Military Review

The migration problem of Europe in the light of the French events: is there a solution?

25
Europe is rapidly changing its face. Just a few decades ago, few could have imagined what the importation of foreign labor from the underdeveloped third world countries (yesterday’s colonies) into European states would turn into. Only particularly inquisitive minds warned the governments of European countries that the benefits of cheap labor, ready to work in low-paid and non-prestigious positions, would quickly disappear, and the West would face many problems. What happened in recent days in France is only one of the links in a single chain linking the problems of uncontrolled migration, ethnic crime, religious extremism.


Migration is one of the most important problems.

Migration processes are a natural result of the economic and socio-cultural stratification of the modern world. The labor market in developed countries dictates the demand for cheap labor, since representatives of the indigenous population have long been reluctant to take up vacancies that do not provide decent pay, career development, or pleasant and life-affirming work. On the other hand, dozens of countries around the world are characterized by a low and extremely low standard of living, overpopulation, and an unstable political and economic situation. For many citizens of the Third World countries, emigration to the developed states of the West is the only chance to find not only acceptable prosperity, but also long-awaited peace of mind, deliverance from constant wars and upheavals, inter-ethnic conflicts. Often, representatives of human rights organizations and diaspora leaders report attacks by neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other extremists in “host countries.” But, in reality, life in any Western country for most migrants seems to be much safer and more desirable than life in their home states. Otherwise, they would hardly have come there. Yes, there are extremist attacks and murder cases due to racial or religious hostility, but their scale cannot even be compared with wars and mass violence in many countries in Africa and Asia.



It would seem that migrants from the unstable countries of the “third world”, arriving at a temporary or permanent residence in Europe, gain long-awaited comparative well-being. What, then, explains the fact that they become the most explosive mass with high socio-destructive potential? The fact is that, firstly, the European labor markets have a tendency to reduce the demand for labor. There are more migrants from Africa and Asia to Europe than are required to fill existing vacancies. Moreover, the production of many corporations have long been transferred to the "third world", where labor is cheaper than even the labor of migrants in Europe.

Secondly, many migrants do not even think about finding a job - they are well aware from their fellow countrymen who have arrived about social benefits in a wealthy Europe, or about the numerous ways of criminal earnings. Equally important is the problem of social discrimination. In Europe, migrants, despite all the statements of left-liberal politicians about tolerance towards them, encounter a clearly negative reaction to their presence from a significant part of the local population. Combined with forced employment in non-prestigious and low-paid areas of work, or with unemployment and marginal status, this cultural exclusion contributes to the social exclusion of migrants from the “receiving society”. Most of the European cities have long formed real enclaves and ghettos of migrants, where the latter live in a rather closed environment, reproducing behaviors and lifestyles characteristic of their home countries. A phenomenon occurs in sociology that is “ethnic enclaves” or “segregation” of migrants. In turn, segregation significantly complicates the mechanisms of integration of migrants into the “host society”, contributes to the further conservation of archaic behavior patterns and worldviews in the migrant environment. Hence, numerous manifestations of the growth of fundamentalist and extremist attitudes in the migrant environment.

The harm of multiculturalism

The continuous growth of migrants and the lack of any adequate programs to solve the migration problem Europe owes to the notorious policy of multiculturalism. The concept of multiculturalism was formulated back in the 1970s and was originally embodied in the United States of America and Canada. However, these countries were originally created by migrants, who displaced and partially destroyed the indigenous people of North America. Today, the Indians in the United States and Canada have no real political and economic weight, are largely driven into reservations and deliberately turned into a “living exhibit” to attract tourists. This is the tragedy of the indigenous people of North America. The essence of the concept of multiculturalism is the coexistence of different, sometimes contradictory, types of cultures within one particular society. Moreover, multiculturalism aims to strengthen cultural differences that preserve national cultures and their characteristics in “host societies”. However, the coexistence of different and even conflicting cultures in a multicultural society actually rejects the assimilation, and hence the integration of migrants into a “receiving society”. Migrants are given the opportunity to remain as they are, without adapting to the living conditions, traditions and behavioral attitudes adopted in the “host society”.

The migration problem of Europe in the light of the French events: is there a solution? The feminist philosopher in the US, Salela Benhabib, a native of Istanbul, has put forward her own concept of “mosaic multiculturalism”, which provides for the possibility of coexistence of countless ethno-religious communities in a single state. Each of these communities maintains its own identity and does not unite with other communities. Thus, in fact, this concept endorses and supports the enclaves and segregation of migrant communities. Moreover, it is assumed that in practice, none of the national and cultural communities within a particular state should have more privileges than other communities, even if the latter appeared on this territory not so long ago. That is, Somalis in Norway or Senegalese in France should be regarded as not less significant for these countries of a community, than, accordingly, Norwegians or French. It does not matter that Norway or France for centuries existed and developed without the presence of these peoples - they must have full rights on the territory of these countries and be able to defend their case.

