Tag: immigration

Categories
ideological culture political challengers too much government

Forwards ! Backwards ?

Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen, France, French, elections, immigration, government,

France held an election over the weekend. Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen came out on top, and will face each other in a runoff on May 7th.

Current polling puts Macron over Le Pen, 62 – 38. But a SkyNews reporter cautions: there is no certainty.

We in America have reason to respect that cautionary note. Our last election was an upset against the establishment candidate in favor of a wild card often dubbed “far right” and even “fascist” — which is precisely what Ms. Le Pen is being called.

Indeed, pitting a Big Government “centrist” (Macron) against an anti-​immigrant protectionist (Le Pen) in the context of an economic slump and rising terrorism, and with neither candidate having much contact with limited-​government principle, eerily echoes the 2016 U.S. presidential race.

But, on closer inspection, the parallels between the American and French contests appear inexact. Macron’s En Marche ! party* was created just over a year ago, while Le Pen’s National Front has continually found itself on the margins of power, despite its rise in popularity.**

Still, it is hard not to suspect that Ms. Le Pen could come from behind to upset the status quo. Macron is not invulnerable. The man worked, after all, in Hollande’s government, and Le Pen has characterized him as a socialist in a snazzy suit.

Macron is way ahead in the polls. And TV experts talk about how reliable modern polling is, while we in America … snicker.

But, since France lacks an Electoral College, can Le Pen really “Trump” the odds?

France will be in for a bumpy fortnight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Amusingly, the party’s initials are identical to those of its founder, Emmanuel Macron. “En Marche !” (the extra space is there in party material) translates into English as “Forward!” or “On the Move!” and is formally designated as the Association pour le renouvellement de la vie politique (the Association for the Renewal of Politics). 

** All the established, formerly governing parties are on the outs.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly ideological culture moral hazard nannyism responsibility

Walk on the Wilders Side?

Muslims, Islam, Sharia law, Netherlands, Dutch, Theo Van Gogh, terrorism, immigration, Europe

The Dutch were among the first to witness Islamic extremist violence against free speech. The November 2004 murder of Theo van Gogh by a Dutch citizen of Moroccan descent — a man whose first name, Mohammed, almost no one thinks is merely coincidental — stirred the nation.

And the world.

Van Gogh made a short film, with Somalian émigré Ayaan Hirsi Ali, about the unjust treatment of women in Islamic countries. The film criticizes Islam as well as the Muslim majority countries, and was considered an affront by many Muslims.

After van Gogh’s death, Ms. Ali fled to the United States.

This event is only the most famous of many similar conflicts between free-​speech Dutch values and regulated-​speech Islamist ones. The fact that the country has anti-​blasphemy and anti-​insult laws on the books, and these have been directed against a popular politician, has exacerbated the growing antagonism.

That very politician is today’s big news. According to The Atlantic, the “center-​right People’s Party (VVD) for Freedom and Democracy is projected to win 24 seats in [today’s] election, slightly ahead of Geert Wilders’s far-​right Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), which is expected to gain 22.”**

The Dutch center-​left, like similar ruling groups in Britain, Germany, France and Sweden, often seems weak and timid before the rising illiberalism of Islamist terrorism and Sharia law.* Many suspect that the recent decision to block Turkish ministers from speaking at rallies in Holland, before Turkey’s referendum next month, is designed to counter this narrative.

Meanwhile, though Wilders is generally liberal (not “far right”) on most cultural issues, his “de-​Islamization” program seeks to close mosques and outlaw the Quran***.

One extreme to another.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* This is not just a bugaboo. In 2006 the Minister of Justice floated the possibility of incorporating Sharia law into the constitution.

** The projection is within the margin of error, and with mass immigrant Turkish protests taking place over the weekend, the chance of a Trump-​like upset is more than possible.

*** Geert Wilders compares the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies responsibility

Give or Take a Million

Muslim, immigrants, assimilation, welfare state, U.S., Illustration

“Angela Merkel’s ruling CDU party has been beaten into third place by an anti-​immigrant and anti-​Islam party in elections in a north-​eastern German state,” a BBC story headlines in bold type.

Indeed, Chancellor Merkel’s own constituency is abandoning her. Why? She invited in over 1.1 million refugees (and migrating pseudo-refugees) following the collapse of Syria.

This mass migration resulted in serious problems, including an apparent skyrocketing in rapes by migrants (old and new), most if not all Muslim men.

Which a “populist, Eurosceptic party” called Alternative for Germany (the AfD) has capitalized on, as has the more radical National Democratic Party. An AfD spokesman told the BBC, recently, “It’s very difficult to integrate Muslims.”

But how hard is it, really, for Muslims to assimilate? In Europe, and even England, it seems a disaster. In America, these United States, it has been much better.

Why?

American Muslims generally work. If you are employed, you have less time to plot terrorism, or otherwise raise a ruckus. And, moreover, less reason: you have hope.

Vertrag macht frei.* Truly.

Europe’s “more generous”-than-America’s state aid system is therefore problematic.

But it gets worse. The European Union’s movers and shakers welcomed migrants to increase the population of the young — recognizing that African and Asian Muslims procreate at much higher rates than do European whites. Why is this desirable?

To shore up an unstable system, for all social security systems depend upon population growth.

