigrants demand sharia law and other imported rules that are foreign to democratic Western societies.
36
Very true. Educating and empowering the women among the refugees is essential.
1
There is a war upon Europe and it will be won through the womb alone.
2
some migrants have expressed that very thought openly, but they seem to be an aggressive minority. However, the arithmetic of birth numbers does work against the culturally diverse Europe that I grew up in many decades ago. Within a few generations, in Sweden sooner, we will see how this migration changed the laws and customs of European societies.
Europe is finally waking up to the fact that 80% of migrants are on government hand outs. Merkel is on a death spiral of unsustainable migrants on government assistance. She has broken Germany.
32
The likelihood of the EU "unravelling" is about the same as that of the USA separating into individual states.
Because lets be blunt, the states are as disparate economically and have at least the same if not more hatred for each other's 'values' than the countries of Europe.
After all it is very difficult to understand why, say, Californians would wish to heavily subsidise, say, southern states that seek to rule over them. What in practice do they have to bind them together other than a (rather brief) history as an artificial construct uniting dissimilar bodies?
And such a separation of the states is the logical conclusion of your partisan politics, your electoral college over-ruling the majority, and your current president. You have a group of poor states seeking to have the other states as their slaves socially and economically.
Does that thought upset you? Are you offended that a European might speculate in this way? Well consider how it feels if the boot is on the other foot. And then think again. Sometimes the view from outside is clearer, lacking the fog of emotion. You genuinely are not a united country. You are in a perpetual state of war with yourselves, seeking to impose social values on one another, seeking economic advantage over one another. The tensions continually increase. It has to blow sometime.
12
Yes, I agree with this assessment of tensions within the US. It has crossed my mind, and I'm sure many others, that splitting up into two or more separate countries would be a relief in a number of ways. I can't imagine it actually happening, but stranger things have happened. Or we could just get rid of the electoral system.
3
There was a time when North and South wanted to rule over California, which outside the SV bubble is a largely failed state. Under governors of both parties, helped by the banks, it's become an overrun extension of Mexico. Today's South would rather see it swallowed by the Pacific for that and other reasons.
I'm afraid state secessions, however, will heal nothing. Neither will leaving abortion to the states -- it should probably be decided upon at the county level. The rifts between the godless urbans and rural righteous run too deep.
A good look at Switzerland, where French, German and Italian speaking cantons manage to exist as a democratic and prosperous society without electoral college, quotas etc. might help.
Merkel, " it won't be the Europe we want " ... who's " we ".
7
Just amazing. Tiny countries, each zealously protecting their borders, own heritage and language and currency for hundreds of years and some pinhead thought Schengen would miraculously erase all of that and turn Germany, Italy and Spain into Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Then Merkel trotted along at exactly the wrong time and invited 1,000,000 pioneers none of which speak any of the languages and all of whom practice a different religion and asked them to pull up a chair and settle in. Now we are astounded at what has been wrought. Can the clowns that have been running the world for the last 20 years be any stupider?
45
From the Atlantic to the Urals, there isn't a single country in Europe, whether in the EU or outside it, that is actually at any risk whatsoever of losing its national identity.
The very idea is preposterous. It's a propaganda talking point cooked up by the Kremlin, in a country whose own national identity is also not under threat.
Fromage, not Farage. No to paranoia.
16
Been to Londonstan lately? Paris? or Rome?
2
Left out : Violent Crime
"What are causes of refugee crime? And what can be done about it? These questions are the subject of a new study by criminal scientist Christian Pfeiffer. The former Minister of Justice of Lower Saxony, together with the criminologists Dirk Baier and Sören Kliem, investigated the situation in Lower Saxony on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Family and Youth.
In their study, the authors are, among other things, dealing with the increase in violent crimes between 2014 and 2016, which police crime statistics have already established. Accordingly, the number of recorded violent crime in Lower Saxony increased by 10.4 percent - 92.1 percent of this increase was attributable to refugees"
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/christian-pfeiffer-kriminolo...
The NY Times published data on all crimes (misdemeanors included) but this is not was the population is concerned about.
It is concerned about violent crimes.
8
NIMBY - Not In My Backyard syndrome besetting Europe, USA, and even Canada. Premier of Ontario Canada has told in no uncertain terms Trudeau that he will not foot the bill for resettling refugees that Trudeau is so eager to take in.
Social and economic costs of taking in migrants who do not have the skills to settle in short order are realities that developed nations cannot ignore.
While the Schengen region can be open to bona fide residents of that region, new arrivals ought to be restricted to the area of the first nation they enter.
Merkel learned this lesson a few days ago but our Liberal Loons are averse to this historic lesson.
25
Is it really so surprising that the citizens of most countries (at least First World countries), value their language, their culture, their history? This ridiculous idea of a "One Europe" was always doomed to fail by all but the handful of elites who have spent decades trying to foist this off on the various nations. Finally, the citizens are saying "no" resoundingly! And rightly so.
36
When one considers that there are perhaps 4 billion people who would readily choose to move to the EU (or perhaps the US--before Trump--or Japan, or some other advanced economy) it's hard to fault them for feeling embattled. Population growth (explosion would be a better word) in Africa and beyond is the real issue. Isn't that obvious?
And the GOP's response is to make contraception more difficult to obtain both in the US and beyond, and institute an even more punitive form of the Global Gag Order started under the GWB administration. Hard to see how that helps either the US or the EU--or, for that matter, global order.
21
A question I've always had about promoting contraception in third countries: You can offer it but what if they say no? Because in many ways the activists for this seem to be like the colonial governments deciding what was good for the 'natives'. The rich white person going to tell the poor African or Asian that I don't think they should have kids. The optics aren't good.
Do I think that? No! I also agree that it should be offered.
8
One simple effective solution:educate and empower the women in developing countries. Aid to health sector to reduce infant and maternal mortality would also help.
2
Hardly simple. Attitudes about womens' place in society are entrenched cultural norms. We fought hard to women's rights in the US. I want to help other people but not to allow these attitudes a foothold in America.
Merkel may go down in history as the person who singlehandedly has done the most to demolish a hitherto successful project. Her misguided "invitation" - an impulsive action done without consulting fellow European leaders - has triggered the migration of millions together with a populist backlash that threatens to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The minimum she can do now is to resign. The Italians and Greeks have to get more latitude to immediately deport every unauthorized arrival.
17
The resurgence of identity politics in the EU is closely tied to globalization, which has reshaped the ability of member countries to control their economies, and resulted in greater economic insecurity for many EU citizens. Countries hit hardest by the 2008 financial crisis still struggle with high unemployment, with large numbers of disadvantaged people unable to upgrade or transfer their skills.
Parties on the left have to compete with the far right for the same disadvantaged voters, where, as in the US, humanism on issues of race and identity have become severe handicaps and a right-wing cause among the disadvantaged. As in the US, populists are a minority, but their identitarian language migrates from the fringe to the centre, spreading incendiary and regressive ideas that influence the general terms of political debate.
These metapolitics are obviously succeeding. The center and the left are straining to find ways to manage irreversible globalization—including through international cooperation—while defending the principles of equality and democracy, even as they seek ways to appear more populist without operating like the far-right on issues of immigration and human rights.
As identity politics become increasingly vigorous, governments are less and less able to address the problems that are fueling it because it's a subtle form of terrorism. How do you combat an idea—especially an erroneous idea—that's become personal and collective gospel?
14
Analogizing post-war Europe to the emerging United Colonies of America is incredibly trite. With the exception of the New York Dutch, the Colonists were mono-lingual and English -- cut from the same cloth. That is hardly analogous to a continent made up of ethnic, linguistic and cultural heterogeneity.
The sing-songy mantras of "Europeanists" is just treacly cover for an agenda of global corporate consumerism and the deadly homogenization in thought, word and deed that emerges therefrom. Back in 1978, my mother took her last trip to France. She wrote back disappointed that everything had become "Le Standard."
People today, especially Americans, have no notion of what a wonderful and exciting thing ethno-lingustic and cultural variety was and still is.
This article, like many others of its genre, also manages to overlook one stunning fact: Europe *did* at all times have a supra-ethnic unity, it was called Christendom. At a root level, all Europeans did share certain fundamental moral and existential values. They expressed this unity in ways that were at times uniform and at times unique and varied.
The causes of war are complex, but war is not a consequence of cultural or even religious differences. France did not go to war with Germany (think Napoleon) over language and sausages. If ethno-linguistic homogeneity guaranteed peace there ought not to have been an American Civil War
The Euro-Populists are fighting for something higher than money.
7
Chip, among the Colonists in British America were large numbers of German-speaking people, primarily from the Rhineland. They came first to Pennsylvania, but spread south to Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, etc, all before the American Revolution. Not just British and Dutch. Lots of Lutheran churches today in the areas where the Germans settled.
1
Beautifully put, Chip in USA. Americans will never know the rootedness of European identities, and it shows itself in our lack of depth.
5
Creation of USA did not stop with the declaration of independence and the civil war.Many different nationalities migrated, settled and assimilated in the USA during the last two centuries, including South Americans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Indians, Eastern Europeans, Russians fleeing Soviets and Iranians after Khomeini, all successfully.That makes USA a beacon of light.
I disagree that it's "basic human instinct" to feel threatened unless we're only around "people who look like me, speak my language and share my heritage."
12
It may not be a "basic human instinct" to feel threatened when surrounded by very diverse nationals, but it does not make for the common ground of shared cultural identity that has been created over generations and comprises what many would call "home".
5
Exactly. The identities we ascribe to ourselves are contingent on conditioning (environment); there is no biological basis whatsoever for this behavior. Jane Elliott's famous 1968 "Blue eyes–Brown eyes" aka "A Class Divided" experiment is one example of this, showing how easily and rapidly prejudices and biased beliefs can be formed and how arbitrary and illogical and incorrect they are. Another famous example is the 1971 Stanford Prisoner Experiment.
As children, we're all taught to either believe in fixed cultural and social identities, or counter them before they become full-fledged lasting prejudices and biases, and to recognize that every other human being is identical to us, and has the right, and the need, to be treated with kindness, compassion, dignity, and respect.
12
The EU never worked and the migrant issue, unilaterally enforced by Angela Merkel over the head of her bosses in Brussels, has added fuel to an existing fire. The UK thus separated rather than being pushed around; Northern Europe has always felt superior to the South and views any country connected to the Mediterranean as a place of pleasure rather than productivity; and Northern Europe itself still views Germany as a place of dictatorial danger - will never change. Angela Merkel should resign immediately - perhaps something positive may sprout out of it but quite frankly unlikely = too many problems.
8
Europe like much of the west has gone thru a long difficult process to be prosperous, stable, safe and to be headed toward sustainability with falling populations. They are now confronted with what amounts to a never ending invasion of people that frankly they don't need and many don't want. The future of most economies is a decreasing need for labor. It doesn't make you a racist to not want to turn your country upside down particularly when the supply of immigrants is going to be never ending. At this point in history it is reasonable for the west to offer aid to most 3rd world countries to help them reduce their populations and move toward stability and prosperity for their own citizens. It's not reasonable to expect them to resettle the billions of unhappy people on earth.
18
Human behavior is complex enough on an individual level, group human behavior even more so. I have compassion for migrants, and at the same time don't want multitudes of them coming in my direction. It's a conflict within my own self, and I do get the conflict nations feel. Too bad we all couldn't agree on things that would alleviate the climate crisis and income inequality, which are the major driving forces behind all this misery. Things are going to get much much uglier.
7
It was always about access to cheap labor,nothing else.
5
There is a logical inconsistency at play. When Europeans want to preserve their culture, they are considered xenophobic. When migrants want to preserve their culture, it is unquestioned. Why is that?
37
Europeans and Americans of European ancestry are shamed and called racists if they celebrate their cultural identities. Go figure.
2
Interesting how many in the comments see no issue with the original colonialism of Europeans to other countries, but now suddenly are advocating for the decreasing or even eliminating of immigration into Europe. Hypocrisy seems to run strong among those who are so gung-ho about preserving European dominance.
6
Agree. Immigration is the other side of European colonialism. Europeans invaded and conquered the 5 continents changing ways of life forever.
2
That argument goes both ways, Sarah.
Isn't it interesting how so many on the left talk about how awful and "racist" European colonialism was in the past yet now when it's Africans and Asians colonizing Europe, it's all fine and dandy?
2
Another problem with uncontrolled migration is that it decimates the productive population in the country of origin. The migrants tend to be the middle class of where they came from. It strips away a large, productive class leaving the country of origin in worse shape. On a different note, Mexican immigrants assimilate well into the US. They speak a European language and share the predominate religious tradition with most Americans. Many Muslims who harbor rigid beliefs will not assimilate into western culture. Some will, but many will not.
12
They are leaving for a reason. Just because you won't take them doesn't mean they aren't going to leave, just that they will go somewhere else that they see as being better than where they started.