Similar concepts of the European left-liberal public were adopted by politicians representing left-wing parties. By the way, the modern European left for the most part has long failed to protect the interests of working people. Moreover, they are actively undermining them, supporting the massive import of cheaper labor from third world countries. It turns out that by supporting migration, the European socialists do not satisfy the interests of the working class, but play into the hands of large corporations, oligarchs, bureaucratic structures that benefit from the presence of multimillion-dollar cheap labor that is also partly located in receiving countries illegally and, accordingly, without rights. The ideas of the European left, put into practice in the form of the adoption of multiculturalist concepts, and led ultimately to the disastrous consequences that we see today in the example of France, and many other European countries. The desire for migrants to preserve their own identities, in accordance with the concept of multiculturalism, resulted in the emergence on the territory of European states of “small Algerians / Morocco / Somalia, etc.”.

However, if European governments, adhering to the concept of multiculturalism, created a maximally favored regime for the arrival in the European states of millions of migrants, the latter were not at all about adjusting to the way of life and traditions of the indigenous population. Moreover, if the first generations of migrants were still quiet migrant workers, who worked without compensation for low-paid jobs and respected happiness in living in rich and peaceful European countries, several decades after the start of the post-war years of mass migration, many European states faced massive ethnic crime, street unrest, drug trafficking and a number of other "charms" short-sighted migration policy. Moreover, it turned out that not so much the migrants of the first wave, as the children of migrants born and raised in France, Germany, Norway and other countries represent the most problematic and conflicting environment.



Currently, the countries of Western Europe have become a haven for many millions of migrants, mainly from Asia and Africa, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean. Among the most conspicuous groups of migrants in Western European countries, one can note, first of all, people from the Muslim countries of the Middle East and North Africa. These are multimillion Turkish and Kurdish diasporas (most numerous in the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, France and the Netherlands); the Arab-Berber diaspora from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia (most numerous in France, Spain, Sweden); African diasporas (most numerous in France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Germany); Indo-Pakistani diasporas (most numerous in Great Britain, Pakistanis also in Scandinavian countries); Indonesian diasporas (most numerous in the Netherlands); Afro-Caribbean diasporas (most numerous in Great Britain, the Netherlands, France); Latin American diasporas (most numerous in Spain, Portugal, Italy).

However, despite the fact that, in general, in the territory of the countries of Western Europe there are migrants from most countries of the world, the greatest problems arise with people from the countries of the Middle East and the African continent. There are serious cultural differences between Europeans and people from North, West, Northeast Africa, Western and South Asia. It is people from these regions that most often appear in criminal reports of law enforcement agencies of European states, and also participate in all kinds of mass unrest, join the ranks of extremist groups.

Thus, among the citizens of France, who committed 2015 in early January, the sensational attacks against a satirical magazine and kosher shop, there were people of Algerian and West African origin. The environment of migrants from these regions has a heightened conflict potential due to religious factors. Considering that the categories of migrants themselves are socially deprived, many representatives of migrant youth are prone to criminal activity due to their lack of work and normal education and upbringing, it is quite clear that emissaries of international terrorist organizations and extremist religious preachers are active among them. The mass of disadvantaged migrants becomes for them an excellent find in terms of finding young people and not so many people who can be used as "soldiers" and even "suicide bombers."

From the colonization of Africa to the Africanization of France

France is one of those European countries where the problem of migration is most tangible. The situation is complicated by the fact that most migrants arrive in France from former African colonies, which have long historical scores to yesterday's colonizers. Secondly, most migrants profess Islam, that is, they represent a fundamentally different type of culture and ethical values ​​from the French. The beginning of Arab-African immigration to France occurred at the end of the XNUMXth - first decades of the XNUMXth centuries. It was during this period that France finally asserted dominance in North and West Africa, subjugating its vast territory from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Gulf of Guinea in the south and from the coast of the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the border with Sudan in the east. Thus, almost all of North and West Africa, with the exception of several British, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian colonies, came under French rule. On the territory of the region, the French colonial authorities established new orders by fire and sword. In wars with the colonialists, as well as from reprisals against civilians by the French troops, hundreds of thousands of Africans died. However, on the other hand, the French authorities did not refuse to attract cheap labor from the colonies to the territory of the metropolis.

Especially increased need for migrant workers after the First World War, which was caused by the loss of human life in France. Thus, numerous groups of Algerian and Tunisian workers appeared in the country. After World War II, the number of workers attracted from the Maghreb countries began to increase. The next numerous flow of migrants in the 1960-ies. was associated with the decolonization of African states. First of all, those Algerians who had reason to fear any punitive measures from the side of the new sovereign government began to move from Algeria to France. They were former employees of the colonial troops and law enforcement agencies, just Algerians who collaborated with the colonial authorities, representatives of the Berber ethnic groups. However, there were no special problems with the first waves of migration. Moreover, many Algerians sought to integrate into French society as soon as possible, demonstrating a rejection of the traditional way of life and adopting European traditions. However, among the forced migrants from Algeria there were indeed many representatives of the Europeanized part of the Algerian population.



Starting from 1970-x - 1980-x. labor migrants began to increase, arriving in France, first from the Maghreb countries, and then from all of West Africa. Unlike Algerian migrants during the war for the independence of Algeria, the new wave of migrants did not seek to dissolve into French society. She had no reasons for this - they were ordinary Algerian, Moroccan, Senegalese, Malian peasants, workers and marginal people who were moving to France in search of a better life. And far from always the increase in welfare was made by them solely dependent on the results of their own labor. It was with the advent of this wave of migrants that serious problems began with their adaptation to the conditions of life in French society. A significant proportion of new migrants showed an unwillingness to integrate into French society and kept apart, creating their own ethnic enclaves in French cities.

