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 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.
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 ...