I am a Frenchman and consider myself pro-European. When Schengen started being put in effect, I loved the idea of Germans freely coming to France to see what life was like on the other side of the Rhein, Italians traveling to Denmark, and so on. I think this was an excellent way for Europeans to get go know each other so that these awful slaughters of the past don’t occur again. But we never were told that with the outer borders would become open gates through which would flow in the torrents of the misery of the world. This aspect of Schengen was never discussed. And how one earth did Chancellor Merkel think she had the right to unilaterally accept one million refugees? Over the past 40 years, there has been a mismatch of “intellectuals”, media, industries, leftist organizations, NGOs, churches and political leaders, all fellow travelers to carry out this policy they had no mandate for. And when the governed people emit any protest about it, they are called populist (and worse). And then, they carry on anyway. I voted for Poles (or Britons, etc…) to come and visit my country and perhaps, have a beer together. If they want to settle to work, that is fine too. But I never gave my consent for people from other continents to do the same. My country has had a 1500 year run of becoming what it is, which includes, among many other things, being European and Christian. I don’t want this to be upset. European elites, heed this message. I am not alone.
56
However your country has overseas territories that are not European but considered part of France
Ah the irony - doing away with hard borders to help the economy and create One Europe as a homogeneous population free to live and work with it, yet instead it’s done the opposite. Oh foul hubris, the achilles heel of the political bureaucrat!
1
We ordinary mortals do not trust our self-designated betters among the elites.
I wonder why?
5
Just some data points: "This year, the numbers of incoming migrant arrivals into Europe have fallen back to pre-2015 levels. In 2016, for instance, as many as 62,000 people applied for asylum in Germany every month. In the first portion of 2018, that number has fallen to nearly 15,000.... The same is true across the E.U., with illegal arrivals down across the board." WaPo July 3. "As in most places, the over-reporting of infrequent instances of violent crime committed by migrants plays a huge role in the misperception. A 2017 study found that ... non-native Germans are less likely to commit crimes and are more likely to be its victims...." Boston Globe June 24.
9
This article essentially points out that your data about migrants is largely irrelevant to the quest for national identity that people feel gets diluted by the European Union. Mobility is a mixed opportunity.
10
If we do not provide these immigrating populations family planning information and birth control, all we can expect is more of the same.
2
European nationalists ignore the fact that today’s borders are relatively arbitrary. They result from two thousand years of individual tribes conquering and absorbing neighboring nations and ethnic groups. To assert that today’s precise ethnic ratios which comprise modern Hungary or Germany generate the ultimate in nation-state racial composition is incredibly short-sighted. Today’s borders are merely a snapshot in Europe’s evolution. To claim that the ethnic composition of any given nation or Europe two hundred years from now (which will indisputably be different than it is today) will be inferior is unfounded speculation. It demonstrates misguided nationalistic pride and insecurities forged from myopic ignorance.
Same goes for America, a fascinating experiment which so far proves that evolving ratios of immigrating worldwide tribes creates a superpower.
4
How to differentiate between a asylum seeker and refuge as if there is a difference? One had a gun to their head and the other was starving. Easy from a western vantage point to tell the starving one to go back and work harder in their post European utterly corrupt country, isn’t it?
The European Union is doomed. Who wants watered down Italian food in favor or a hodgepodge of European flavors mixed into one.
And certainly nobody wants an unelected EU official from another country making local laws.
Trash the whole experiment and go back to Brits being Brits and Italians being Italian and democracy being the highest power.
2
Why does Mr. Fisher write about a Norwegian foreign minister, when Norway is NOT a member of the European Union? Its citizens voted twice against it.
7
Because he was a crucial supporter of Western and NATO non-military cooperation and alignment, and because his 1950 essay “European Union: False Hopes and Realities” contained numerous themes and concepts which formed part of the underlying basis upon which key EU intentions were established. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i20030254
9
The best government is local; thus, nations should control their borders. Flooding a country with migrants who have no intention of assimilating or learning the native language, rightly invites resentment.
26
As long as European nations shared a common enemy – the Soviet Union / communism – and a common supportive friendly nation – the United States / Democratic Capitalism, the EU had little to worry about. Now the have much to be concerned about!
Mark my words! If Europe caves on the immigration issue- then it will be an anti-immigrant free for all in the United States.
Interesting article, although I was taken aback when I read “Catalonia for the Catalans,” as if this were a slogan of the Catalan independence movement (it’s not) and as if it had somehow been fueled by an anti-immigrant, anti-refugee sentiment amongst the population (it hasn’t been). In fact, hundreds of thousands turned out last year in Barcelona for the “Volem acollir” (We want to welcome you) demonstration, which sought to put pressure on the Spanish government to agree to take in more refugees. This demonstration, the largest of its kind to date in Europe, was attended by representatives of numerous social entities and by members of all major political parties in Catalonia, regardless of their stance on the question of independence.
I realize how it might be tempting to equate the current political situation in Catalonia with the rise of xenophobia in other parts of Europe, but if one actually takes a look at what has been happening here, one will realize that the analogy is false.
5
History tells us the civilization started when humans started to settle. When they begun to form tribes. Then tribes merge and formed as nation. It's arguable but the next level of homogenous society will be elusive or even unattainable with basic human instinct of self preservation. How can society transcend this barrier with supposed leaders feeding the masses virtue of archaic tribalism, religion and imagined fear of unknown? All these driven by selfish traits of phony leaders trying to retain power, having a taste of it, doesn't want to give up anymore.
Maybe European Union is achievable but many generations too early. Until old guards of society passed away and true emphatic leaders untainted by greed and power can lead new generations not afraid of idea of change and open border.
Is this a reporting piece or an op-ed piece?
While it is wonderful to get the "big picture" on the European Union, I was disappointed to find the article in fact, is an opinion piece, through the optics of the author.
That being said, what is the problem with national self interest, particularly in Europe where countries uniquely identify with their long cultural histories and native languages?
21
It is more than obvious that for Europe to have open internal borders, it is essential that it have tightly controlled external borders. Everyone knows that this is not the case, so the talk of implementing more control on the internal borders will not at all solve the problem of the open external borders, namely the extensive Mediterranean coastlines that are breached by migration boats every day. Europe should focus their efforts primarily on controlling these external borders. They instead are quibbling amongst themselves about their internal borders, which demonstrates that Europe will not solve their problem of illegal immigration.
The fact that in 2018, Merkel has become the leader that she warned her country about I 2015, surprises no one - she is a fraud and a walking contradiction, the quintessential opportunistic political leader.
13
"a Simple Question of Borders"
A simple question indeed, also known as sovereignty, one of the most fundamental properties of a nation our ancestors spent their entire existence securing for future generations.
18
European countries have a long, long history of immigration: by Europeans to other continents. And not the other way around.
Hungary's prime minister - and his enthusastic Hungarian supporters - won't accept refugees and asylum seekers. Their memories are short. In the 1950s, thousands of Hungarian refugees and asylum seekers came to Canada...and were let in.
4
And the became Canadian, playing hockey and everything.
3
And 30,000 resettled In the USA.
1
The nationalist vs EU-ist is an issue. But the obvious first order of business is to secure the EU borders.
5
Humans, like most other animals, are naturally tribal. Yet Europe must find a way to join together if it doesn't want China to eat it's lunch. With its 1.4 billion people, no group of little countries can compete with China individually.
4
The real problem facing all countries not just European countries is the fight over scare resources - that is a political problem today as well.
My poly sci prof, Donald Flesche, Kalamazoo College lectured hour after hour about how politics is the fight over scarce resources. I would never believe how the world has become nothing more than a struggle for people to get ahead, to survive, to get some share of basic things sustaining life.
The ever expanding human footprint —massive global degradation. The increase in global population. The fight among those who have wealth (resources) not to be compelled to share with those who have nothing. Water, food, real estate, clean air, safe living conditions, the right to say what is on one’s mind. These are the precious commodities of all immigrants today. I see no end ever, as labs around the works are decimated by development, over population, greed and ignorance to make the world a better place.
1
For goodness sake!
Why doesn't somebody just BUILD A WALL?
Many WALLS, beautiful WALLS, fantastic WALLS, they say it's a good idea - I don't know, but that's what they're saying..a BIG, BEAUTIFUL WALL! LOTS OF WALLS, LOTS OF THEM!
2
Coming soon to an American republic near you. Reuters reports today that immigration has become the leading campaign issue of the 2018 election, and polls last week showed that while the majority of the country opposed separating illegal immigrant or asylum-seeking children from their parents, a super-majority opposed releasing the parents and children into the population on the promise of a future court hearing. In other words, hold them together pending a hearing, no matter how long that took. If the Democratic Party and its members don't figure out that open borders, catch-and-release, and the abolition of ICE are issues of the socialist far left and not of most of America, they will once against snatch disaster from the jaws of triumph. They're getting good at that.
19
For all its denunciations of America as racist, which I don't dispute, Europe has largely not had to contend with cultural mixing. In areas where such mixing occurs, sudden, strong racist sentiments arise. I was surprised while living in Berlin in 2005 at the feelings expressed about Turkish immigrants dwelling in the city, surprised mostly because Berlin seemed to me to be incredibly open in its attitudes toward difference. For this reason I'm not actually surprised by the current situation
4
Everyone thought Brexit was a one time issue, and the EU thought they would teach England a lesson. It turns out that the lesson was already learned by other countries - it is possible to resist the EU's open border policy. Sadly, none of the leaders in any of these countries seem interested in fixing the root cause - stop the violence and terror in the migrants' home countries, and then there won't be any migrants coming in.
4
Of course Europeans want to preserve their national identity. It's human nature. Doubt it? Just observe the enthusiasm for the different nations' World Cup teams. Those who think things are going to change - or should change - are deluding themselves.
8
France and Belgium, two EU countries still in the world cup, are a model of ethnic and racial diversity.
The French team that won the world cup in 1998 was touted by French politicians as a victory for racial and ethnic diversity. That was a couple of years before Le Pen became a public figure, much like Bannon and Trump have become a fixture in US politics.
2
There can never be a rational discussion of migration as long as the issue is framed in terms of sinister attitudes. Referring to public opposition to millions of uninvited arrivals as "anti-refugee sentiment" trivializes it as well as imposing a moral interpretation. That is not only offensive to many of those involved, it also precludes giving priority to the pragmatic solutions that the situation requires.
If the Times and other media wish to make a worthwhile contribution to dealing with this situation, they will have to put aside the priority that they characteristically give to assigning blame.
20
We are told that walls and borders don't work by elites who live within fortified, gated communities or with 24/7 security guards in their buildings to protect themselves and their families. That's ok but to protect one's national homeland of traditional and shared cultural values, language, customs, mores and ethics is not?
52
Politics is the art of creating benefits for the few at the expense of the many. The European Union is a grand experiment in the opposite direction: benefits for the many at the expense of the few. I hope it sustains.
3
This is the principal reason why I support the call for Merkel's resignation. She has single-handedly brought the EU to the brink of collapse. Because open borders is what defines us. Once they are gone, it makes no sense to protect all the myriad regulations Europe has grudgingly put up with just so we COULD have no more borders and move freely.
Merkel destroyed all that in 2015 when she unilaterally overruled all other countries and opened the flood gates.
This result was so utterly predictable, just as what would happen following the Iraq invasion. But more so. In fact, there was no other outcome.
Merkel destroyed the EU.
44
She also destroyed Germany.
9
In planning the EU, the leaders never stopped to think that each of the European countries has its own distinct language, history, culture, monetary system unlike the US where movement from one state to another does not change due to the commonality of our citizenship, currency, etc. The EU while providing economic advantages for many of the member nations was short-sighted in overlooking the social, national and culture differences between the member nations
26
Members of the EU may not have adequately addressed stubborn issues of national sovereignty. Different countries adopt different mixes of income security, environmental protection, labor relations, housing, transportation, market regulation, etc. It's as though the founders of the EU thought that these differences would fade over time, but, in hindsight, it looks like they should have devoted more effort to preparing the people to accept greater limitations on national sovereignty in favor of empowering the EU.
Globalization has been oversold as a panacea to myriad economic problems. I'm not sure what its promoters thought how it would ease political differences.
16
This is, much like Trump’s election, the revenge of white, right-wing identity politics - the original and still most widely practiced form. Only, no one is supposed to call it what it is and if anyone else suggests that their identity might count as well or - even worse - has the temerity to exist as a brown person too conspicuously, the hysterical backlash begins. We know how this story has ended in the past. Where will it go this time and who will survive to tell it?
7
Are Italians, Greeks & Italians brown? They used to be treated like that in the US? Did they change color or did the culture adapt?