French society felt the real consequences of migration flows in the 1990-2000-s, when the Arab-Berber and African population in the country increased many times not only due to the arrival of new migrants, but also due to the birth and growing up of children of previous waves of migration. Franco-Algerians, Franco-Senegalese, Franco-Malians, for whom France was already a homeland, appeared, because they were born here, grew up and could never visit their “historical homeland” - in Algeria, Mali or Senegal. However, French society stubbornly refused to recognize these people as their own. No, they were all citizens of France, were educated in French schools, officially the French government called for tolerance towards migrants and their descendants. But in reality, the masses of the inhabitants of the quarters populated by Arabs and Africans felt their social alienation in French society. Social polarization has become the foundation for the formation of the negative and destructive attitudes of migrants and their descendants. And already in the form of a superstructure, nationalist and religious-fundamentalist sentiments appeared and flourished. Nor could it be remembered that France mercilessly exploited North and West Africa for more than a century, taking out natural resources and destroying the local population in tens of thousands.

Thus, partly the roots of the negative behavior of Arab-Berber and African migrants in France can be seen on a historical plane, but what about the similar behavior of Turkish and Kurdish migrants in Germany then? After all, Germany never colonized Turkey, moreover, it always acted as its historical ally, provided significant assistance in terms of arming the Turkish army and fleettraining military personnel and so on. Accordingly, most likely, all the same, not historical grievances, but the cultural incompatibility of migrants and the indigenous population is one of the main factors contributing to the growth of illegal and extremist behavior in the migrant milieu.

Multiculturalism failure

But the main role is played by social factors. Migrants, in spite of the fact that European governments seem to support them, paying social benefits, allowing them to make ends meet, not working, are predominantly at the very bottom of the European social hierarchy. This is justified by the fact that the vast majority of migrants do not have a normal education, professional qualifications, which contributes to their inevitable marginalization in the host society. The consequence of this is mass unemployment, which in the quarters of French cities inhabited by Arab-Berber and African migrants reaches 30-40% of the total population. Unemployment and sociocultural differences contribute to the criminalization of the migrant environment. There are a lot of real or potential criminals among the migrants. Many of them come to the attention of the police in their teens and adolescents. It is known that in most large cities in France there are youth gangs, created by migrants of Arab-Berber and African origin, who are not only engaged in traditional types of criminal activity - street robberies, thefts, car thefts, drug trafficking, but also act as a shock in the case of riots force, the vanguard of thousands of migrant and marginal masses, falling on the streets of French cities.



The existence of serious problems caused by the erroneous migration policy, which was based on multiculturalist principles for a long time, was eventually forced to admit many European politicians, who have a large share of the blame for the current situation. So, five years ago, describing the policy of multiculturalism, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that “... the essence of the approach was multiculturalism, the ability to live side by side and treat each other with respect. But this approach failed, absolutely failed ”(Merkel announced the failure of multiculturalism // http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/2010/10/101016_merkel_multiculturalism_failed.shtml). It is no accident that the sympathies of the European population in recent years have increasingly turned to nationalist right-wing parties, which promise to solve the urgent problems of uncontrolled migration, ethnic crime, drug trafficking, and the spread of ideas of religious fundamentalism. This is evidenced by the success of the same National Front in France, the Jobbik Party in Hungary. You can have different attitudes to the political platforms of these organizations, but the fact remains that, apart from the nationalist forces, no one from the parties of the other political spectrum raises the question of the future prospects of migration policy so acutely. In turn, the European left-liberal establishment has a time-tested trump against nationalist parties. They accuse their ideological opponents of fascism, racism, violation of human rights. It turns out that the interests of migrants, much of whom openly hate the indigenous population of the host countries, are more important for left-liberal politicians than the interests of their own citizens.

Contradictions of multiculturalism ideology, meanwhile, bring all those negative fruits that the European population has been collecting for many years. January 2015 in France was painted in a blood-red color not only and not so much by Islamic extremists who killed a satirical journalist journalist and took hostage visitors to a kosher shop. It was multiculturalism that became weaponswhich shot at french citizens. And for their part, which just supported the left-liberal ideals of "freedom, understood as permissiveness." Journalists of the satirical magazine laughed at the traditional values ​​of both Muslims and Christians, not realizing that for many people on planet Earth, religion is of great importance. Some for the mockery of their faith are ready to kill. And here another question arises - the journalists were on their land and could, in principle, do what they want - after all, France is a secular state and, moreover, not Islamic. This is true. And it can also be said that in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan the local population does not feel respect for Christians or Jews. Moreover, in the event of a mockery of the religious symbols of Christians or Jews, it is unlikely that those who mock will incur any serious punishment. But Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have created such a model themselves. They did not accept the ideology of multiculturalism, which prescribes the equality of all groups of the population in their differences. And left-liberal France accepted this ideology - for which it paid. After all, France is now not only a secular country, and not only Christian, but also Muslim. Millions of its inhabitants profess Islam. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that some of them decided to punish journalists mocking Islamic values.

