Hindustan Times
Is the West turning its back on ‘multi-kulti’?
In October, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, joined a growing debate on immigration. Multiculturalism had “utterly failed”, she said.
To balance this somewhat racist statement, she admitted that Islam “is part of Germany”.
Horst Seehofer, chief of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party that supports Merkerl’s ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), said Germany needed no Muslims from Turkey or the Arab world.
In Netherlands, the recently elected minority government survives on support from a Muslim-baiting populist.
In Tennessee, US, residents in September moved a court to block construction of a mosque, arguing that if it came up, the place would be at risk of “terrorism”, “sexual abuse of children”, “death edicts” and anti-Constitutionalism, etc. It is a different matter that mosques have existed for decades in America without infringing on its Constitution and there are two Muslim Congressmen, one of who took oath of office with his hand on the Quran.
Britain has announced its intent to limit the number of economic migrants from outside the European Union. The move stems from a Conservative poll promise to cut overall annual immigration.
All of the above, one way or the other, are instances of a West turning its back on Muslims and Islam. Some of these measures and behaviour go against reason and even human rights.
Half of Britain’s immigrants are Britons who stayed abroad or Europeans from EU countries, who enjoy unrestricted movement across member states.
According to Eurostat agency, if one looks at the distribution of non-EU foreigners by continent of origin, the “largest proportion of them are citizens of a European country (37%, corresponding to 7.2 million people), of whom more than half are citizens either of Turkey, or of Albania or of Ukraine”.
Africa accounts for the second biggest group (25%), followed by Asia (20%), America (17%) and Oceania (1%).
European governments have no effective control over people leaving but want curbs on people arriving. This will disrupt the natural balance of economic migrations, i.e. both immigration (inbound) and emigration (outbound).
Eurostat data show that during 2008 about 3.8 million people immigrated into one of the EU member states. In 2008, the total recorded emigration was 2.3 million people.
Europe no longer allows unskilled migrants. So, the cap hurts only skilled and highly skilled categories of immigrations, such as IT professionals, doctors and service staff.
On the other hand, American and European job-seekers are fanning out across countries, especially the Middle-east. Most European car-makers that operate in India have non-Indian CEOs, for example.
Europe is railing against Muslim immigrants when it needs them still. Germany’s shortage of skilled labour in 2009 cost its economy $12 billion. On the other hand, migrants in that country fare poorly on socio-economic indicators.
Migrants eating into natives’ share may be a valid concern. But that calls for enhancing employability of natives, not stifling immigrants who possess skills. Yet, the statistics can be baffling at times. In 2008, more migrants (16.4%) were without jobs than locals (7.5%) in Germany
A majority of Germans may feel threatened by Muslim immigrants and “fear Islam”. However, history needs to retold. The fall of the Wall in Berlin fused two Germanys – one richer and the other poorer – into one. Berlin went bankrupt.
Faced with a sliding GDP and severely lacking skilled workforce, Germany launched a liberal immigration policy, which attracted immigration. If Muslims filled a gap in your economy when you needed them to, you cannot kick them out now. People stay on, strike roots and spread. That’s how immigration goes. Germany cannot conveniently switch between Leitkultur (being German) and being multikulturell. It should rather stick to the latter.
(7 votes, average: 2.14 out of 5)
Loading ...
I will never see him again and thereby miss his rants against Brahmins, Jews and Americans.
(4.47 out of 5)
ram autar Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 12:08 am
mr binoy ther are afraid of muslims because they are 30%in all major european city.danger of attack will remain till nato and american troops will remain in afghanistan and iraq.they are unwelcomed.they should leave.
half the population of NORTH KOREA was in american bombing.regarding burqa.when they can wear miniskirt in india why our women cannot wear burqa.
western countries are in deep economic trouble,they need muslim countries more than we need them.
euope muslims are workong as cheap labour like hindus and budhdhist .from muslim countries they really make money.now uae has given huge contract to irish firms to boost their economy.wht french are doing with gypsies.everybody is seeing.
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 4:41 am
If Muslims will let Christians, Hindus built their churches and temples in Makkah, it will show that muslims are tolerant of other religions.
until then, islam only wants equal rights and religious freedom only when it suits them.
[Reply]
ram autar Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 5:14 am
muslims ruled india for 1000yrs and best temples were built during their reign.if vatican allow mosque.muslims will church.there is no hindu population there.
Sam Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 6:39 am
muslims did not “rule” india.
at best they looted parts of india for about 400 years, just like british looted for about 200 years.
british were kicked out and we all know what happens to looters in the end..
vatican is the church in just less than 100 acres.
Makkah/madinah are big cities,..
your statement should be if vatican allows mosque, then we allow temple with the compound of kaabah.
there are so many hindus suffering in saudi, working as cheap labour due to muslim exploitation and the past looting of india by muslims..
abhi Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 5:56 am
“Our women?”. How is a muslim girl in Germany your woman? This is where the root of “fear of muslims” lies.
[Reply]
Ravi Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Abhi
Perhaps you can elaborate as to why is it that you find it difficult to understand the affinity one Muslim feels towards other Muslims. Is that not true of Hindus, do Yadavs not feel collectively insulted when a Yadav woman is raped or any other form of insult thrust upon them. Were the Gujrat Riots not a collective Hindu retaliation to a perceived atrocity committed by Muslims?
The issue is each one of us has several layers of identity, National, Religious, Caste, Regional, etc. I think what you are observing here is that some (not all) Muslims give their Religious Identity a greater priority than to their National identity. I know this cause problems, but such is life, that is reality and we have to manage accordingly.
Why were innocent Sikhs killed when Indira Gandhi was murdered by her Sikh bodyguards. Indeed, why did Sikhs body guards kill Indira Gandhi at all.
Once you answer those questions satisfactorily, you would understand why a Muslim in Indonesia may feel empathy towards a German Muslim woman.
Binoy Hegde Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Feeling empathy is one thing.. Exploding with bombs is another thing.. that too traveling to foreign lands and exploding…
“(some) Muslims give their religious identity a greater priority than national identity..We have to manage accordingly” – You have some audacity! They should be asked to leave the country or put in jail.
No wonder Western countries finally understood about these Muslims..no love for the country, breeding in plenty, receiving welfare from the country–hypocrites
Ravi Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
They should be put in Jail, you mean just like the rioters in Gujarat. When will that happen Binoy.
If there is any one who is audacious here it is you with your perpetual scare mongering and not once raising above incidents and looking at concepts, but then you are SHAN’s arse licking chela.
If the Americans bring the war to your door step, you take the war back to their door-step. To me this perfectly understandable.