2
I am really tired of that argument. Some of the most territorial, isolationist, intolerant and xenophobic people I have ever met have been so called brown people and I say that as a non white person.
just go to their countries and try pulling the stuff they pull in the countries they immigrate to. You don't even have to go that far. Just go to one of their enclaves embedded in their new countries and trying suggesting they change. See where that gets you.
As a person of Native ancestry with African and European added down the ancestry line I have met immigrants unaware of my history. So they sometimes let loose on things that would really shock you. They are way less tolerant than many of the white people welcoming them.
18
What is do wrong about being white and wanting to preserve that????
5
Merkel had been widely praised by liberals as the savior of the EU. However, her reckless invitation to unlimited migration will be the undoing of the EU. Migration is good and beneficial when manageable limits are put on it and the immigrants are vetted before being allowed in.
Obama followed the lead of Merkel and essential threw open the U.S. border to unlimited immigration by completely unvetted immigrants. The result was the election of President Trump and a fierce backlash against migration.
German and the U.S. are far from the only countries dealing with excessive immigration. The NYT article about required cultural training for immigrants in Denmark was eye-opening.
Let's be sensible about migration: It's a good thing that benefits our country. But, please, accept manageable limits and an orderly process for immigrants to apply, be vetted, and assimilate into the country.
79
"Obama followed the lead of Merkel and essential threw open the U.S. border to unlimited immigration by completely unvetted immigrants..."
That is a completely false statement. If anything, it simply is repeating sound bytes that have no factual basis at all but are designed to push people's fear buttons. Yet I grant, it is so widely accepted and integrated deeply into people's thinking, that it has become as if true.
In today's "post-truth" world, those with strong psychological instincts and access to mess media can create "truth" at will. This is a frightening prospect. And the statement about Obama and open borders is a paradigm example of this.
4
Phil said: "Obama followed the lead of Merkel and essential threw open the U.S. border to unlimited immigration by completely unvetted immigrants."
That is simply not true. Immigrants from countries in the middle east who are asking for asylum undergo a two year vetting process.
In addition, Obama deported a million or so undocumented immigrants.
5
Obama did not “throw open the borders” and accept “unvetted” immigrants. That is a lie that has been repeated over and over by Trump and his supporters. Immigration declined and deportations increased during the Obama years, for better or worse. Obama’s increased rate of deportations in fact lost him popularity points among a number of immigrant groups. Unlike Trump, however, Obama was not gratuitously cruel and he did not scapegoat immigrants to score political points.
6
This piece links identity and nationalism while avoiding the point that Europe consists of many different cultures and language communities. A culture isn't a racially homogeneous group of people. It is rather a community in which people are tied together through a shared set of values, beliefs, norms, meanings, and understandings. Cultures in many cases are pluralistic -- different subcultures have their own perspectives. But in a healthy and pluralistic democratic community, there's enough solidarity to facilitate engagement across difference, finding ways to agree to disagree while maintaining mutual respect and a spirit that "we are all in this together."
The EU was a thriving success back when it focused on facilitating economic cooperation and policy coordination between a group of sovereign nations. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty changed all that. The goal shifted to rolling back national sovereignty and the diversity of European cultural communities in favor of a person-in-market vision of a homogenized, globalized society. This became a model of governance by corporations and appointed technocrats that was (as we see now) out of sync with the needs of Europe's diverse communities.
34
One only needs to look at Orban’s facial and other body language in that picture to understand the challenges that Merkel faces as she seeks to keep Europe (fairly) unified. How someone can do that and NOT consider her absolutely indispensable to that purpose is beyond me. Macron alone simply lacks the belly.
The challenge is formidable indeed. When the dominant cohorts of the “American colonies” largely cast off their individual identities and sought unification centuries ago, it was with the advantages of a common language, largely a common religion, quite largely a common racial and ethnic heritage and similar views, except on mercantilism, the issue of human slavery and the rights of small vs. large states. Even at that, we fought a hideous civil war that dramatically affected us for well-over one century on the issues of slavery and acceptance of federal power. It was a heavily freighted effort that easily might have failed any number of times. That we survive today as one country is far more a testament to historical inertia and having spent over two centuries building and maturing common institutions than it is any argument of shared worldviews and interests given our deep ideological differences.
Europe faces the absence of a common language (unless it’s English), different political histories, dramatically different worldviews and economies, different ethnic realities, a north-south economic dichotomy that is persistent and deep, and a centuries-long history …
16
… of war – sometimes over the caprices of opposed monarchs, sometimes on the anvil of serious disagreements over basic interests -- at precisely the time when their DISsimilarities and contradictions have sharpened intensely.
They could melt down easily, and they have no Lincoln to argue for coherence despite basic differences unless that is Merkel; and even Lincoln was forced to resort to the largest army on Earth at that time, and endless blood, to secure the objective.
Yet this is a challenge manifestly worth winning. A unified Europe, despite its problems, was the only serious contribution to humanity in the last century to our gradual elevation from tribalism to more unified governance; and our world today appears to sundering into ever more atomic tribal components. The future of humankind MUST be gradual cohesion, not a tribalism that offers no unified efforts at environmental salvation, large-scale economic prosperity, or even the eventual shared exploitation of space. Europe MUST continue to play its part.
I disagree with the author’s condemnation of Merkel on the “transit camps” issue. She has been forced to it, but it could defuse TODAY’S issue that most seriously threatens European unity. Europe needs additional decades of political evolution to jointly develop and mature the institutions that will bind it as ours have bound us. Almost anything that gets them past this populist impasse must be regarded as useful to a purpose that MUST play out successfully.
6
Richard, I agree with your premise that Europe must remain unified but disagree that gradual cohesion MUST prevail over tribalism. It can't. It won't. Because humans are not wired that way. In times of stress, like massive immigration or environmental degradation, humans circle the wagons around their own. the tenets of great civilization we revere may be a temporary condition on the way back to barbarity - because population increases dramatically elsewhere to consume the new resources created by civilizational advances - When the resources are exhausted, the civilization is itself invaded and overrun. The resulting barbarity ends when new equilibrium is established. In Europe we don't know how the game ends but can predict its beginning - and we're at that place now.
2
Well said, intelligently and cogently stated.
This had to be expected. When the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1960 it envisioned a "financial" european community - not a political one. The reason that it morphed into a political one is due to the undue influence of France and - mostly - Germany who thought they could "control" Europe through unelected burocrats in Bruxelles. They were able to do that - quite effectively - until the two crisis: first the financial crisis, then the migrants.
The revolt of the smaller - and mostly Southern and Eastern - countries is against the heavy handed approach Germany has had in the last decade - thanks to Frau Merkel! And, let's not forget that many people in Europe still remember WW2.
19
Germany and it’s proxy’s are still controlling the response to Financial crisis.
2
"[Ever-harder external borders] might work if refugee arrivals were the root issue. But it would not resolve the contradiction between the European Union as an experiment in overcoming nationalism versus the politics of the moment, in which publics are demanding more nationalism."
It's almost as if the NYT reporter is trying to be obtuse. The public is demanding nationalism only to keep out the wave of immigrants. Refugee arrivals *is* the root issue. And harder external borders will solve the issue.
55
The whole basis for freedom of movement and habitation for people within the EU borders seems to me to have been a tactic for destroying the nationalism of the member states. But when the EU expanded to include states that had only a decade or so before freed themselves from their status as dependencies/colonies of the Soviet Union, it, its legislation, its ideals and its bureaucracy find it hard to compete with the new joy of the former Soviet clients in owning their own nations and in being able to govern themselves without having to gain approval from an outside "owner" or political philosophy.
There are too many different nations with homogenous people and cultures in the EU to give up their sense of self and of national pride without a struggle.
It seems to me that the modern trend is to fragmentation, not union. Look at Catalonia; look at Scotland; look at the Flemings. Even Northern Italy thinks of separation.
9
It looks to met that the trend in general is that its easier for the minorities in europe to live out their culture. Few years ago, it basically wasnt allowed to speak catalan. Now catalan is taught in schools. Against contrary (populist) propaganda, the european union is strengthening local minorities. Fragmentation is not new to Europe. It's what the continent is about.
4
The world belongs to everybody. Period. Everybody deserves to live in a free society with abundant resources. It sickens me that people would have so little empathy that they'd deny these resources to others despite no legitimate threat to their own well being. Citizens of countries do have the right to know who is entering their country. Borders are places where counts should be taken and people vetted. Some people, based on past actions, may not be welcome in a given geographic area. This is a tiny minority. Perhaps only statistical noise. Leaders who seize on prejudice to gain support for their movements should be shamed and driven to the sidelines. Furthermore, and essentially, efforts need to be made to get at the root causes of why people feel the need leave their places of origin in the first place.
15
But Dan, what you and so many Americans never seem to understand is that when you enter a European country, you are now entitled to endless social benefits. People pay high taxes into these systems for their entire lives. Giving out all the goodies to new comers who have not paid a dime of taxes and who are less likely to work even after 10 years there, causes issues. It may crash their entire way of life. You are used to paying for most things yourself. If you suddenly had to pay for healthcare, childcare and university for others very different than you, it would make you stop and think. That is the difference.
144
In the end, human rights have to equal responsibilities, and must equal finite resources. Unfortunately there are limits to compassion. I have to say I have a hard time understanding how people in poor war-torn regions can have such large families, showing no regard for their children's prospects for survival, and casting their fate to the generosity of other countries. Our cultures are so different. As fast as we allow people from these countries their 'rights' and take them in, they are producing future refugees just as fast.
Rights and compassion may have a hard time keeping up with exponential population growth.
39
"The world belongs to everybody. Period."
Sure. But every culture must be accountable for its mores. If outdated social customs combined with modern gynecology lead to population explosions in poor, resource-less and corrupt countries why is it the duty of responsible cultures to absorb the overflow?
5
Europe's failure to halt illegal immigration is now threatening both one of the greatest advances of modern times, the European Union, and the remarkable cultures that have, within the last few hundred years, taken humanity to the next stage of development.
The solution to the third world's problems lies not in a flood of economic refugees who will destroy the European Union, but in helping the third world to advance to first world status, as has already occurred in much of Asia.
112
Perhaps part of the problem here is the structure of the European Union itself. This structure, including the European Council, European Parliament (and its moving location), European Commission, and Council of Ministers, (not to mention the separate Courts, Bank, and Auditors), is extremely opaque. Who can keep up with what is happening here among / between these various bodies when they act? This is more complicated than playing Contract Bridge. And it is my understanding that with the exception of the weaker legislative body, the Parliament, the members of these bodies are all appointees of the various governments they represent. Not very democratic, to say the least. Is it any wonder that ordinary European citizens don't feel invested in these institutions?
13
John McGlynn - You've actually explained very well why many Brits voted for Brexit.
4
It seems that most Europeans have failed to embrace the vision of the European Unions founders. In retrospect, the belief that Germans, Greeks, Brits et al would suddenly shed the cultural and nationalist tendencies that have for centuries defined them and willingly embrace allegiance to a centralized beauracracy arguably intended to mimic the great American experiment was doomed by its execution. That because its implementation was precisely the opposite of the great American experiment wherein a confederation of states came together in the absence of a dominant central government. The preeminence provided states allowed each to maintain their identities but more importantly their influence. Its worth noting that as the federal government assumed more power in this country, a resistance began to emerge from the states. When some states determined that the federal government was choosing to ignore their concerns that resistance culminated in a Civil War. Perhaps that is where Europe is now.
13
Not surprisingly, Americams were able to create a federation out of a number of more or less self governing components who shared a language and a history, but nearly impossible to create a governing body made up of disparate cultures, languages, experiences as diverse as the French who submitted to NASI rule after token resistance, the Brits who fought to the end, or the individual Europeans who sometimes risked their lives to save Jews, to the Europeans who helped the NAZI death machine. Europeans need to (briefly) celebrate how far they have come since Bonaparte and Bislark, and build a more realistic post-federalist system.
2
In the continuum of the human race, just think about the state of our species a full millennium ago - completely isolated and tribal, but somewhat aware of other tribes - this current moment, globally, instantaneously connected, but remaining largely tribal - and where our species will be a full millennium from now.
If an asteroid or global warming or some contagion hasn't wiped us out, my guess is that we'll all be some shade of brown, living in enormous city-states of hundreds of millions, served by autonomous technology eliminating most manual labor, and everyone watching the 3018 World Cup in VR to cheer for our city-state.
So the sooner we accept each others' differences and learn to share and live in peace, the better for our distant descendants.
10
A friend opined, several years ago, that we won't all get along until we're attacked by beings from another planet. Another friend immediately suggested they'd be looking for food – and we'd be it.
5
And think about how unified everyone was under the Roman Empire and even after it’s fall how the educated few could all read, write and speak a common language of Latin. Look how fragmented it all is now...
Mr. Hamilton - Unified? Read it again, Sam. Like today, the majority were starving peasants in thrall to a pampered ruling class with all the money and power. Just the way the GOP wants it to be.