Ways to solve the problem

Is there a way out of this situation? Of course, that in the ethnic, confessional, cultural sense, Europe will never be the same again. When two years ago, in May 2013, the French writer Dominique Venner committed suicide at the altar of the Notre-Dame de Paris, he wanted to show by his action “the suicide of an old woman - Europe”. Dominique Venner was seventy-eight years old, he, by and large, lived his life. European countries are also not young. But is there any hope that Europe will avoid suicide, will be able to get out of the loop? This question is asked by many European philosophers, sociologists and politicians. Leaders of the European right-wing parties see a way out of limiting migration flows, strengthening control over migrants, and accelerated integration of migrants already living in European countries into local societies. The leader of the National Front of France, Marine Le Pen, sees in one of the most effective steps towards solving the existing problem the rejection of the practice of granting dual citizenship. Most of the “dual citizens”, according to Le Pen, do not want to integrate into French society. This is not surprising - they see France as a “cash cow”, where you can earn money at best, and at the worst - trade in drugs, rob the passers-by. In the case of everything, you can always escape home.



But if the rejection of the practice of granting dual citizenship and even a complete ban on the entry of migrants from certain states is quite possible, especially when the National Front takes power in France, what about the descendants of migrants who are natives and citizens of France? They can not be deported, to deprive of citizenship - too. And, moreover, they have every reason to live in France, since they were born here (and many of them were born, and their parents). Meanwhile, not everyone in this category is successfully integrated into French society. The presence of ethnic enclaves makes it possible to exist in closed communities, to find marriage partners there, to receive, in addition to school education from the French state, even home education in the spirit of traditional values. When they get into the environment of recent migrants, among whom there are preachers of radical movements, a certain complex of values ​​is perceived very quickly, after which, trying to establish themselves and show themselves to their fellow tribesmen, the descendants of migrants can commit crimes and participate in activities religious extremist and even terrorist organizations.

As you know, there are several possible ways for an individual to adapt to the conditions of life in a new and culturally alien environment. Writes about this famous sociologist J. Berry. The first way is adaptation. It lies in the fact that the migrant seeks to minimize their differences from the population of the host society, perceiving the behavioral patterns and cultural values ​​adopted in the latter. He studies language, culture. In some cases, he purposefully enters into a marriage alliance with a representative or representative of the local population, may even change his religion or refuse to dogmatic observance of religious precepts. The second way is reaction. It lies in the mutual influence of migrants and the receiving environment on each other, which allows to bring together and enrich the culture, to form on the basis of them a single culture with the introduced components. Refusal implies a desire for total isolation of the migrant from the host society. It is the latter strategy that is focused on the creation of ethnic enclaves with a closed lifestyle, minimizing contacts with the population of the host country, the revival of traditional values, including in distorted forms.

Naturally, what we see in European countries today is the consequences of not integrating into a host society. And if the path of assimilation and adaptation is beneficial to European societies, because it allows to increase demography and solve the problems of workers without risking their own culture and identity, then the path of segregation, refusal for modern Europe is extremely dangerous and can lead to very destructive if not fatal . But adaptation to the receiving society makes sense when it has higher values, is an example of organization and behavior for the migrant who arrives. And if a migrant sees the bacchanalia of permissiveness, mockery of religious symbols, approval of the priority of sexual minorities over persons of normal orientation, destruction of family and family values ​​and taking children away from parents, he sees political hypocrisy covering civilians and democracy by reasoning about humanism and democracy, he inevitably asks the question: is it worth integrating into such a society? As a result, the path of failure becomes for him the most optimal. With all the consequences ...
Author:
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ya.seliwerstov2013
    ya.seliwerstov2013 14 January 2015 07: 14
    +7
    When the bunny is tolerant to the wolf, only horns and legs remain from it.
  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 14 January 2015 07: 36
    +1
    They say either good or nothing about the dead.
    I WILL NOT SPEAK ABOUT THEM !!!!!!
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 14 January 2015 08: 03
    +1
    Europe swam in fat on the exploitation of other nations ..
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 14 January 2015 08: 45
      +4
      Quote: parusnik
      Europe swam in fat on the exploitation of other nations ..


