Editorial: Immigration Policy and the Developing European Nightmare

First, Europe has no right to allow immigration when its own citizens are out of work. The right to employment before it is given to an immigrant should be considered a legally actionable birthright. Every member of the population, with special note being taken of members of the original national ethnicity (f.ex. French or Swedish) or ethnicities (f.ex. Flemish and Walloon), but also longer-established immigrants who have been legally integrated into the economy and society, should get work before new and recent immigrants. If work is unavailable for the latter, comfortable arrangements should be made for their return home, with perhaps a small stipend to help out if they are poor and come from poor lands. Currently, unemployment is high in several parts of Europe, not the least of which is Sweden, which has 20% or more in disguised unemployment but whose elites continue to be among the most slavish towards immigrants. The progressive struggle for the common man has been betrayed in favor of a politics suggesting historical alignment with capital as well as other agendas. In our view, nations with unemployment should cease immigration forthwith so that they can tend to the needs of their own citizens. Strictly enforcing a priority right to work will reverse this trend where it exists and allow the native-born to feel their country is not abandoning them. Nor should immigrants be allowed if they are likely to end up on welfare, as this adds to the burden of the people and economic enterprises via higher taxes. The only bonafide candidates for immigration are refugees who are in clear danger of forcible death, and even then other options may be available or this be considered a temporary safety measure. Nearly all 1.8 million Iraqi refugees, including many threatened with loss of life, for example, have fled to Syria and Jordan, who should be praised for their receptivity but should be supplied aid by European and other wealthy countries on humanistic grounds. The world need not be Euro- or American-centric, even in refugee policy.

Second, learning the national language should be made mandatory for existing immigrants or children of immigrants so that they can demonstrate an ability to integrate with, if not respect for, the people of their new society. Those failing conversational and reading standards of proficiency allowing them to function minimally at, for example, a 12-year-old level, should have all voting and governmental office-holding rights removed until proficiency is gained. This could conceivably apply to the main officers, managers, and employees of non-national-language media concerns publishing primarily in a given country as well. New and recent immigrants who repeatedly fail should be deported to their countries of origin, since they cannot perform one of the basic duties necessary to become a member of society. Gaining linguistic proficiency in turn will facilitate local social integration and national unity.

Third, immigrants who commit violent crimes should deported. A hospitality that requires submitting to immigrant violence is not generosity of heart but masochism. As Srdja Trifkovic shows, some European leaders have in fact started instilling the idea that their people should psychologically and in every other way except literally genuflect in the presence of newcomers. That some European leaders think immigration is a good thing when their own citizens are murdered or their women systematically abused only shows how distorted and unacceptable their thinking has become. Proutist Universal opposes this surrender to crude and violent kultur. We also suggest a legal case be made on the grounds of negligence and foreknowledge of crime against pro-immigrant ministers of government who allow immigration in spite of increasing crime rates.

Fourth, it is our view that the focus of progressive intercultural politics should not be Euro-centric or immigration-centric, but globally multi-centric, and, if anything is going to be done, assist those in lesser-developed nations through aid and economic development programs along progressive, people-centered lines. In this way, not only will would-be immigrants find the happiness and security of a good economy at home, they will retain a culture they otherwise might lose by migrating to a foreign land. Every nation should be able to be the pride and joy of its inhabitants. Current immigration-centered politics both fails economically and risks cultural depletion, and contains no moral imperative that cannot be satisfied otherwise except for cultural exchange. Kulturpolitik on poor economic foundations, however, is more a recipe for disaster than for progress, shown by high indigenous unemployment and immigrant welfarism and violence, making its morality questionable at best. It cannot be considered an imperative in the current situation or in the forseeable future. An objective economic and social analysis of immigrant politics is enough to discard it due to the harms and retrograde movement it brings among various European populations. Any potential gains from cultural diversity are insufficient to justify social crimes against the people, particularly the vulnerable female section of the European population, or hidden economic depressions, and should therefore be opposed.

Fifth, all religions exhibit great virtues. This does not mean their ideas or social practices should be immune from discourse or dissent, or are free from error. Europe went through wars of religion centuries ago and has realized a war of dogmas, dogma being an idea closed to thought, results in no good. The importation of another religion on a mass scale with a comparatively more vigorous commitment to dogma has already to some extent renewed religiously based conflict and had a divisive effect on a continent recovering from a history laden with division, but may also wipe out some of the gains in freedom of thought that took centuries and much blood to achieve. Neither Europe nor any other region of the world should feel morally obliged to facilitate the expansion of dogma-centered ideology. Rather than more dogma, Europe needs more freedom of thought than it has now, and should extract itself from its current, historical, retrograde, and factious movement.

To the extent the above principles apply in Islamic countries, they can be applied against mass immigration and imported labor there as well, though should not be used to obstruct spiritual inquiry or impose religion monolithically on members of society. Allowing spiritual inquiry and diverse teachings among a given population can result in expansion of mind and freedom from fear of disobedience, a different phenomenon with its own dynamics than the mass importation of a religion, whatever its beliefs. Followers of Islam should have the same preferential work right in their homelands as people of any other nation in theirs. The right being discussed is based not on religion but primarily on birth.