Unlike the US, European countries have a long history and a national/ethnic identity. The same is true for Africa and Asia. Only the Americas and Australia are populated by a majority of people who can't trace their ancestry in the same land for a thousand years.
The concept of a black or yellow German (or Frenchman, or Swede, etc.) seems inconsistent with what we think of for those countries. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for European countries to want to maintain their national identity.
97
I suggest you actually travel to these countries, where black Germans and French actually exist, including *gasp* even biracial people. Dated concepts of ethnicity no longer apply.
1
If you look at the French soccer team the concept of a black Frenchman doesn’t seem so foreign. But they were not the first black/colored Frenchmen representing their country.
Alexandre Dumas - perhaps one of the best known French writers - had a black grandparent. His father who is not that well known today was of mixed descent and was general in chief of a French army under Napoleon - at a time when slavery was still prevalent in the US.
Over historical times there has been great mixing in Europe and I am sure there are other examples
1
Hm. Really? My grandmother was born french. Then she was german for a while, before she had some kind of indenpendt status. After that, she was german again until she died.
Mr Fisher forgot one thing that both the European nationalists and the American nationalists have in common.
Both disaffected peoples will become more recalcitrant as the elites continue to preach the correctness of the policies that their citizens believe degrades their nation's quality of life.
The challenge to the political leadership of the democracies is to demonstrate their commitment first to their citizens and secondly to noble causes. More to the point, to do so with messages to persuade through plain facts that when both can be done, we should pursue both slowly allowing for margin of error.
That said, doing both will be the exception, due to cost, social burden and dislocation.
That means leaders have to protect the interests of their citizens and be very cautious about the scale of their noble ambitions. Leaders should not confuse their ability to get things done with their belief in the infallible truth and righteousness about their intentions.
Europe will survive its border crisis. Many of their leaders likely will not. The fact that those EU leaders who favor generous treatment of migrants will lose does not mean that Europe will revert to fascist or communist states.
They will revert to the early days of the EU emphasizing Europe and chalk up the migrant friendly days of EU as a lesson learned.
Or not. History will tell our children and grandchildren what our generations and our leaders did to address the issue.
17
I wonder if there is a phenomenon here that is a cousin to how prices are set in a free market.
We label as the "market price" the result of recent sales as if that reflects the price as which any quantity of the good can be bought or sold. The results of a small quantity compared to the whole (for most goods) are generalized but we know it is a fiction; a flood of selling or buying will definitely change the price.
Similarly what many people would be comfortable with as "open borders" may be a system in which anyone is in theory free to move anywhere inside the EU but relatively few people actually take advantage of it. A couple of people show up at your town or your work from a distant country and people may be ok with that. Thousands or more do so and something changes.
17
Absolutely correct. Integration is about numbers. Receiving one is no problem, not 10, not 100, not even 1000. But 10,000? Depends on the size of the community. 100,000? A million? Open borders between similar countries at a similar level of development and with a similar income is in general not a problem; some people from country A could find it easier to get a job in Country B or vise versa, depending on their skills. Sometimes cross border marriages are involved. The problem begins when there are huge disparities between countries in terms of skills and income and customs and the immigrants have nothing to contribute on any account.
62
One or ten illegal migrants are easily assimilated, 100,000 are not.
6
I would question the contention that migrants have nothing to contribute.
Here is the reality with cultures that have existed for centuries - you cannot get one culture as a group to simply change to another. Individuals are the ones who decide to change. Have the Basque people really become 100% like the rest of Spain? Are the French Canadians the same as the rest of Canada? How about the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey? For that matter how about the Flemish and Wallones of Belgium? The list is very long of cultures within countries not fully becoming one. The United States has been a unique case but even here it is not complete.
52
The Welsh and the Scots still have very strong identities as do the Irish. England conquered them and turned them into Great Britain but they have never blended into a homogenous culture and I don’t think anyone really wants them to. Even here in the States there are strong regional differences in culture and some folks still seem to be fighting the Civil War.
9
Ireland was not “conquered” by nor is it part of Great Britain. Indeed it prevailed in its 1916-1921 war of independence against Britain, which resulted in the partitioning off of Northern Ireland, which is part of the entity known as the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.
Over population coupled with drought and corrupt governments has people fleeing their dysfunctional homelands. The only solution is to bring stability to their homelands as no country can absorb the demand without destabilizing their own country.
Automation and driverless cars will make this worse over the next 50 years.
21
The West needs a new relationship to the world. Sovereignty as a concept has run out. The civilized world needs to agree, at some level, what a government is supposed to do then ensure that every area in the world is served by that sort of government.
Independence and sovereignty are only useful if the government is capable of running its own affairs in a responsible manner. If a government cannot do that it needs to be replaced, forcibly if necessary, with one that can.
The West doesn't have all the answers, but many parts of the world aren't even bothering to answer the question.
I must admit, I stopped reading at "The civilized world". For good reason.,
When the USA withdraws from the the Western Democracies and joins with Russia as the biggest proponents of extreme neoliberalism maybe Europe will relive Bretton Woods and understand sovereignty association or some manner of the boundaries that allow for a degree of sovereignty that only interferes when there is a breach of common decency.
When President Duterte tore into Canada and our Prime Minister he did so on the pretext of our demanding he treat his people with a degree of decency which we respect as absolutely necessary. Duterte said we infringed on Philippine sovereignty.
When Duterte praised Trump to the rafters many of us understood that we needed to escape the orbit of a country that had disdain for the established order of things in the 21st century.
Trump and Putin belong together and the nations Europe will have to decide where they fit in.
4
I do agree with European posters here who speak of their "immigration policy disaster" of the last few years. When well-meaning but clueless politicians and media place the rights, needs, and longings of non-citizen immigrants over those of its citizens -- those who speak the national language(s) and share the values -- there will be upheaval. Here in the United States, it is similar: U.S. progressives trumpet "diversity" and denounce "nativist hypocrisy" over our past open immigration during the nineteenth century. They use that to call for a 1986 amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for all the undocumented. They say it will take nothing from government coffers, although they don't mention the cost of free school breakfasts and lunches and most U.S. public schools' "bilingual bridge" education from Spanish to English for even the youngest children. They mention "fines" to be collected and back taxes to be paid, which cannot be assessed -- much less ever collected.
51
The 1986 legislation is ample warning to be suspicious of the bland assurances of politicians. Either they didn't know what they were talking about--a real possibility--or that law was one of the biggest bait 'n switch tricks ever.
7
Wine Country Dude: the 1986 amnesty was a huge clever "bait n switch" and from Republicans, who wanted a source of cheap labor to undercut unions.
And it WORKED! over 30 years, we went from merely 3 million illegals to 25 million -- uncounted millions of anchor babies! -- more poverty than ever -- failing schools -- overwhelmed social services -- shortages of housing -- but we accomplished the GOAL of getting rid of most private industry unions!
When did liberals become OPPOSED to unions?? They support massive illegal immigration, which factually destroyed the entire UNIONIZED meatpacking and poultry processing industries -- no more unions today -- just low paid illegals.
Minimum wage? still at $7.25 an hour since 2007 -- when it was raised from a shocking $5.15 an hour!!! by PRESIDENT GW BUSH!!! not Obama. Obama did not raise the minimum wage by one stinking penny.
Sad and scary.
Many countries, that 300 years ago took over and drove out the people who were "here first" in the US, now want THEIR territory to be theirs.
It's not even the ISIS, it's the Poles they want to fight.
And the new leaders are playing to an aging population and political base, driven in this social media era by their ability to bring for fear and distrust and hate, even without facts to prove their points.
But they all think it could be like their versions of Andy of Mayberry.
Sound familiar aboput our current POTUS?
7
The lie has been exposed that this was about unity. It was always about the oligarchy have free rein in Europe and a return to feudalism without borders.
The real icing on the cake was open borders with an endless supply of cheap labor from around the world. It was a dream come true for the 1%.
Unfortunately for them the peasants are finally waking up and revolting.
40
To its credit, this is a more nuanced and understanding approach to the questions of national borders and national identity than usually prevails. The usual response is to label the speaker a racist, xenophobic bigot. This public shaming worked for a while to choke off debate, but no more. Even in Europe, supposed haven from the passions both unleashed and capitalized on by Trump, people are rising up and declaring that the emperor is without clothes.
30
Out of control population growth to the south of Europe and the U.S. is one of the most pressing issues of our time. The environment is being degraded by this population growth and it will cause mass migration which will mean the northern lands will have to employ military like strategies to protect themselves, or else they will be overrun.
63
Yes, but it is the very policies of the US, promulgated by Reagan and solidified by both Bushes, that has brought us to this point. If Reagan had not gotten into bed with the so-called religious right, whose only (only) focus is/was to eliminate access to birth control and family planning services—if Reagan had instead made it the priority of the US to encourage birth control use in countries which, largely because of religious practices, eschewed birth control entirely, we would not be in this pickle.
Think about it. Immigration is coming entirely from countries without access to family planning and birth control. That's it; that's all.
And who can blame them? People want their kids (and their kids' kids and their kids' kids' kids) to eat protein.
This problem lies at the feet of the so-called religious right, and our current government actively works against giving poor people in this country and other countries the information and tools they need to limit the size of their families.
I personally think it's too late. Forty years after Reagan and we're doomed.
1
That's exactly what was done in Australia. The military was put in charge of stopping people-smuggling. It worked.
1
"Allowing in refugees, even in very large numbers, does not mean Germany will no longer be Germany ..." This statement epitomizes the falsehoods of globalist propaganda. If Germany is one day in the future 50% muslim, then it is no longer Germany. I have just returned from a month in Genoa, Italy and London, England. The recent mass immigration into these two cities has greatly changed the character of both of these cities so they are no longer Genoese nor British.
215
Agreed. Even in the cities in Switzerland have changed greatly in just 20 years time. Some places have become so much different in such a short period of time and not necessarily in a good way. In another 20 years, many parts of Europe will become unrecognizable.
12
As a western person living in the east: stop living in the past. Stop trying to preserve a past illusion. Embrace the future: work together to a sustainable future, knowing that people are more than their cultural heritage: we are human and share so much more that what divides us. This is not idealistic drivel - this is our inevitable destiny. Pushing against it will just make the transition needlessly painful.
12
The People's Republic of China certainly takes its borders and seriously. And unfortunately, the PRC government does not allow Tibet or the Uighurs their cultural heritage.
6
Yeah, no. The world loses something every time a culture goes extinct. I would not give up the various European country cultures for all the tea in China.
6
How many of these migrants is China taking in?
5
As an immigrant to a country that has no interest in being a melting pot - given its unique culture and history - I understand that national identities are important to Europeans.
I am strongly encouraged both through official means (language classes, and integration interviews) and unofficial means - neighbors asking how my language skills are coming along - to integrate as much and as quickly as possible. I am also encouraged to adapt certain behaviors and manners.
The EU s a strange thing. It is not a country, as that recognition goes to the constituent states. Yet, it passes laws. It holds court.
Happily living outside the EU, I take advantage of the open borders for shopping, eating, and culture. But, I dare not enter illegally. Neither should anyone else.
Europe is composed of EU and non-EU countries with unique cultures. They should welcome some immigration but need not be overburdened with refugees who do not seek to integrate into the culture, and who may over time change the culture.
I am expected to integrate and so should anyone else seeking to enter anothers nation.
196
Read History. There has never been lasting peace. There has never been lasting war. Everything that has ever happened will happen again. If we are lucky and our generation lives through a time of peace, our children will probably not.
11
They forgot to mention that they hoped France and Germany would become like New Jersey and Pennsylvania?
Forget history, language, government, food and all the rest?
And now they're shocked, shocked by the pushback?
Of the people, by the people, for the people. It works as well in Europe as here. To my mind, the "visionaries" have no business that others go along. The refugee crisis brought it to a head, but if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.
28
It's amusing how the American press regularly predicts a European 'meltdown' or dissolution of the EU. It's a thinly veiled hope that so many in the US have - they can't believe that this supranational structure actually works... but it does.
That doesn't mean the EU doesn't have problems - it does. But thank Heavens not nearly the problems the US is struggling with.
7
I'm always amused at people who say Of course the EU has problems but it's really working and doesn't have nearly the problems the US is struggling with . . .
Like our still rich and powerful economy and the fact that the only thing keeping Putin out of Vienna is American taxpayer supported NATO.
4
Wow, a bunch of sophisticated we-know-better politicians, intent on central control, mis-reading the Little People - and now experiencing push-back from the Little People. Such a non-surprise.
63
The EU, like America, is only addressing the symptoms of the much larger problem that is becoming pronounced on its borders.
Former colonies, nations created after WW-I, dictators supported by "The West" the explosion of the pressure cooker that was Iraq, the many proxy Sunni v. Shi'a wars supported by powerful wealthy forces on each side,... Then the hand-wringing at the pictures of people being displaced.