      French occupation of Algeria.
  4. Vasily Ivashov
    Vasily Ivashov 14 January 2015 08: 44
    0
    The West will not solve the migration problem. Firstly, they can no longer function without immigrants, and secondly, the road is trodden, paid, and the bright lights of the sweet Western life are invitingly burning, and not only for our white-tape opposition, but also for the whole world neighboring them.
    We can say that Europe is drowning in immigration, as the Roman Empire drowned in it at the same time.
    1. alebor
      alebor 14 January 2015 10: 45
      +12
      "Europe is drowning in immigration" - and Russia, it turns out, is not sinking? Already at the highest level, they declare that the Russian economy cannot do without migrants, that they are necessary. (A good economy, when tens of thousands of highly qualified scientists and engineers leave to work in the West, without finding an application at home, and instead of them they go to Russia millions of "farm laborers" with brooms and shovels from Asia). Moreover, they are trying to drag Central Asia into the newly created EAEU, one of the points of participation in which is "free movement of labor", i.e. if Central Asia joins the EAEU, such a concept as "illegal migrant" will disappear automatically. And what is the worth of the recently signed by Putin, insane, in my opinion, law, allowing the recruitment of migrants into the Russian army? Doesn't all this resemble the history of the last decades of the existence of Ancient Rome?
      1. Vasily Ivashov
        Vasily Ivashov 14 January 2015 11: 12
        +2
        This is what interests me, but where were all these immigrants during the Soviet Union, when the country was one and there were no borders at all.
        I remember that many Russians were sent to build factories there in all these republics, maybe the problem is being solved somewhere nearby ...
        1. AlNikolaich
          AlNikolaich 14 January 2015 11: 41
          +7
          That was in the USSR! There was a single Soviet people, formed in one key, with education
          appropriate, with a single common culture! Guests from the republics were not felt as strangers, but
          the same Soviet people! So there were no problems and conflicts. If only what visitors
          from a distant mountain village they will awaken ... So they were treated as such and in their republics as
          Papuans ... The Soviet army was, in which everyone served, also a forge of friendship among peoples. And there
          the people brushed off, prepared to live in Soviet society.
          And now the time has passed, everyone was left to their own devices, and as they could, they lived like that ...
          Where educated migrants come, they know Russian well, work qualifications
          have, and where are the gobbled Rafshans with the Jamshuts ...
          1. Egor65g
            Egor65g 14 January 2015 11: 48
            +2
            Quote: AlNikolaich
            There was a single Soviet people, formed in one key, with education
            appropriate, with a single common culture! Guests from the republics were not felt as strangers, but
            the same Soviet people!

            Plusan!
            1. Vasily Ivashov
              Vasily Ivashov 14 January 2015 12: 00
              +3
              The Soviet people were not created in one day. It was we who found him almost ready-made, and now the process of unification is going on again.
              To begin with, it is necessary that they all learn the Russian language and history at school, and there there will be fewer problems with their "savagery".
              That's just the question. whether they still have schools or all the buys are stolen.
              1. ilyaros
                14 January 2015 12: 11
                +5
                They all got it. Russian is not taught, schools are closed. A new generation has already grown, in which many people cannot even read or write in their own language.
              2. Egor65g
                Egor65g 14 January 2015 12: 37
                +3
                As for Kyrgyzstan, there are already fewer schools than mosques and madrassas recourse
                1. bekjan
                  bekjan 14 January 2015 14: 00
                  +9
                  I am from Bishkek (the capital of Kyrgyzstan), whole Islamic quarters have appeared there (Jal microdistrict). Mosques "grow" like factories in the Urals during the Second World War. Our population is forcibly Islamized. The Apostle Matthew died on the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan, Christianity came to us before Islam was born. It all ended with the Arabs staging a "holy war" and slaughtering the entire Christian population (infidels).
                  1. ilyaros
                    14 January 2015 16: 09
                    +2
                    Yes, Christianity was very developed in the Uygur kaganate, and in other Turkic and Mongolian societies of that time ... The Nestorian bishop was even in the Golden Horde
          2. bekjan
            bekjan 14 January 2015 13: 53
            +6
            In order to build a strong and strong Empire, everything must be united: One ruler (General Sec. CPSU), one capital (Moscow), One economy (Planned, ruble), one language (Russian language), One culture (Soviet), One Army ( The Red Army) and most importantly, one RELIGION (atheism), Christianity and Islam cannot exist together.
            Jesus Christ said: "Love the Lord God ..., love your neighbor."
            Muhammad said: "Fight them so that fitna (paganism, that is, the worship of gods other than Allah) disappears and that only Allah is worshiped throughout the world.
        2. ivan.ru
          ivan.ru 14 January 2015 12: 26
          +6
          many Russians were sent to build factories there in all these republics, and the local population was widely represented in the bazaars of Russia. We didn’t even thank you for those factories, on the contrary, Russians are squeezed out everywhere, even with blood, and you offer them again that to build something? it is necessary to tighten the entry of these migrant workers in every possible way, only qualified specialists, and only by order of the employer. to get your work done, you need to raise your salary and improve your working conditions.
        3. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 09: 57
    0
    The harm of multiculturalism
    To someone it is beneficial. The absence of annoying factors (migrants) will draw attention to representatives of another nation, competently mimicking Europeans, and filling the power corridors of many states, and shouting a little about genocide and the need for tolerance. A lot of examples.
    Take, for example, the massacre of Armenians by the Turks - genocide, I agree, but the roots of this massacre, the reasons are that the Armenians have seized almost all "fish" places in local government, trade, and other vital places. The Turks managed to "nationalize" these industries, albeit with a lot of effort.
    There is another vivid example of the "quiet" seizure of power in the state by another people in history - let us recall the "fairy tale" about Esther and the vizier Aman. But the Persians then did not succeed in clearing the government of "foreigners", otherwise, instead of Purim, the Jews cried about another Holocaust. And in the end they eat "Haman's ears" on Purim.
    Why am I - power in a state (namely power) should be built on the basis of nationality living in this state, and in proportion to the number of people living in it. That is, 5% of the Tatars live with us - please, 5% of the seats in your Duma. Etc. for other nationalities. Locally on the same principle.
    Otherwise, it will be as it is now - all sorts of cunning merchandise will come, and they will create and then solve problems with migrants to distract attention, while being RUSSIANS themselves. hi
    1. Egor65g
      Egor65g 14 January 2015 11: 50
      -1
      As they say, who is talking about, and lousy about the bath smile
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 12: 03
        0
        Quote: Egor65G
        As they say, who is talking about, but lousy about the bath smile