Immigration is right now popularly seen as a peril. But it is Germany’s and others’ welfare states that make it a peril, and that spurred the immigration initially.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* A play on a more alarming (and misleading, to say the least) Third Reich motto. One assimilates by contract, not state aid. (And certainly not by state aid’s extreme opposite, forced “arbeit,” or work.)

Printable PDF

Muslim, immigrants, assimilation, welfare state, U.S., Illustration

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom too much government

Hysteria, Assassination, and Big Government

Brexit, EU, European Union, independence, democracy, illustration

The biggest political story of the month? Brexit.

The people of Great Britain will vote, this week, whether to remain in, or exit, the European Union. (Britain+exit=“Brexit,” you see.)

Establishment forces in Britain have engaged in hysterical, hyperbolic overkill, warning of grave disaster were Britain to leave the union. America’s President Barack Obama contributed to this, recently, when he warned that an independent Britain might find itself placed “at the back of the queue” in trade talks.

Tragically, things got more troubling last week when anti-​Brexit, pro-​union campaigner Jo Cox, a Member of Parliament and prominent Labour Party activist, was brutally slain last week in front of her local library. The man had just left a mental health facility, after requesting help.

At first, major media reported that the killer had shouted “Britain First,” an old patriotic motto as well as the name of a pro-​Brexit political party, while shooting and stabbing her. Of the several eyewitnesses to have allegedly testified to this murderous shout, only one is sticking to the story … a member of the British Nationalist Party, which is antagonistic to Britain First. Other eyewitnesses deny the story.

Next, both sides promised to cease campaigning, out of good taste. Still, polls fluctuated, while remaining close.

Much of the furor has risen over immigration policy, especially fears about EU laxity towards Muslim refugees.

But the bedrock issue is Big Government. The EU is not effectively controlled by citizens; indeed, membership representation is mostly show, a mockery of republican government.

That is why, if I were British, I’d vote to Brexit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Brexit, EU, European Union, independence, democracy, illustration

 

Categories
general freedom responsibility too much government

Security vs. Compassion?

Syrian refugees, refugees, Syria, immigration, welfare, food stamps, compassion, charity, Common Sense, illustration

My family isn’t in a position to take in any Syrian refugees.

Not that we’ve been asked.

Months ago, President Obama simply announced that “we” would take 10,000 refugees. After last Friday’s terrorist attack in Paris, and upon evidence that one of the perpetrators came into Europe with other refugees, 31 governors declared that their states will not accept Syrian refugees.

But note: this country doesn’t belong to Obama; those states don’t belong to those governors.

Back in September, I floated a different approach. “If I were president, I’d push for Congress to pass legislation specifically authorizing the acceptance of as many Syrian refugees as [Americans] stepped forward to sponsor.…”

“Sponsors could be individuals, families, churches, glee clubs, what-​have-​you, and would agree to cover costs for the Syrian person or family for one year or two or three,” I proposed. “But no welfare, no food stamps, no government housing.…”

Granted, my suggestion came before the latest terrorism. It was aimed not at security concerns but at sparing taxpayers. Why shouldn’t voluntary generosity dictate the extent of “our” generosity?

But come to think of it, my plan offers greater security, too. Why? It involves the personal faces of citizens, not merely a faceless bureaucracy. No matter how much vetting the government does, an ongoing link to an actual American provides another check.

There’s a legitimate debate about security vs. compassion. Millions are in need, displaced by terror — from both Daesh (ISIS) and the Assad regime. The Niskanen Center’s David Bier notes the resistance to accepting Jewish refugees prior to and during World War II, out of fear some might be spies. Christians may find Matthew 25:44 – 45 compelling.

On the other hand, there is undeniable risk. GOP presidential aspirants have called taking Syrian refugees “insane” and “looney.” Speaker Paul Ryan argues for a “better safe than sorry” pause.

Me? I support accepting the risk … but only if committed individual citizens step forward.

Not by any politician’s decree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Syrian refugees, refugees, Syria, immigration, welfare, food stamps, compassion, charity, Common Sense, illustration

 

Artwork based on original photo by Phil Warren on Flickr (endorsement of this message is not implied):

Categories
general freedom ideological culture responsibility

Gases and Masses

Global Blame

For once, The Washington Post headline actually reflected the commentary: “America is the worst polluter in the history of the world. We should let climate change refugees resettle here.”

Michael B. Gerrard, associate faculty chair at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, presents a gloomy, doomy picture of earth 85 years from now.

“Toward the end of this century, if current trends are not reversed,” he writes, “large parts of Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and Vietnam, among other countries, will be under water.”

And we need somebody to blame. Today.

Step forth, America!

“[I]ndustrialized countries ought,” Gerrard argues, “to take on a share of the displaced population equal to how much each nation has historically contributed to emissions of the greenhouse gases that are causing this crisis.”

The World Resources Institute places responsibility for 27 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions between 1850 and 2011 on us. Therefore, the U.S. must care for 27 percent of the world’s climate change refugees … eight decades from now.

It’s only “fair,” according to the dean, that “The countries that spewed (or allowed or encouraged their corporations to spew) these chemicals into the air, and especially the countries that grew rich while doing so, should take responsibility for the consequences…”

Especially?

Is Gerrard battling so-​called “carbon pollution” or … wealth?

I have a simpler plan, one not based on collective “justice” — fantasies of what whole nations somehow “deserve.” People should be free to move where they think they will be better off.

Will that still be America?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Global Blame