Still nobody addresses these root-causes, they simply look at the carnage and shake their heads and wonder why all these people are coming to them for help.
Just like the American lust for drugs fuels the carnage in Central America and Mexico while the government blames the suppliers, the EU leaders ignore their complicity in the larger problem.
However, this is just a drill. As climate change takes full effect, the current refuge crisis will look like a pleasant weekend with your in-laws.
We made these problems, now we have to deal with the results and that starts with accepting responsibility.
14
Excellent letter. Enjoyed reading it.
National identity is at the core of European culture and will always be so as it is with Japan, Israel, China and essentially every other nation. National identity cannot be transcended, only accommodated. The virtue-signalling Utopians who see a multicultural world devoid of national identity are engaging in delusional thinking.
83
Wish that those joining us here in the US would become more Americanized. That is our strong fabric.
5
Globalists are always going to damage local workers.
Europe may very well break up and even abandon the Euro over this. Greece and a couple of other countries may well go into bankruptcy,
Instead of capitalizing on it, Russia will become even more of a failing third-world thieves' hideout, bleeding the most abitious and energetic percent of its population every few months.
Eventually Europe will come back together as in the late 1940's, chastened and wary, but able to resist the globalist clowns. By then we'll know how much of Europe will end up in a caliphate.
23
The key problem is that most of these immigrants are not assimilating into
the culture that so graciously accepted them. It is more like a cult. Bavaria/Hungary/Poland etc. are not going to be Bavaria, etc. in another 50 years or so. That’s just not good for native Bavarians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. Xenophobia is not immoral.
50
They completely misread the American story. The US only really became a nation state after external threats that required joint military action to expel them, e.g., British in War of 1812, Native Americans, Mexican Empire. Divisions still remained until the Civil War where again strong military action stamped out the idea of independent states. The Europeans thought they could accomplish the same end state via bureaucracy and bank loans with no bloodshed. It simply could not happen. Loans and rules generate winners and losers. When those winners and losers are in your “nation state”, your consolidators have the opposite impact. Separate languages and cultures exacerbated the problem.
The migrants could have been a situation that brought them together. The emphasis could have been a joint response to an external threat that still required a humane response. Chancellor Merkel’s problem was unilateral action, not the action itself. She just needed to convince the other partners what they needed to do, before doing it.
7
Canada is similar to Europe in that Quebec retains much of it's culture and language and is still part of Canada. We consider this relationship of diversity what makes Canada Canada. Europe must guard against populism, the force that is dividing America as we speak.
I miss Obama, perhaps the last leader with American values and the leadership qualities to understand that we are a global community not a bunch of rival tribes trying to take advantage of one another, as today
10
Subsuming orientalism, Islamophobia, and non-European racism into "larger" issues of identity diminishes the fundamental role that these three phenomena have had on the current crises. Perhaps the biases towards Arabs, Asians, and Africans exists before, and motivates, arguments about national culture. For example, I doubt a Englishman would have as many problems with a Scandinavian emigrating, even though he might contribute to cultural dilution as much as a Syrian or Afghani.
8
As the article stated, British resentment to immigration transcends race as there has been hostility to recent Polish arrivals.
3
No, this is retrograde longing for a world that no longer exists. Our little blue planet is small and getting smaller. Boeing, Airbus, Facebook et al are making sure of that. Human beings no longer are hidden from the truth of their existence and the source of their suffering. If you want your cultural fiefdom, you must help those who work to give rich nations resources and cheap products. Xenophobia and authoritarianism are ugly words representing humanity at its worst. And nobody wins when these things take hold (ok, those at the top win). The fact is this: we all breathe, and bleed. We all love and hate. To claim huge differences between people is a sick lie. What Europe and the US are saying is ugly and cold blooded: “give us your toil and resources, but stay away from us.” It’s a repulsive impulse that leads to very bad outcomes.
9
And if you visit Prague you'll find that that world is quite in evidence. If you visit Malmo in Sweden or Molenbeek in Brussels, you'll see where that world has gone to. Visit Dorset or Bath in Britain, and you'll find what people think of when they think of England. Visit Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Newham - and you'll think you're in a foreign country.
5
Trump is a fellow traveler of Europe’s far right nationalist populists challenging the legitimacy of their own government and the EU.
Next week, he will widen the rift with current allies when he meets with them at the NATO summit to castigate them once again as a means to please his base and his real benefactor, Vladimir Putin.
Because immigration is a major issue in European and U.S. elections for the foreseeable future, it could be Trump will unintentionally unite European leaders against Trumpism at least on immigration, use of tariffs, disdain of NATO and his worrisome partnership with Putin.
4
Parts of London now don't feel like parts of London anymore. The US was built on immigration but in the UK it has been thrust upon us far too quickly and with far too many numbers. It wasn't planned for as politicians hugely underestimated how many would come under the 'free movement of people' scheme. Unfortunately it should have said free movement of workers not just 'people'. This is why the majority of British people have voted to leave the EU and all it stands for. Despite the dire warnings and threats from EU and business leaders we are willing to call a halt to the whole charade.
61
"the majority of British people have voted to leave the EU"
Elsewhere we read there's more to it than that, and recent surveys show that a Brexit re-vote would fail if the vote were held today. You're right though, that the EU would've likely worked better, at least at a first phase, if they'd allowed free movement of workers only.
[Btw, one suspects the people of Hong Kong, or India, would have preferred the Brits to stay out of their countries too.]
3
Put Europe on the shelf a moment. What if: 225+ countries all over the world, and they were all were independent? Totalitarianism at the maximum. Think about it.
Trump and cronies would like nothing better. He wants to divide, not join.It is a bad time to be on this planet. I was in the "duck and cover" age of elementary school in the 1950's. Much later, Ieared the lies Truman made after WWII. 6 out of 7 Chiefs of staff told him NOT to drop the bomb, as the Germans had already lost, and the Japanese were down to only 12,000 or so soldiers fighting in the Philippines. Even General MacArthur, who was a hard line guy, said we can do this with a minimum of ground forces. Truman wanted was payback. In spite of so much opposition, later misconceptions I believed to be true for years, he dropped the "Little Boy on Hiroshima, killing over 150,000 civilians instantly, and 100,000 more dying agonizing deaths over the next few days, weeks and months. Then he dropped Fat Man (the larger bomb) on Nagasaki, killing civilians; how many, who knows, but probably ended the lives for 1/2 million people strictly for revenge. Almost their entire country was destroyed, and we bombed (with conventional bombs) Tokyo, just to kill civilians.
All because we could. Not to end the war, as our "history" books read. Truman ordered 50 Hollywood films that were total propaganda (Bogart was in one; he refused to be cast in any more); James Stewart and Ronald Reagan wanted to, however.
Learn the truth.
4
Yes, one should learn the truth. And the truth is completely different from the story told here.
The Joint Chiefs did not exist as a formal structure, and informally, there were four, not seven. The informal chief didn't believe the bomb would work, and didn't understand how it was supposed to work. There were military estimates of deaths in the hundreds of thousands of American troops if the U.S. invaded, and an equal number of Allied POWs, civilian internees, and civilians in Japanese occupied countries. (The estimates of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese occupation forces runs from about 3,300 to 10,000 PER DAY for the roughly 3,000 days they occupied Japan).
Harry Truman asked a special committee whether the bomb should be used, and was told they couldn't come up with any better alternative than what was done: direct military use against cities, without warning. And the advisers were correct. The first time any Japanese leader expressed willingness to surrender was on the morning of August 9th, AFTER they were informed of the bombing of Nagasaki.
Yes, learn the truth.
Conflating national and racial pride with the risk or likelihood of war is false. Many nations have plenty of racial pride even to the point of xenophobia while also having mutual defense treaties with others, thus precluding ever going to war.
If you are gay or belong to a racial minority in the US, it’s quite natural to identify with your subgroup and be culturally embedded in that group. Every member nation is similarly a minority unto itself vis a vis a multinational union like the EU. Who can imagine Germans and Italians happily melding their cultures, -and what would it yield?
10
Very good wine?
Let me tell you what the problem with Europe is; its old. Old people are quite uncomfortable when they are confronted with a new world. I am sorry, but the numbers in the "refugee crises" just do not add up to a crisis with the exception possibly of Lesbos in the Greek Isles. But that is the nature of the Greeks. They accommodate as best they can. Can't say that for the rest of Europe though. Does anyone have any idea what proportion of the total population of Europe the refugees actually represent. Even if Germany took in one million refugees that would only be 1.2% of their population hardly enough to overwhelm their wonderful culture.
5
The problem with Europe is that it is by and large, prosperous, stable and safe and wants to stay that way. Merkle, by throwing the doors open without asking anyone threatens that.
6
That is a frequently cited misconception. The Identitarian Movement in Europe is almost entirely composed of young people.
The numbers in the refugee crisis add up quite rightly when you remember that they only want to go to three countries: the UK, Germany, and Sweden. If you really think those numbers don't add up, all you have to do is look at what Sweden is coping with today as opposed to what Poland or Hungary or Denmark are coping with. The latter kept large numbers out. Sweden let large numbers in and is now coping with ghettos, violent crime of a sort it has never known before, and hugely segregated areas. Denmark got harsh when it saw what happened across the Oresund Bridget. The result in Sweden? A nearly neo-Nazi party is likely to do better than it ever has before in the elections on 8 September - that's how angry the Swedes are at how their government refused to recognize the impact on local culture in places like Malmo.
That comparison to the whole population of the EU is specious - do you really think those economic migrants which is what 70% are, are headed for Latvia? Romania? No, they aren't: the Calais Jungle festered because its residents weren't even willing to file for asylum in France.
So the comparison is specious. And if you think Germany's culture isn't suffering, just take a look at their beloved Christmas Markets - which now have cement blocks, sandbags, barriers, and armed guards around them.
6
The right wing nationalists should be careful what they wish for. The instability will have huge costs for the world economy.
1
Leadership of the EU nations is an example of what many people perceive is the disconnected rule by non-representative "elites". We are experiencing the backlash in Europe and USA. Where this goes, nobody knows
6
To compare Europe with early America is absurd. Those american citizens from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, et all, were already mixed groups and had been for a long time before they formed states into the united states.
European countries have been bordered for centuries and those borders have been fought over fiercely over and over.
The Italians dont want to become melded and mixed like butter with Germans Spanish, English, etc and or vice versa. They love their borders that hold their identities, histories, cultures, and traditions and much much more; which were thousands of years in the making. Merkel let open a flood gate that will have consequences for decades to come because most refugees dont want to give up the identities they were born with and learn new languages, traditions etc. They wish to keep and continue their own in enclaves that become separate and can become ghettos.
No matter how much we wish to have the perfect experiment of race and cultural mixes in actualitiy it has worked only in a few places. London, New York, big cities where toleraance is wide spread and differences are expected and accepted. Small towns and communities its another matter. I agree with another commentor its time to slow down immigration severely and make other countries deal with their problems. Sounds harsh but little and big countries have limits.
128
So...? No different from earlier American colonies?
You know, that consisted of many insular communities not at all interested in integration and often speaking different languages. It took just about 200 years for them to become close enough for a single country to form.
1
We are still many insular communities not all that interested in integration and often speaking different languages. We just don't want to be honest about it.
4
Americans are not honest with themselves about how it works here. People of different nationalities don't freely mix in the US. We just want to believe that they do. They segregate themselves in places of worship and in their social lives and even in their business lives. It's not a melting pot. And it's a big country so it works more or less, although fault lines are developing. We hold ourselves up as superior to European nations, although we ourselves are not what we claim to be.
1
Even where I differ with Mr. Fisher, I appreciate his calmness, his lucidity, his conscientious effort to be truthful.
One neglected factor here is democracy. Borders allow people to be self-governing. They also help them to be free from subordination by others, for example, from subordination by the EU techno-bureaucracy.
Another neglected factor is that continued immigration is not the only issue. In fact, it is only an issue at all because the existing immigrants have not been absorbed into their new societies. That is the cause of the present disruption and revolt against the EU.
And this is not simply a matter of race or a need to be with people who look like you. That is the least of it. It is much more about trust. Language is part of it because it engenders trust by allowing people to communicate and reach understandings with each other. Language also gives people access to law, policies, history, culture. Trust is also built when people share ethics, a common sense of appropriate behavior, common work habits, and so on. Where there is trust, there is more tolerance and cooperation.
If immigration can be controlled at all, policy should be a response to the question of how many people, from which cultures, over what amount of time, can become trustworthy and trusting at a level that will prevent the intolerable social disruption and division that is produced by mistrust.
18
Of infinitely greater importance than the survival of the EU is the survival of Europe itself.