        Do you associate your people with lice? belay Then to the bathhouse! good
        1. Egor65g
          Egor65g 14 January 2015 12: 40
          +3
          It is sad that you are not able to understand the meaning of the simplest koment.
          And my people are not the one you are writing about.
          1. bekjan
            bekjan 14 January 2015 14: 21
            +3
            when I was still in school (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, 2000-2011) there were no ethnic problems, about 60% of Kyrgyz, 30% of Russians and 10% of other ethnic groups were ok and still have many good relations and thanks to the Russians, More than half of all teachers are Russian. The older generation has always been friendly, including WWII veterans and Afghans, ending with homeless people who shared one bottle for everyone and together searched for heating mains, not dividing by ethnicity. All of them lived together, the situation became more complicated when the Russians massively began to move to their historic homeland, and the rural population surged into many cities. In the southern (second largest city) of our capital, there are more Uzbeks than Kyrgyz and they built so many mosques for money from Arab countries that their mother does not grieve.
          2. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 16: 22
            0
            Quote: Egor65G
            It is sad that you are not able to understand the meaning of the simplest koment.

            Yes you what! Then explain to me the deepest essence of your comment, and the connection of political processes with the bathhouse?
            Quote: Egor65G
            And my people are not the one you are writing about.

            Then why are you on their side in almost all Middle East discussions?
            1. Egor65g
              Egor65g 14 January 2015 17: 17
              0
              No wonder in the comments to this article people are sad about the current education recourse If you ask to explain to you the meaning of the known Russian sayings — there really are reasons to worry.
              And about your second question, I’m on my side, if you understand what I mean.
              And again, it’s sad that you are ready to protect only the representatives of your people, and not justice. It still comes back to us all.
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 18: 19
                0
                Quote: Egor65G
                If you ask to explain to you the meaning of a famous Russian proverb, there really is reason to worry.

                The meaning of my first post was about some cases of parasitism of some peoples on the body of others. You wrote - "lousy about the bath". Lice (cause, parasite) - carrier (human,country) - Bath (as a way to get rid of parasites)... There is undoubtedly logic. BUT! My thinking is logical, and combining your advocacy of the interests of "some" peoples of the far abroad, I concluded that you associate yourself with this people.
                Quote: Egor65G
                And again, it’s sad that you are ready to protect only the representatives of your people, and not justice

                You inattentively read the first koment -
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                Why am I - power in a state (namely power) should be built on the basis of nationality living in this state, and in proportion to the number of people living in it. That is, 5% of the Tatars live with us - please, 5% of the seats in your Duma. Etc. for other nationalities. Locally on the same principle.

                hi
                1. Hairy Siberian
                  Hairy Siberian 14 January 2015 18: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  BUT! My thinking is logical, and combining your advocacy of the interests of "some" peoples of the far abroad, I concluded that you associate yourself with this people.

                  I think the logic has let you down here. Obviously, Egor65G is from Israel, not from Armenia.
                  Tell me please, do you really think that the Turks massacred 1500000 people just because they occupied all, as you put it, "fish places" on the territory of which the Armenians lived for thousands of years long before the Turks?
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 19: 17
                    0
                    Quote: Hairy Siberian
                    It is obvious that Egor65G is from Israel, not from Armenia.

                    I meant it.
                    defending the interests of "some" peoples distant abroad
                    FURTHER.
                    Quote: Hairy Siberian
                    that the Turks slaughtered 1500000 people

                    About 2000000. And unlike the Holocaust, this is an honest 2000000.
                    Causes -
                    Despite the fact that 70% of the Armenian population was poor peasants, the stereotype of a cunning and successful Armenian with great commercial talent was prevalent among the Muslim population.
                    Wikipedia 70% is clear, but where is the remaining 30?%? The rest were Vasya Vasya. I am not saying that the Armenians were cut out correctly, I sincerely feel sorry for the people, but the causes of ANY national conflicts should be sought from both participants. Especially when they start to cut some.
                    P, S. According to statistics, the main blow falls on the harmless 70%.
                    1. Hairy Siberian
                      Hairy Siberian 14 January 2015 19: 30
                      0
                      The first time you wrote differently:
                      Quote: Ingvar 72
                      Take, for example, the massacre of Armenians by the Turks - genocide, I agree, but the roots of this massacre, the reasons are that the Armenians have seized almost all "fish" places in local government, trade, and other vital places. The Turks managed to "nationalize" these industries, albeit with a lot of effort.

                      That's why I wrote to you.
                      Quote: Ingvar 72
                      Despite the fact that 70% of the Armenian population was poor peasants, the stereotype of a cunning and successful Armenian with great commercial talent was prevalent among the Muslim population. Wikipedia. 70% - and the remaining 30?%? The rest were Vasya Vasya. I am not saying that Armenians were cut out correctly, but the causes of ANY national conflicts should be sought from both participants. Especially when they start to cut some.

