The Three Criteria for Successful Mass Immigration (And Why None Of Them Are Present Now)
Yesterday, I whiled away the quieter moments of a 10 hour shift finishing at 21.00 hours by writing eight pages of notes to prepare for this post; and Pat Buchanan has partially beaten me to the punch.
As another Kelly once remarked, 'Ah well, I suppose it has come to this ...such is life'...
The urban disorder in which the Muslims of France are currently being indulged is not the first shot of any so-called 'Eurabian Civil War'. If that were the case, the unrest which has been reported in Belgium and Germany would have formed a second front by now; instead, the Deutsche-Belgique Islamists might as well have paraded the streets in sandwich boards proclaiming the second coming of Mohammed for all that they've been able to fire up the umma in their territories.
It seems that German and Belgian Muslims are just like the neos - they hate the French. Quelle dommage.
However, as the absurdity of the French failure to restore civil society and actively restore order deepens, one can see certain patterns emerging - patterns which directly relate to the failure of Europe's former colonial powers previous immigration policies, their blowback for trying to buck the trend and break the unbending laws which dictate the success of mass migration.
These errors are partially modern, partially historic -but unfortunately one can see them being repeated again today; in the United States of America. And the failure of those policies will surely be duplicated by their failure there.
Mass migration into a society requires three conditions to be present before it stands the slightest possibility of success. The incoming society must have room to accommodate the migrants; there must be economic opportunity available for both natives and migrants; and migrants must comply with the expectations of natives that they assimilate into native culture.
As far as I am aware, only one mass migration has ever complied with all three conditions and achieved a consequent degree of success - the mass migration which took place into the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In terms of space, this migration took place at the time 'the West was being won'. The territory of the United States itself was expanding at the same time as its population. Although many immigrants elected to stay in the cities, which in some cases led to ethnic oddities like Cosa Nostra rearing their ugly heads, their college-educated descendants were able to move out of the old neighbourhoods and into the suburbs; and there were few pressures on space to prevent them from doing so.
The available landmass was able to accommodate all quite comfortably.
One day, the populations of London and Los Angeles will peak when the residents of neither city will be able to flush their toilets - their populations will have grown so large and so rapidly that the pressure on infrastructure not designed to cope with such increases causes it to break; and when that happens, you're on the countdown to an outbreak of typhus or cholera.
At the time of the last great migration, the American economy was also expanding rapidly. Those were the days of the great industrial robber barons, the Carnegies, the Schwabs and the Morgans. Not being an expert on the economic history of the United States c. 1870 to 1925, I am more than willing to be corrected if wrong - however, that particularly dynamic expansion may have created a genuine 'need' for migrant labour in the same way our now de-industrialised economies do not have the need for labour cited as the reason for the mass migration now taking place.
In the Great Migration, there was a balance of opportunity available for both migrants and natives - natives may have been more likely to have become foremen and proceed through the managerial ranks, their places being taken by successive generations of immigrants ready to grab their slice of the American dream; a sort of assembly line for the creation of an integrated, prosperous society.
Now, mass migration is being encouraged when the economic life of entire nations is being exported in the names of the false economic gods of 'growth' and 'globalisation'. As has oft been repeated, corporations which have been permitted to act like sovereign states are not hindered by such humdrum considerations as 'survival of the nation' when they offshore productive work in the name of profit. As a conservative, one is loathe to use the phrase 'failure of government', as it smacks of the liberal pretension that 'government' is some omnipotent entity more worthy than the humblest private citizen - however, the failure of the American and British governments to curb offshoring by any means necessary will one day rank amongst the greatest failures of any governments in the past 200 years, if our descendants will still either read or write history.
Mass migration is justified now on the basis I referred to yesterday, that it acts as a curb on wage pressures. Those who use such language are obsessesed with Grand Absolutes, such as 'GDP' and the chimeric 'economy'. They care nothing for the value of the pound or the dollar in the citizen's pocket, the price of goods in the shops or the falling buying power of wages. The net effect of 'globalisation' is to drag the standards of living of the most civilised Western societies down to the levels of the world's most abject hole.
And one day, the country of the United Kingdom will be packed into boxes and put away, when the globalisation process reachs its final, inevitable conclusion - when one person owns everything in the world. That day may not come for decades; it may not come even for centuries; but if the process is allowed to continue as it is doing now, its dawning is inevitable. Globalisation widens the gap between rich and poor. The gap between rich and rich will widen. That process will continue until all assets are concentrated in the hands of one individual. Energy crises will not stop it; wars will not stop it; the rise and fall of civilisations will not stop it.
The effect of mass migration under such conditions is that instead of the migrants and natives working in a symbiotic relationship of mutual advantage, they are competing with each other for access to fewer and fewer resources - and the erosion of such antiquated concepts such as genuine 'patriotism' which the Left has been able to effect through its dominance of education has been key to fostering the climate in which the third difference between migration then and now has flourished.
In the Great Migration, there was a solid expectation amongst the existing citizenry of America that migrants would make an effort to assimilate themselves. Now, fear of the toxic charge of 'racist' has eroded the collective expectation we should have that migrants assimilate themselves into our respective cultures.
This is precisely the theme into which Pat Buchanan tapped yesterday, in his article 'Paris Burning: How Empires End' for 'Chronicles Extra'. He wrote,
"The rioters are of Arab and African descent, and Muslim. While almost all are French citizens, they are not part of the French people. For never have they been assimilated into French culture or society. And some wish to remain who and what they are. They live in France, but are not French".
Exactly. That this should have happened in France, or that we should have produced the sociopathic Mohammed Siddique Khan in his absurd headgear and the rest of the Binbag Crew is not the fault of 'multiculturalism'; it is our fault, for failing to oppose and stop multiculturalism sooner - because what were we doing while all this crap was going down?
But by the same token, it is also a legacy of previous targeted immigration. Many of the Arabs and Africans whose descendants have been raising hell on earth in the banlieues went to France to do the jobs 'the French wouldn't do'; their labour was required for a specific purpose at a specific moment in time. Once that moment passed, their rationale for being in France evaporated - however, they remained. There was no expectation on their descendants that they behave like Frenchmen, in the noblest sense of the word.
Now, of course, we have mass migration into the UK, with precisely the same rationale being used, that the migrants are willing to do the jobs we 'won't do' but without the performance of which apparently the sky will fall. Advocates for that policy always say it's just the market in action - oddly enough, they never seem to argue that the reverse could be equally true; that if that labour were not there, the market would just adapt and go on accordingly...
However, Buchanan raises a note of great caution. He writes,
"Nor should Americans take comfort in France’s distress. By 2050, there will be 100 million Hispanics in the United States—half of them of Mexican ancestry—heavily concentrated in a Southwest most Mexicans still believe by right belongs to them.
Colonization of the mother countries by subject peoples is the last chapter in the history of empires—and the next chapter in the history of the West, which is now coming to a close."
If the mass migration into the United States continues, it will be Vaya con Dios to the good old US of A, on precisely the same terms and for precisely the same reasons as the riots in France.
Hopefully, some good soul with a sense of history will soon start compiling a kind of Domesday Book of American lawncare - posterity will deserve a record of precisely what brought down the greatest society the world had ever seen.
You have been warned.
(Update 11/9/2005 - Since posting this early this afternoon, I have come across two excellent articles both published today and in the same vein; 'Camp Of The Saints Comes True In France. Let’s Stop It Happening Here.' by my former 'Washington Dispatch' colleague Donald Collins, and 'Rioting for Fun and Allah' by Thomas Fleming.)