48
it is one thing for Europeans (from Malta in the south to Finland in the north) with all their differing views on social structure, language issues aside, to accept free movement. It is quite another to accept those from outside the bloc who have gained entry through a member country by whatever means. And never forget that tribalism at its attendant cultural biases, are never far from the surface.
And forget about the Colonies which united to become US. They had a common grievance with their own government not present in this case.
13
...and then they fought each other.
2
Something has to address the rot of Africa and the African continent. European conquerers left long ago, and hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars have been wasted on Africa from the funding of North America and the European Continent. The elite Africans are despotic and money-grabbing and don't care one iota about their people. Africa has returned to times of long ago, where tribes are fighting tribes, and simply do not care about the unification of their respective countries. What then appears to happen is that "refugees" are not remaining in their countries to fight, but are fleeing to the safety of Europe. The major problem then, is that Europe does not have the money to support these people. And for a large amount of these people, they have no desire to blend into society of their new adopted country. You can't have it both ways! That is to say, come into a new country then remain without contributing. Many peoples before them migrated into Europe and North America and integrated, and still kept their values. The new generation of migrants do not want to!
72
Massive influx of migrants to Europe from Africa exit thru Libya, a country Hillary Clinton helped to destroy just to prove that she had the chops to be a future President of the USA.
Merkel opened the doors for immigrants, but there we few coming until Muammar Gaddafi was banished.
When you're in the middle of history it can be hard to discern what's going on. Looking back 50 years from now I wonder if this will turn out to be more or less a continuation of the process of tribes coalescing into nations in the 18th-19th Century, but now moving toward a next level of coordinated nations. And so on. Perhaps vastly increased connectivity via the internet is jostling us into working on that next level, with all the friction that it entails. Looking across the Atlantic one could argue that, similarly, the United States is resisting entering the 21st Century kicking and screaming.
Times of difficulty require leaders who point to a challenge and makes us feel like we can do it, rather than pointing backward. Not too fast, of course, but meeting the challenges nonetheless. "We choose to go to the moon." This time around I also think it's going to require both men and women at the helm in equal measure. Not just men, because we may not be in the same jungle anymore. We're in a better one! How fortunate we are to be on a blue planet in the midst of unimaginably vast nothing.
2
Until Islam goes through a reformation (100 years? 400 years?) it is pointless to think any kind of assimilation will happen. Throw in climate change, and we're hosed. It will be war. It will be famine and thirst. It will be disease. It will be vast global movements of refugees.
7
The question is not "Will immigration destroy the national identity of Germany? or any other country for that matter. The question is "Who decides?" and across Europe citizens are demanding that they participate in the decision. Once you take the citizen out out of the decision, as Angela Merkel did, and put it in the hands of a remote bureaucracy the only recourse for those opposed is to vote her out of office when that opportunity presents itself. This doesn't mean the dream of united Europe is dead, but it needs to be rethought.
Personally, I still appreciate that France is different than Germany or Italy etc. I don't know how much of that identity is lost as the centralized EU government gains power once reserved for individual countries but finding that balance appears to be crucial to the EU's health and long term survival.
30
The European Union should focus only on shared economic benefits, never erasing national borders, identities, cultures. Those should be accepted and celebrated as strengths, not weaknesses.
There should be agreements hammered out on solutions to deal with those fleeing hardship. Wouldn't it be cheaper to help would-be migrants stay in their own countries?
34
Not only cheaper, but better for everybody.
6
It's interesting that differences in culture and identity are sold as strengths within a nation, but the very opposite between nations. Such differences are just as much a potential source of friction within a nation as they are between nations.
2
The EU is a case of the Tragedy of the Commons; first, sparked by economic disagreement and then driven home by the Merkel "protecting" the borders of other sovereign countries. A noble experiment that tested the limits of freedom and globalisation.
“Now, as Europeans struggle with the social and political strains set off by migration from poor and war-torn nations outside the bloc”
Perhaps they should consider their help in funding of war in those war-torn nations, often beside Wahhabist Saudi Arabia. Better to address the cause.
8
Here's the problem the EU has: They have never asked the people if they wished to live in a 'United States of Europe' with no borders and a government in Brussels. The few times they were asked the question in a referendum the results have been NO. That never matters of course because in the EU they will do referendums until the 'correct' result happens or bypass the peasants altogether.
The whole EU project has been run by the elites who really don't care what the people have to think. They 'don't know what is good for them' because they haven't been to the proper universities or have known the right people. IF they did they would love to have a government that is filled with professionals with few, if any, controls over them.
56
@Robert Squrriel Your post could equally apply on this side of the Atlantic, IMO.
2
To a point but I think there are many differences. The biggest is that the US is over 200 years old and we have the same basic system of government. Yes there are forces, left & right, that try to influence and game the systems. They run into a problem called 'the public' when they try and go too far.
That's why I laugh at people who say Trump, or any other demagogue (right AND left). is going to destroy the country. He can't because people won't let him.
Actually they have asked the people.
The constituent countries are all democracies with votes on the matter.
One the one hand, this article is something of an improvement, as it reckons a bit with the reality the EU project has for too long tried to deny.
On the other, it's practically dripping with sympathy for the supranationalist's "plight", and all but consigns the almost-universal wish of peoples to preserve their identities to the status of some weird superstition that refuses to die. It's hard to believe that, in the writers' travels and discussions with average people, this was the best explanation they could come up with.
130
The chickens are coming home to roost.
The arbitrary borders of the Middle East that were drawn by the European victors of WWI, yes World War One, had set in motion the conflicts that we are living with today.
The tribal strife created by artificial boundaries based on colonialism and greed have festered for a century.
The hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees that are streaming into Europe are fleeing death and destruction that could have been prevented.
No lesson was ever learned from bogus nation building. Help was never forthcoming to the people of nations that were plundered for their wealth.
Middle East monarchies continued to enrich themselves long after the colonialist were expelled and oil companies nationalized. Vast fortunes were spent on an arms race.
Tribal hatred and greed drives the conflict.
And the common man and his family get caught in the middle.
It is fitting that these people seek refuge from the countries that put them in jeopardy in the first place.
Europeans and Americans fear and distrust the brown skinned people coming across their borders, yet it is the refugee that should be wary.
7
Europe simply needs to create refugee camps at the external EU border where refugees can have temporary safe haven until the dangerous conditions in their homelands subside and they can return.
If immigration into the EU is sufficiently controlled at the external border, then intra EU movement will be less of a problem.
Sure, you'll still get complaints about Polish immigrants, etc. but that is a minor issue. The major issue is that global population projections were wrong about one important place--Africa is going to double in population by 2050.
For instance, in Niger, where the average income is $1 per day and birth rates are 7.5 per woman and holding, population projections for the year 2100 have been pegged at 209 million with some high end estimates much higher (this is just one African country with 20 million people today). Nigeria, on of the most populous countries today, could have nearly a billion people.
Europe, tiny by comparison and shrinking, won't survive the inevitable mass migration when the Earth ceases to sustain that kind of careless population growth.
256
Primarily created by senseless ongoing wars.
Your comment absolutely underscores the gravity of the challenge. In addition to Africa, include the Indian subcontinent for a clearer demographic reality check - 2 billion, growing fast, and a tradition of migration to Europe/USA. As big a problem as migration is today, tomorrow's will be exponentially greater
18
You are absolutely right. Africa alone produces 30 million extra people per year. It already has 100s of millions of more people than it can ever support sustainably. It is completely unreasonable to expect any country anywhere to absorb these kinds of numbers, especially when we all know that there is no end in sight. No one is obligated to destroy there own nation by being swamped with a never ending supply of immigrants.
22
Under normal circumstance, president of the US encourage other countries to fight extreme nationalistic/chauvinistic positions. Not this president, he behaves in the same despicable manner.
4
Max Fisher has to be one of the worst European Union analysts I've read. Even as he bemoans Merkel's short-term compromise decision to impose some random checks at one border crossing in Bavaria in order to get her country through the October elections -- declaring it an existential threat to the Schengen area -- he totally ignores that for the past three years France has had passport checks on almost all of its major border crossings. Despite these checks, Schengen has not collapsed and most Europeans continue to value the opportunity to live, work, and travel in a free and whole Europe.
American analysts like Max Fisher love to point out when the European Union fails to perfectly live up to its values, which is perhaps a form of projection, given that the United States is arguably the most illiberal country of the developed world -- death penalty, no health care, undemocratic elections, xenophobic immigration policy -- and this probably leads some Americans -- perhaps Max Fisher is one of them -- to look at the European Union with a mix of jealousy and contempt for a society that seems to be doing so much better than their own.
The reality is, though, that the European Union is the safest and most prosperous political space in the entire world. European Union institutions are more resilient than most Americans understand. Europe -- including Schengen and the euro -- is incredibly popular with Europeans who are surveyed.
Stop the European "doomer" talk, Americans!
62
Totally agree. Americans are exceedingly ignorant of European politics and history. Max Fishers article is superficial, scant on facts, and cherry picks personal comments favoring populist voices.
My son has lived in Germany (Dresden) for 12 years. I visit often and have had the good fortune to meet many young people from all over Europe. Most young people love the open borders policies and consider themselves to be citizens of the world. They travel all over the world for conferences, business, and pleasure. The EU has opened all this up for them. They are embracing globalization and seeing it as the future of the world.
The decent into nationalism is the worst possible option for the world. Right wing dictators like Orban in Hungary don't care a wit about their people. He has used EU money to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies. He cares about one thing : power. And to get and maintain that power he has used every right wing trick in the book, Revving up fear - especially re immigration. Reviving atavistic symbolism and old grudges. Degrading the justice system. Persecuting the opposition. And taking over the media. And of course - telling lies. If the world does not see this appalling consequence of populism we will regress into the dark days fascism and totalitarian rule.
Yes, let's try to understand the reasons for the rebirth of nationalism. But let us fight and nail. It has not been this dangerous since the explosion of nationalism and fascism after WWI
2
"People who look like me, speak my language and share my heritage", as you put it, is what everyone wants. Liberal, Conservative, Gay, Latino and so on, there are few people who don't gravitate toward that, yet you call it 'dangerous'. Every country in the world, from the Americas to Africa, values their national pride and identity, and I am uncertain why people believe that European countries should give it up.
130
Oh, they don't want European countries to give it up totally. They want just enough "European" patina to remain in countries like Germany, Italy, Hungary, France etc. so that there is something for them to take pictures of on their vacations as they search for "authenticity." Mark my words: most of the people expressing disapproval of any European citizens who are uncomfortable about mass migration from the Mideast, will not be interested in taking photos at the Christmas Market of shop owners named Diallo or Ali.
7
For Americans what would "look like me" be?
It's odd that a sense of being and one's belonging in a country is sneered at by the author and many journalists and intellectual. It's a pretty basic human emotion or phenomenon. Look how people are going wild over the World Cup?
Why does freedom of trade and movement between countries mean that they have to take in people from outside these countries? Why is the refusal to do so seen as a bad thing? Why do they have to give up their national identities?
Nobody demands Japan or Korea do this but Western countries are denounced as racist for not wanting millions of people from the Middle East and Africa to arrive into their lands.
302
Yes, and nobody is demanding that Dubai or Saudi Arabia, with all of their vast resources, do anything either. That applies to many other Arab states. Yes, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon are doing their share, but very little is written about the others who can build the biggest buildings and the best cities, but do nothing about the refugee crisis that is engulfing the Middle East.
7
1000 years ago, one would have been sneered at for imagining that people from such diverse areas as Burgundy, Aquitaine and Normandy could ever coexist under one government.
Make Europe Tribal Again!
We are the cause of the refugee onslaught .
2
The old national borders of Europe were well under way to diappear before the migrant flood hit us. The extension of the EU to southeastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece) didn't help either. The immigration disaster has now led to a backlash that threatens the noble project of European integration. And, remember, European integration was meant to be just that, integration of people who share roughly the same culture and traditions, even if they speak different languages. It was never meant to accommodate people with alien outlooks, Moslems in particular, who are welcome to practise their cultural traditions back home, but importing them to European countries is highly unwelcome and deepely resented by the common man and woman in most European countries. Adding to the problem is that countries closest to Africa and Asia are most exposed to the deluge and understandably think it is unfair to carry an unproportionally large part of the burden. Until Europe comes up with a credible defense of its own borders against unwanted migration it has no other choice than to put any further integration on the back burner. It might even be advisable for it to shed some of its marginal members, and by marginal members I do not mean Britain, to say nothing about admitting more.
85
Greece has been in the EU for a very long time.
True. but even so their membership of the euro area has not been, shall we say, unproblematic.
Sophocles' Antigone lays out the everlasting European contradiction: Abstract universal laws applied to all in a culturally disengaged way versus blood ties with powerful cultural imperatives. The EU elite are like Creon, the people of Europe are like Antigone. There is a way to have workable universal abstractions (the Declaration of Human RIghts) but when they are applied beyond a consenting group their legitimacy becomes wobbly.