                      Believe me, if the remaining 30% are also poor peasants, this all the same happened. But there was only one reason for the genocide:
                      The Turks needed once and for all to get rid of Christians in Western Armenia and Cilicia. That's all.
                      1. Ingvar 72
                        Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 20: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: Hairy Siberian
                        And there was only one reason for the genocide:

                        Basic, but not the only one. In the event of a war with Russia (offensive, with the annexation of the Bosphorus), Armenians would support Russia. And provided that almost all food trade was in the hands of wealthy Armenians (fishing places), then the Turks would have had a hard time. Once again, I am not trying to justify the Turks, I am trying to reason logically. hi
                        P.S. If in Armenia almost all trade would belong to the Azerbaijanis, then at the first opportunity the Armenians would drop them out and do it right. Food security must be addressed by indigenous peoples. The first time I raised this particular problem.
                    2. Egor65g
                      Egor65g 14 January 2015 20: 02
                      +1
                      Quote: Ingvar 72
                      About 2000000. And unlike the Holocaust, this is an honest 2000000.

                      In my opinion you have complete disagreement and confusion in your head.
                      1. Ingvar 72
                        Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 20: 33
                        -1
                        Quote: Egor65G
                        In my opinion you have complete disagreement and confusion in your head.

                        Why? Because I say that the Armenians were genuinely cut out, and the Jews scratched the Holocaust once every 10? (I do not deny the fact of genocide)
                        There were not so many Jews in Europe. But the Germans did not kill everyone. At first they made it possible to leave.
                        According to the 1939 census, more than 3 million Jews lived in the USSR in pre-war borders, including about 2,1 million in the territories

                        According to the census, on July 16, 1933, 503,9 thousand Jews lived in Germany. By mid-1943, Germany was declared “cleansed of the Jews,” “Judenrein,” although as of September 1, 1944, 14,574 thousand Jews who were not imprisoned lived in the country. The number of Jews killed in Germany and killed there as a result of persecution is estimated at 160-180 thousand.
                        By March 13, 1938, when Germany had completed the Anschluss, annexing Austria, the Jewish population of this country amounted to 181,778 thousand people (according to the Nuremberg laws - about 220 thousand). The number of Austrian Jews killed during the Holocaust is estimated at 70 thousand.

                        There were even fewer Jews in the rest of the German occupation zone. So arm yourself at your leisure with a calculator and census data from the occupied zone on the eve of World War II (available on the Internet), and count. It is unlikely that 6000000 will be. And this is without taking into account the refugees who left the war. Mathematics, my friend, science is exact, in contrast to history. hi
                2. Egor65g
                  Egor65g 14 January 2015 19: 59
                  0
                  I don’t understand how one nation can parasitize on the body of other nations. For me, this is utter nonsense. Just like your next thesis on power. Would you arrange the same percentage quotas in higher education? And when applying for a job, etc.?
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 14 January 2015 20: 13
                    0
                    Quote: Egor65G
                    Would you arrange the same percentage quotas in higher education? And when applying for a job, etc.?

                    Public service and public education - YES! Such rules, although tacitly apply in many countries. Or do you doubt the talent of the Russians, Tatars and Kalmyks, do you think that we will not last without the "genius" of God's people?
                    1. Egor65g
                      Egor65g 14 January 2015 20: 53
                      0
                      Quote: Ingvar 72
                      Such rules, albeit behind the scenes, apply in many countries.

                      This is your whole point.
                      Quote: Ingvar 72
                      Or do you doubt the talent of the Russians, Tatars and Kalmyks, do you think that we will not last without the "genius" of God's people?

