The Great Wall of Serbia - Dealing With Immigration -

--- European Immigration ---

I just got back from Europe and, having seen the effects of immigration firsthand there, that being hordes of men shouting at crowds to buy things while their peers pry at stragglers' pockets, I am not at all surprised at the headlines of the past couple of days. The Hungarian government is completely fed up with the current state of European Immigration. To completely measure the amount of patience that has been squeezed from the aforementioned government, all one must do is to imagine a 175 km long, 4 meter tall 'fence' which is to be built along Hungary's shared border with Serbia. That is a lot of patience which has found its way in the waste bin. Viktor Orban, Hungary's Prime Minister, said that the EU's current immigrant distribution plan "borders on insanity." Heh 'borders' heh. Anyways, immigration is a massive problem in Europe, but is constructing a cold-war style wall really the answer? I was in Berlin not two weeks ago. I saw Checkpoint Charlie and walked along where the wall stood. Surely we have learned our lesson? Hungary is not the only offender here, as Bulgaria is currently planning on extending its own wall which borders Turkey. So, here we have a real issue here. There are unavoidable waves of immigration heading to Europe. What can be done? What are the consequences? Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? I don't know the answer to any of these questions but I will give them a shot.

Source - BBC World News

To begin with, what is there to be done about immigration? European countries are not like the United States. They do not have the luxury of having immigration from predominately catholic countries with populations of resourceful, motivated dream-seekers. Europe borders the empires of Islam, whose immigrants can sometimes be dangerous. The EU has attempted a quota system which has done nothing to control the levels of immigration from abroad. Obviously, nobody in good conscience can idle about while people in need are drowning in the Mediterranean. The current system of distribution, as Orban has already pointed out, also does nothing. Layers of  bureaucratic nonsense piled upon security checks can reduce the threat from immigrants intending to cause mayhem, but it will, inevitably, create larger masses of people collecting like fat in a blood stream which will eventually cause a clog. Efficiency is key, but so is safety. It is already well established that the European economy cannot handle the unskilled labor force and is unwilling to face the additional security risk, so why must the Europeans even deal with immigrants? They have no choice in the matter. Either the Europeans take them in, or they die afloat on their rafts in the Mediterranean. So efficiency must trump safety, at least for the time being. Then infrequent, isolated events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks happen, and every immigrant everywhere is painted an eternal scapegoat. "Why didn't we care about security?"- the newscasters will shout with their inevitable and irritating tones of surprise. Either all the immigrants are to be taken in, and the occasional isolated event happen, or the EU develops tedious and inefficient security infrastructure and allow the lines of Adriatic rafts to pile up. The administrators in the EU must redirect funding it cannot afford toward dealing with immigration, or it must make the choice and deal with the consequences. This does not even touch upon the additional aspects of immigration which makes the Great Wall of Serbia even remotely morally viable.

An Intact Guard Tower From the Berlin Wall Source - Own Collection

To continue, the consequences of immigration are the creation minorities, plain and simple. Depending on the type of government and the power of said government, minorities can either have no impact on a nation or they can have a massive impact. Imperial Russia, for instance, could very easily keep tabs on its minority groups because of its autocratic nature and its ability to give and take autonomy at the drop of a hat. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is undermined and made weaker because of the increasing division in society caused by reliance of constituencies in its democratic process. Minority groups are the targets of territorial claims, they are the starting point of dissent, and they are rarely satisfied! Czechoslovakia fell apart because of its German minority. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was brought to its knees by Ukrainian minorities. The Dutch declared independence from Spain because they were an unrepresented minority. Don't even get me started on the Balkans. Even in the United States, we have countless issues caused by the effects of multiculturalism. Unjust racism, riots, idiotic victimization, ghettos, affirmative action, imposed guilt, mistrust, failure to provide equal education, failure to provide equal opportunity. Whichever side one happens to be on, he/she believes in some negative aspect of multiculturalism. The opportunity for monoculturalism, however, is lost in most European countries. These immigrants are fueling a wave of new minorities which will be used by politicians to get their way either as scapegoats or as victims. In many cases, these immigrants will be borderline useless to the countries that receive them. On top of the security and social aspects of their journeys, they will drag down the economies of the nations which are unfortunate to have the closest doormat to whichever failed nation from which the immigrants came. Immigrants from the 'acquired' Eastern European countries come prepared to work, but these immigrants come unprepared to do nothing but be fed by welfare programs. This being said, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELPED NONETHELESS. The Hungarians are shutting off immigration to their country, but this does not keep them from helping immigrants.

This brings me to the final question- Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? My first thought is to STOP PURPOSEFULLY DESTABILIZING MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES. After this country purposefully destabilized both Iraq and Syria, a militant group with a name that you all know, has been spreading its influence across the middle east. The United States does the minimum to contain its spread out of a spoken fear of intervention when the intervention has come and gone already. The time for worrying about the effects of intervention have long past. This is coming from one of the most die-hard non-interventionists that you will ever read from. I think that the United States has everything to gain from a destabilized Syria and Iraq, because it marginalizes Iran's sphere of influence and, naturally, Iran itself. Iran is increasingly allied with Russia and China, against whom, most of our foreign policy is directed against. Europe, on the other hand, wishes no part of this, and should be spearheading the offensive against ISIS/ISIL/IS/ whatever you want to call it. Italy, specifically, is very concerned about the fate of their close oil spewing friend, Libya. Back to the immigrants, Immigration could easily be halted at the re-stabilization of the middle east. How does one re-stabilize an entire failed region of the world? By backing legitimate governments instead of terrorists labeled 'moderate rebels.' Hungary and Bulgaria, for example, could be leading military assaults against the IS/whatever people and investing their wall money on legitimate governments to restore peace in their countries. They may be tyrants and dictators, but order and the rule of law is more important than idealism when the war front is on your front door. More important than their money is their lobbying power. Both Hungary and Bulgaria should appeal to the US and the EU to do something about the crisis from which their immigration problems stem. Not that the US is willing to listen to a country that none of its citizens could find on a map, however. Hungary can only justifiably say no to immigrants with the promises that it will attempt to remedy the situation in their homelands.

With regards to the wall, I cannot blame the Hungarians for attempting to find solutions, even as desperate as this one. I do, however, wish that they had the foresight to strike the problem at its roots, or even lobby to do so. Their resources could be directed in a more useful direction. Instead, their resources are being poured into a project that offers a short-term solution at best. Additionally, once the wall goes up, what is stopping immigrants from going though Romania or Croatia? Serbia's Prime Minister, Aleksandr Vucic said that he was "Surprised and Shocked," and that the wall is "not the solution." I can do nothing but agree with Mr. Vucic while I nod in silent disagreement with the Hungarian decision to erect the Great Wall of Serbia. I cannot say, however, that I do not share their concerns for their country.

On a lighter note, I had an incredible, borderline indescribable time in Germany these past two and a half weeks. I am, however, glad to be back in the states. I didn't get to go anywhere relevant to this blog, but I would definitely recommend that you, given the chance, should visit East Germany.

As always, thank you for reading and feel free to leave a comment.