Given the role of the extremist capitalistic ideology of US neo-Cons, and their constant stirring up of MIdeast wars, I am tempted to conclude that US military wars of "liberation" (including Syria) are actually designed to destroy European social democracy by creating the huge refugee crisis we see today.
15
Or maybe its just not a very good idea(not for most of us anyway) to have open, unfettered immigration from around the globe? Could it be that simple? It never is for the elites that jam this stuff down the throats of the populace. This article is the best that could be mustered on the subject? I rest my case.
96
You obviously haven't got the message from your superiors! "Diversity" is the best thing that could possibly happen to society, at least, since sliced bread. (Actually, unsliced bread is better.)
What would happen to society without diversity? Can't you imagine what a nightmare that would be?
Also, just one pro-diversity thought. If we want our immigration (legal and illegal) to be diverse, we'll have to only allow white people from Europe in for the next thirty years, to balance out the immigration (illegal) that's flooded America for the past three decades.
5
Europe is not a melting pot - nor have most Europeans ever wished to be an Esperanto speaking continent. Every country in Europe that I have visited has a strong sense of their culture, history, language and pride in those traditions. I think that is totally understandable and actually quite wonderful. The problem many Europeans have isn't with immigration or refugees - it is with a lack of assimilation. France has absorbed thousands of Vietnamese refugees, Sweden has thousands of Chileans and the list goes on. The current tensions have been building for over a decade caused by massive waves of newcomers who do not assimilate. Many refugees who go to Germany are not seeking democratic governments, equal opportunities for their daughters and LGBTQ rights - they want a safe place to keep living their religious lifestyle from their country of origin. That is a problem - it is inherently a conflict with secular Europe. I think the fatal flaw was waiting so long to have honest conversations that assimilation is an expectation and not an option. Had Denmark, Germany and Sweden laid out these expectations as conditional visa requirements decades ago (language competency, children in public schools, girls not able to opt out of anything per their parents religious demands, etc) I think a lot of this could have been avoided. But - the attempt to accommodate rather than assimilate has helped get them here. I hope there is a solution that doesn't involve a rise in fascists!
404
@Dana, Santa Monica: Great point about the host countries demanding assimilation rather than leaning—however well-intentioned—toward accommodation. It seems perfectly reasonable; if you allow someone into your home, you demand a minimum standard of behavior; if you have to insist upon it or constantly remind your guest about “minimum standards,” then they shouldn’t be in your home! To relinquish control of your space invites unpleasant consequences. Who, really, in their right mind, would do so? If desperate migrating people aren’t willing to live respectfully where they have sought refuge (they weren’t invited), then they should be willing to hazard the dangers of a nomadic existence. They have no right to ask generous hosts to allow them to do as they please. I don’t think that’s asking too much.
7
Perhaps what both of you are missing is that "assimilation" is rather beside the point.
It's not a question of whether Europe becomes a nation of assimilated Africans or non-assimilated Africans - it's whether it becomes a nation of Africans. Period.
Europe is indeed a melting pot, one of the most genetically diverse places on earth. This is true within individuals countries, such as France, not just from country to country.
And English is the equivalent of Esperanto. In Italy, for example, about a third of the people speak English. Over half of all EU citizens can get by in English.
1
It is one thing for a nation like Germany to share a common market and porous border with Luxembourg or Belgium. It is quite another to share one de facto with Syria and Chad.
404
Um. Germany does not share a border with Syria and Chad. And that is de facto.
1
I do agree. We face the same immigrant crisis here in the US.
The fact that the United States could very well become a majority of Hispanic peoples was something I do believe was ever intended. The difficult debate continues.
Each European nation has amazing cultural identities that identify their heritages. Immigration poses a threat to these identities. The same is true to the United States.
2
What a very middle American point of view, but very divorced from the actual facts on the ground. There is not a single nation in Europe in peril of losing its national identity any more than Indiana or Nebraska is in danger of losing their identities as bastions of conservative whiteness.
The most stridently anti-EU, anti-immigrant countries, regions, and governments are some of the poorer ones that were isolated from the rest of the world for decades under Communism. Most migrants do not want to settle there, yet they are most feared there. This mismatch between where migrants would go if given the chance, and where they are most feared says a lot about the actual reasons why those mostly Eastern EU countries do not want them. It has nothing to do with economic realities and projections, and everything to do with irrational fear of "others". This holds also in terms of different sentiments about migrants in what was formerly East Germany vs West Germany, even though now it's the same culture and is now the same prosperous country.
7
A convenient narrative but it doesn’t stack up to reality.
The reality is that most countries tacitly support the position of Hungary, Poland and Czech. The EU scheme to relocate 160,000 refugees failed miserably because countries, knowing the problems it would cause back home among their electorate, quietly decided to side with Hungary.
The largest survey conducted on Brexit showed that overwhelming the reason people voted out was “Migration”. Every politician is acutely aware that migration is potentially a career ending subject, it is that powerful.
Ireland, for instance, only took in 2,700 refugees last year. Spain took in the Aquarius, with much media fanfare, only to refuse being a migrant center host country in the European Council meeting the next. Denmark has brought in harsh new laws to stem migrant benefits, Sweden checks every train crossing from Denmark and sends illegal migrants back...
The reality is not that the Visegrad group that is isolated, it is Germany.
16
It has everything to do with "economic realities." Many faux "refugees" wanted to reach Germany, and only Germany (or Scandinavia) because of the level of benefits offered new arrivals. If Eastern European countries offered the same benefits they most assuredly would head there.
10
Sorry Barry but UA is correct.
Hungary is now number 4 on the list of most corrupt countries in the EU. With Greece, Italy, and Bulgaria the bottom three.
That distinction was acquired under Orbans 'leadership'. Orban has used EU money to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies. He has used immigration as a weapon to inflame 'fear of the other' to enhance the populist base that keeps him in power.
And no - I do not think most countries support the position of Hungary, Poland, and Czech - nor would they choose to live there.
Austria is still relatively free of corruption. But if your new and very young chancellor, Sebastian Kurt, goes down the Orban trail - you can be sure your corruption scale will uptick precitously.
2
In order to keep people from becoming refugees they need a reason to stay home. The Syrian diaspora and the emerging one in Central America stem from authoritarian regimes preventing domestic development. In Syria Russia keeps a civil war going to keep the diaspora from returning. Accordingly, the most important thing Europe and the West can do is to stand up to Russia and make Syria safe for Syrians. So far we've been doing the opposite and the result has been to destabilize the West. Syria is not the only problem. Virtually all of the Middle East needs a governmental reboot as does Central America. But it doesn't seem like anyone has the stomach for the effort.
8
The Orwellian idea of individuals surrendering their national identities to some so called super state and a distant mega government ruling over it all was always a fatally FLAWED concept. And the comparison with the creation of the United States was and is bogus. The 13 colonies are all based on a single almost all British identity and history and ONE language. That was and is nothing like the very diverse collection of Western European nations each one so very different in fundamental ways.
193
How about two to five smaller countries aligning with Germany to form an economic zone?
The experiment of the European Union has ignored one critical issue: once Western and part of Eastern Europe had one common denominator -- the Latin language. Its use and official standing were undermined by declaring the national dialects as the official languages since the 16th (?) century. Since then Europe has become a veritable Tower of Babel.
European Union is a construct standing on clayey feet as long as it has no (1) common constitution, (2) unified military command, and (3) common language.
4
That is a half truth. Latin was only known widely in certain European countries (Italy, France,the Iberian peninsula, and Romania with a few zones in other countries, and even in all those countries not universally). And by the early Middle Ages, Latin devolved into various dialects and then into individual languages. Latin qua Latin was only available to an educated elite and so continued into the modern era. Indeed, English is actually much more widely spoken in the full range of EU countries than Latin ever was, and in particular for example, east of the Rhine. And English could well serve today as the lingua franca for the EU, if Britain were not leaving the EU and leadership (?) in the US were not trashing the EU. In that respect, it would serve the same purpose that English serves in India, which is every bit as multilingual, if not more so, than Europe.
2
"The European Union has always been sold, to its citizens, on a practical basis: Cheaper products. Easier travel. Prosperity and security."
Well, the European Union was never actually "sold to its citizens" in any fashion. It was devised by the European political elites that ran that continent and still do. When Europe's citizens actually got a chance to vote on it, they usually voted it down. In 2005, 55% of French voters turned the EU down, and that same year, 61% of Dutch voters turned down a similar referendum. And of course, UK voters chose to get out just two years ago.
The response of the EU elites was to avoid popular votes altogether in cobbling together their "ever greater union," and to rely on treaties that never made it inside a voting booth, where the common rabble could vote them down. And of course, that same thinking was evident when the same political elites decided to welcome a horde of economic migrants and supposed asylum-seekers in 2015. This time, the voters have taken advantage of their right to vote. They can't vote on treaties, but they can vote elitists out of office. At least for now.
150
"Well, the European Union was never actually "sold to its citizens" in any fashion. It was devised by the European political elites that ran that continent and still do. When Europe's citizens actually got a chance to vote on it, they usually voted it down. "
This is factually wrong. In 1992 the French voted for the Maastricht treaty. The same in many other countries. Twenty years earlier the British voted in droves to join the EEC (the organization that preceded the EU).
During these last decades, there were dozens of votes in different countries with positive results for European integration.
But it seems the memory only retains the 3 or 4 bad results. How convenient.
This is somehow revealing of the mindset that is taking hold these days. Active minorities are dominating the narrative by distorting facts and exploring fears.
They will not prevail. Facts are still facts (as the voters deceived by the Brexiteers are realizing in a hard way…) and overwhelming majorities in favour of European integration are still there.
After all, only 12% or 13% of German voters voted AfD (compare it with the results of pro-EU parties).
Only 20% of Italian voters voted for Salvini's Lega (compare it with the results of pro-EU parties).
Macron got 65% of the votes against 35% for Le Pen (and even she knew that she could only run by not challenging the euro as the French currency…).
8
The report says the incipient idea of an EU was conceived to prevent further wars. That is a myth pushed and probably believed by the elites. The wars started for the same reason the EU came into being: Elites in Europe enjoy too much autonomy from the people, which allows them to impose two.world.wars and the EU on the masses. The immigrant crisis simply makes it impossible for the people to ignore how blatantly the elites abuse the autonomy.
6
Rodrigo, you make an interesting stew of economic, monetary, political and social integration. Economic integration was favored by voters regularly, the others much less so. The choices were muddied by the way the "elites" wrote the proposals.
It's one thing to merge with other countries in Europe.
It's another to feel like one is merging with the Middle East or Africa. the EU was not supposed to be about that.
436
So put some numbers to this thesis of yours. Over the past 20 years or any increment of time you would like how much has immigration from the Middle East and Africa increased their overall proportion of the population of Europe. If you don't know that, you have no idea what you are talking about. You say "feel like" merging. How about a little analysis. I know for sure that Europeans still hold grudges against each other more than they do immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. The reason is quite simple: They are obsessed with their own history. Instead of opening up to the rest of the world they would rather buy into this nonsense about foreign invasion from Africa and the Middle East.
Former colonialists reaping the whirlwind. Some call it Karma I call it reaping what you sow.
1
Wealth equity could solve the whole problem but for some reason Robber Barons with white skin think they are entitled to it all.
Take away a person's ability to care for themselves and their family and you will find them in your back yard.
WE THE PEOPLE must demand that the wealth they have stolen/inherited be taxed back to create a more socially/financially equitable world for all.
WE must stop blaming the victims.
3
When Westerners sent people around the world it was called colonialism.
Economic migrants are taking advantage of our societies. They have no interest is accepting our values and culture. They want to live their own way, which is understandable, and make more money.
We cannot allow our values of tolerance to accept intolerance. We cannot allow sad stories to dictate our shared future.
Democracies belong to the citizens of democracies- even those who are labeled negatively by the advocates of illegal economic migrants.
Our societies, and cultures, are worthy of being protected. Let's help people in their own countries.
No more immigration- legal or illegal. Let's solve our demographic problems through automation and innovation. Let's end the cycle of ever more people.
Climate change, and global warming, are going to decimate our societies. We no longer need more people in the West. It is time to ask people in the developing world to make their own future and to live with the ramifications of their choices (over-population, violence, etc.).
322
"... are taking advantage of our societies. They have no interest is accepting our values and culture. They want to live their own way,..."
Of course, you have data to support your thesis. Let's see it.
From my observations of my foreign-born and first-generation neighbors––Asians from China, Korea, Malaysia, India; Hindus, Sikhs; Jews from Israel; Senegalese; Mexicans; Parisians, ex-pats from London; a U.N. of peoples: all of them dress and act in a disconcertingly similar manner. They're all staring at their phones and texting; shopping online; studying; making science and commerce; trying to get ahead in life.