                      And here is the grin of anti-Semite.
                      You boast about your honed logic, and write about the minds of Russians, Tatars and Kalmyks, and immediately propose creating governments on a percentage quota.
                      And, do not be offended, but funny to me, a Russian born and raised in Kyrgyzstan, you talk about the talent of all peoples. I have a friend Elchin-Azerbaijani and Arthur-Armenin, Dimurat-Uyghur and Aziz-Kirghiz, Abesalom-Karaite and Lyokha-Jew ...
                      And I want to ask you, I do not need to answer. I have the honor. hi
      2. The comment was deleted.
  6. itr
    itr 14 January 2015 10: 22
    0
    And here migration!
    if Europeans and Russia did not make idiots out of their children at birth, then there would be no problems. In France, the French and most of the current, they grew up homosexual and talerast! repeat the history of Rome
  7. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 14 January 2015 11: 36
    +5
    Still, I wonder why Europe pursues such a suicidal migration policy?
    Well, I understand when it comes to the use of labor of migrants, yes it’s profitable, but when they are sitting in bundles on benefits, it looks rather strange. Moreover, in the eastern part of Europe there are simply plenty of working hands, and they are mentally incomparably closer to the Western Europeans than the Africans and Asians. So what's the deal here? Maybe there are forces that want to turn a strong united Europe into third countries split among themselves? Or is Europe specially brought to a boil of intolerance for everything alien, and most importantly, hatred of other races and nationalities in order to stir up some kind of war war in the Middle East or Africa on this wave and then pull all the chestnuts out of the fire with the wrong hands? Or maybe both?
  8. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 14 January 2015 13: 05
    +8
    The issues of the migration policy of the USA, Europe, New Guinea and Burkina Faso do not bother me much - they are deeply "violet" to me! The "turbidity" of migration policy in Russia is more important than me! They are trying to limit the uncontrolledness of "migration", such as to put things in order: foreign passports, "legal" terms of stay in the country and punishment for violations; then they accept Kyrgyzstan from very, very Central Asia into the EAEU. Now the Kyrgyz will be massively "deep purple" new migration laws and regulations! And after a while Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will be asked to join the EAEU, then for whom (against whom) will these "new migration laws and regulations" be? Against Ukrainians and Bulbash? Well, as for me, Ukrainians and Belarusians in Russia are much better than "Asians"! So what will these "migration restrictions" soon turn into? There are millions of "illegal immigrants" in Russia, but they are not in a hurry to expel them, there is not so much money! But there was a sensible proposal: when entering the country from migrants to collect a bail (sale of special "vouchers"): but the corrupt State Duma deputies blocked a sensible bill. And try in your own country to "rein in" the impudent "migrant"! You will easily be accused of "inciting ethnic hatred", and you, and not an impudent "migrant", will find yourself "guilty without guilt" "Is it pleasant" to feel like a "second-class man" in your own country? And then there's the story of the "foreign legions"! What is the delusional title of one article: "Russia will oppose huge foreign legions to Europe." I am not against, in principle, foreigners in the military service of Russia, but this should be "expedient and in moderation." In certain cases, they are necessary. But "here and somewhere" "mentioned" the Roman Empire ..... And what about Rome? First: a national army with signs of a regular, with the growth of social, economic, (finally, political) patterns (or, if you prefer, problems), the Roman army becomes "professional" (that is, mercenary); and at first this situation was not "fatal" for the state; but at first! Throughout its history, the Roman army "attracted" "foreigners" to "serve Rome." ! But when the number of "foreign legionnaires" in the Roman army reached "massively without measure", then the Roman Empire "hiked"! I ask you not to find fault with "simplifications": do not retell in detail the entire history of Rome! There is an opinion that it is necessary to "study history" so as not to make past mistakes; but are the racial officials capable of "learning" .... ???
  9. nebrat
    nebrat 14 January 2015 13: 15
    0
    Migration problems in Europe are largely connected with guilt complexes in front of the former colonies. What England, what France did not weakly frolic in their time
  10. new communist
    new communist 14 January 2015 15: 49
    +2
    The problem is that the West cannot yet build concentration camps, but the problem with emigrants must be resolved. But what about the medium term? To solve the problem, a sufficiently large territory is needed, to which there are land roads, which is located in Europe, preferably fenced off from normal neighbors by a moat with fighting crocodiles, whose population is fooled, even better zombified by its propaganda, whose government is in debt, like in silk, fine if debt of more than 100 billion euros, the industry of which is destroyed and there is a small war with separatists. It’s in this territory that trains of friendship from the West and take away an undesirable contingent to a permanent place of residence. Tse will already be Europe. I even know a territory that loves cookies and loves to jump. The contingent also loves to ride, there will be harmony.
  11. Karbyshevets
    Karbyshevets 14 January 2015 19: 40
    +4
    There is a way out, only it is tough, without any tolerance, etc. We don’t have to go far, we have refugees from New Russia in Russia. Let it not be so smooth, but still providing a suitable living space for living; compulsory employment of the able-bodied; juvenile education on par with the rest. If a person is not given a real opportunity to receive funds for living legally, he will not receive them legally, i.e. get an army of criminals. It is also necessary to smash, resettle, shuffle all ethnic enclaves. Intolerance of parasitism and other nihilism. You can’t teach, you don’t want to leave the country, you yourself didn’t leave, then, to hard labor.
  12. Megatron
    Megatron 14 January 2015 23: 02
    +1
    There is only one way out for Europe - The first stage is 100% abolition of any benefits, the second is various persecutions of parasites, and the third is "ethnic cleansing". All "human rights" and other side heresy. Either that, or they will soon die. Pay attention, even their police officers are mostly not young already.
  13. Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 14 January 2015 23: 22
    +2
    The very same problem among the Central Asian slaves is growing in Russia themselves.
    Will we learn from the mistakes of Europe? Or find your rake?
    And again everywhere these flirting with national organizations - diasporas!
    But the organization of the indigenous population is prohibited! This is supposedly nationalism!
  14. Leader
    Leader 15 January 2015 09: 46
    0
    Guest workers - it's time home-oh-oh!
    And then entrepreneurs will begin to pay normally to Russian hard workers.
    And if a businessman needs a "specialist" who is supposedly not to be found among ours, then let him pay an increased tax on this foreigner.
    No multiculturalism is my country. Do not like our orders and our culture, do not want to lose your identity? - go to your native villages.
    Quote: bekjan
    ... when the Russians massively began to move to their historical homeland, and the rural population surged into many cities ...

    Russians from Central Asia now live next to me in Russia. They "began to move", as you put it, when the locals promised them "to cut off the heads of the Russian occupants." There they were called names, humiliated, beaten, and some were cut.
    So, do not talk about moving ... They escaped from the local natives. Which now, having destroyed what was created by the Soviet people, are turning to us - to use our achievements.
    Foreigners - get out of here!
  15. Egor65g
    Egor65g 15 January 2015 09: 55
    0
    This is what I understand, a real man! If all the leaders so condemned the fans of Islam, without any but и they themselves are to blame- the world would become cleaner and calmer.