I don't know what you're talking about.
4
So Durham is being overrun by migrants? Americans were all, to the last one of us, economic migrants. Here is how you protect your Western culture. You make sure that people assimilate. That is nothing more than making sure they follow our laws. Then you add the icing on the cake by educating them in what it really means to be an American. I am sure if we do that it will appeal to them. America was never a single culture, it is a work in progress and it is the assimilation of a multitude of cultures, including some that have been extant in the USA for two centuries.
3
"We cannot allow our values of tolerance to accept intolerance."
"We no longer need more people in the West."
Er...
1
Europe was much better off when it was only the "European Economic Community". The advent of the "European Union" and the "Euro Zone" are causing the current malaise.
89
Totally agree. If one can deal with a regulated market system, one will eventually qualify as a German, since they will follow the rules. And why not"
2
Brits have nothing against Poles or those from more easterly European countries. Sure the names can be different to pronounce with a seeming dearth of vowels and too many consonants. But they're white and Christian and pretty much eat the same type of food.
What they resent, perhaps rightfully so, is the lower wages the newcomers are willing to work for. They're free to move around a borderless Europe, and employers are free to hire them for less pay. When your home country offers far less GDP per capita, the recent arrivals will endure harsher conditions and still manage to scrimp and save to send money back home to the family. They'll live in cramped apartments together, several adults in one bedroom, because that's better than being unemployed back home.
In that case it's no different than many Latinos from south of the border working in the USA. Absent the illegal aspect for many because it's all good in Europe. And the employers can talk about their patriotism until the cows come home, but they'll never think twice about hiring the recent arrivals for less money.
Just like a headline today that Trump is seeking 61 foreign nationals for jobs at Mar-a-Lago. The language is confusing- why aren't Floridians good enough to work there?
31
It is unfair to label those who wish to preserve their culture and national identity as racists or xenophobes. In most cases, immigrants are welcome, provided that they strive to integrate with their new hosts.
Mass migration confounds these efforts. It overloads the host country’s social support systems and good will. As one would expect, newcomers tend to self-segregate so that they are among peers with a common language, etc. when their numbers become large, this social isolation becomes entrenched.
Throttling their numbers is the only practical solution
469
"Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion."
-- Ben Franklin, 1751
How very ironic that the current POTUS, who likes to similarly complain of and demonize immigrants to scare up votes, is also a "Palatine boor." Lucky for him his ancestors were able to infiltrate English-American society.
Like every other group that shows up in numbers anywhere, we all become part of the fabric of the culture we live in.
4
"Mass migration confounds these efforts. It overloads the host country’s social support systems and good will."
Yes, you're absolutely right. It's common sense!
A problem is that those who implemented -- and still protect -- the current madness that began with Frau Merkel's incomprehensible open invitation in the fall of 2015 do not suffer any of the day-to-day consequences of their "high-minded" policies.
She should receive a 'Thank-you' note from AfD -- they were but a small fringe movement before her unilateral decision to fling open the gates breathed political life into them.
"...provided that they strive to integrate..."
I'd substitute "assimilate" for "integrate", having learned the practical difference after having lived in France (which favors the former) and spent significant time in Norway (which favors the latter). The first is like soup, the latter like salad.
1
Your comment would make perfect sense if none of the migrants spoke a common language with their hosts, but in fact the case is different. A large portion of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa speak English, French or another European language.
This didn't happen by accident - all of their home countries were European colonies in the past.
It is important to understand that immigration of more than 1.2 million refugees, 2015-16, was imposed by Ms. Merkel on the German people without permitting a vote in Parliament. On a question of such magnitude (the equivalent of admitting 6 million immigrants into the US by population) in a Democracy, you need to permit a vote.
A case of what political scientist call undemocratic liberalism.
(The liberal elite imposing its view un-democratically)
The response, predictable, was what political scientists call illiberal democracy. (Illiberal democratic response of the population)
292
Hmm? I seem to have forgotten about that DACA vote? Did we vote on that one? Or letting in one million legal immigrants a year plus over one million illegals. Adds up fast, ya know.
4
Jan: what you said here, but not only did we NOT vote on DACA -- it was purely an executive order from Obama -- to do an end-run around Congress (and the American voters) who clearly REFUSED to pass "The Dream Act".
We not only did not agree, we begged Congress and Obama NOT to let 800,000 illegals stay on here with green cards, rewarding THEM and their illegal parents for their illegal behavior.
I hear it a lot, but no one ever says what they mean by "liberal elite". I get the liberal part, but what qualifies one to be a member of the elite, and why is it a bad thing?
Yet another American predicting the demise of the EU! Americans seem to see the E.U. as a kind of Disneyland, or a cartoon caricature like Andy Capp or Al Capp's "Lower Slobovia". If you start from a view of Europe as a bunch of nationalities and "Volk" who exclude all others, you will of course see the rise of populist parties as a harbinger of the dissolution of the Union. I have lived in Europe for 40 years and seen it develop from a divided patchwork with an iron curtain down the middle, to a vibrant and peaceful unity which includes the former Soviet colonies of the Baltic and the not-so-long ago warring republics of the Balkan. Now you can drive from Split to Bergen without stopping except for gas. Nobody changes money at the borders. And our mobile calls are free of roaming charges all over the continent. The populist parties are tapping the vestiges of anti-semitism and other forms of hatred - but they generally don't go to elections on a platform of leaving the E.U. And when they do, they loose. The Erasmus generation in the U.K. would rather see Britain break up, than loose their passporting privileges. You can call them elites, but they are citizens, too. And they are proud to call themselves European as well as citizens of their diverse and wonderful Nations. They EU will do just fine. Watch as May cuts a deal in the next two weeks with Barnier, and enjoy the fireworks as the Brexiters fume.
108
When convenience trumps identity, decadence wins. But the win is temporary until identity is forcefully re-established as the latent cost of convenience is comprehended. Stay tuned.
5
I myself will be particularly enjoying the flames
of the fuming millionaire Brexiteers as they see their dreams of a tax haven and low-regulation banking paradise wither away.
I predict religion based conflicts in Europe for the foreseeable future!
3
Correct the EU has free movement of people within it's borders as one of its "constitutional" rights, but not for wannabe illegal migrants, the same goes for a EU citizen who has committed something illegal in one EU country - they can't expect safe passage from one European country to another.
Europe's problem is not the people coming across it's borders - it is the inability to differentiate between migrants and asylum seekers. They never have and never should be categorized as being the same.
I know a lot of leftists Europeans who have never been afraid of supporting immigrants and definitely are not racists or phobics, but the influx of undocumented migrants the past couple of years has played right into the the hands of the extreme right. This is not because they voters are becoming extremists, but because their political parties of affiliation have become utterly complacent and unwilling to deal with the issue at hand.
195
The founders of the EU soft-pedeled their true intentions to the point that most Europeans were ignorant of those intentions. EU bureaucrats of today have inherited the values of the founders, and they now speak loftily of "European values," when they really mean the values of themselves and their friends, which they mean to impose from above. They are so self-absorbed that they don't even realize this. Now there is a communication gap that seems unbridgeable between the rulers, and the ruled. EU leaders think the nationalists are simply deplorable, naughty children, and the nationalists think that EU leaders have completely lost touch with reality.
166
The European Union is a terrible idea that has thankfully failed. It was anti-democratic to it's very core. Laws in Brussels are made by people who can not be held accountable to voters in England....madness. The result: a maze of one-size-fits-all bureaucracy which has slowly and steadily eroded the role of national parliaments and other political institutions. The EU bureaucrats pushed too far.... making mistake after mistake (the euro, the handling of the Greek debt crisis, refugee crisis, and so on). We are where we are today because the mainstream European parties are intellectually bankrupt...this goes double for center left parties. They purport to represent the worker's will on earth but what have they accomplished? Not much. It is beyond irresponsible to think that globalism & unrestricted immigration are good policies. The left needs to ask themselves some very hard questions. Can they acknowledge that the large number of immigrants in a country illegally, many of whom are relatively unskilled, gives rise to economic competition that harms job & wage prospects for voters who live there? Can they admit that one can have concerns about Europe's recent mass inflow of refugees without being prejudiced or racist? That there may be some rational reason for one to be wary of a lax or overly trusting approach to immigration? If the left can't address these questions honestly & quickly then they are doomed.
2
Recent archeological finds indicate that the original inhabitants of Europe were in fact dark skinned migrants from Africa and the Middle East.
So I see all of this mass migration and population replacement as a return to normal. Watching people freak out about something they can’t change is the worst part. It’s better to embrace and accelerate towards it.
This is why we need to abolish ICE, open the borders, and return North America to El Azteca and the Children of the Global South!
8
Good grief.
3
You can’t return land to a people who no longer exist...false equivalency won’t help you.
2
Because?
While the United States is a vast expanse of land and cities and towns capable of absorbing large numbers of immigrants, I am not so sure about European Union countries' ability to do so.
Most of the EU member countries are pretty well off economically, with Italy and Greece in a power struggle jeopardising their own people while forced to take in massive waves of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. What those economically healthy countries lack is space and infrastructure to absorb the millions of migrants arriving on rickety boats.
There is also a wide cultural chasm between the receiving countries, such as Germany, Spain and France, and the migrants whose own cultures conflict so strongly with the Europeans.
For instance, the migrants from the Middle East and Africa, for the most part, bring a great deal of religeous inflexibility when it comes to womens rights, birth rates, and gay rights to name a few. And then there are the once-welcoming Europeans and Scandinavians, alarmed, not only with the numbers of migrants entering their countries, but also the propensity of those mostly Muslim migrants to produce large families along religeous doctrines. This is all happening in those countries where population management/birth control is crucial where land, natural resources and economic resources are limited.
This has set up a toxic and desperate atmosphere between citizens and migrants, unlike anything here in America.
42
The u.s. by any measure, is already over populated. We are 5% of the worlds population using 25% of its resources-the very definition of unsustainable population. The fact that we have some open space, which most people either do not want to live in or can't make a living on doesn't change that. China is about our size and the same latitude. Do we need to be that crowded before reality intrudes on people who can't see the obvious numbers?
5
This article mentions "national identity" without ever questioning what it actually means and how it can be defined.
Where are the borders of any national identity? Who is in and who is out? What must one do to qualify? Having the passport obviously is not good enough anymore, how far do we go?
The closer we look, the fuzzier the picture becomes. Why not ask the people lamenting and whining about loss of identity to actually write down the criteria.... beyond language and place of birth, which always come first but is not good enough by far.
National identity is a phantom, and articles like this one should at least challenge it. It always starts by emphasizing differences between peoples and continues with dehumanizing others. It happened before and I have no idea where it will end this time, but it makes me sick to my stomach.
Please NYT, don´t stop reporting on migration, but choose your words carefully next time
65
You might want to suggest that Mexicans, Puerto Ricans. Cubans, Hondurans, etc lose their national identity . Good luck. I can’t wait to read about it.
14
I disagree. I think the article describes nationalism well enough. Whether we think European nationalism is a good thing or not, it is a fact based on centuries of historical events and oficial indoctrination. The only people who at times seemed to have overcome nationalism were (and are) those who believe in the unity of the working class under one flag. Whether that is possible or not, is debatable.
Of course, the United States of America, is exceptional, so it has the right to its own chauvinism. The land of the free and the home of the brave.
2
Pretty easy for the Italians. If you're swimming to the shore, odds are you're not Italian.
2
Finally, an article in this paper that gets it! Yes, border and national identity really are important, and yes the main pro-EU politicians really did try to pretend that this didn't matter. As someone who has been living in Italy for the past decade, I have been able to witness this process of dawning awareness about the downsides of the EU project among Italians firsthand. As the author of this article suggests, Italians like the convenience of the EU (easy travel, integrated trading bloc, etc) but have come to resent (or worse) the hypocrisy and soft authoritarianism of an EU system that is quite ready to punish (Greece during their economic crisis, Italy during its economic and migrant crisis, etc.) those who don't agree with the now-disintegrating EU consensus. It's quite clear to me that the borders will tighten, probably along the lines of the current French-Italian border regime--anyone who looks like a African or Maghrebi migrant is asked for their papers. All others are allowed to pass. Yes, it's racial profiling, and it's also common sense, as it allows the EU border system to continue, but with a few crucial adjustments to meet current demands.
28
It might be "common sense" but it is probably hell for a Black French or Italian citizen. I'm sure that they exist.
Borders are never a 'simple question'. Identity is never a simple question. Conflict and self-interest will always win. Always.
8
The EU is not breaking up. Or melting down. 28 Democratically elected countries have sovereignty & different viewpoints often & the unprecedented mass migration of refugees over the past few years have fueled controversy. CONTROVERSY = Dialogue, Suggestions, Plans. Not break up. Is the USA breaking up when there are controversies between states? This type of article foments ignorance about the EU.
19