(Preface: European countries are facing a great dilemma with Syrian refugees. I have been reading posts from friends from all around the world and have been reading reactions to news stories. I have noticed a few common themes. This post is about the patterns I have seen and I have tried to paraphrase the thoughts that have seemed to be the common opinion. These are themes that many Europeans have been alluding to, but seemingly afraid to say, because of political correctness. This is a total opinion piece and is being written to bring about a conversation between people about the refugee crisis facing Europe.)
The refugee crisis in Europe is fodder for press all over the world. Many stories are calling European countries unsympathetic and inhumane for the way that they are dealing with the refugees. Why are the European nations being very selective with the number of refugees from Syria that they are taking in? Leaders and citizens have many reasons, but have their hands tied by political correctness. Many posts and responses to news articles have people painting a picture of why Europe is reacting the way that they are.
Europeans are scared for the future of Europe. There are many reoccurring themes and reactions from Europeans when it comes to the situation. Europe, in general, is a very sympathetic region and has a deep humanitarian nature, but there is a reason that they want limits on the refugees coming in from the Syrian conflict. Reasons that the leaders cannot say on T.V. because of the ramifications of being un-politically correct.
Europeans have been questioning why other Middle East Muslim countries have been hesitant to accept the refugees and why it is their responsibility. Also, they have been voicing opinions on “Who will pay for them?” “Are they a security threat?” And “How will it affect the future of European nations?” There are many reasons becoming more and more clear about why Europeans want a limit and these reasons are possibly the same reasons that the other Arab countries are not accepting refugees by the millions. Europeans are asking themselves, “Is the banner of humanitarianism worth the risk of losing their countries?”
We have seen the Greece crisis play out on TV and have become aware of the financial problems of the European welfare system. With an influx of refugees, Europeans will be responsible for the well-being of the new residents. These are people who will be coming to live in Europe and who will not be able to contribute to society for a long period of time. These new residents will be cared for with welfare programs.
These welfare programs kick in immediately when the host country meets the refugees with different types of aid. The immediate well-being of the refugees has to be checked and cared for. The humanitarian efforts to ensure that the new inhabitants are healthy and have basic needs being met will begin immediately.
A basic-need will be housing. These refugees cannot live their lives in tents inside of camps. The Western world, when accepting refugees, usually does not allow them to stay in camps. They are treated as humanely as possible and that includes providing housing. The money will have to come from an already underfunded EU welfare program. The taxpayers will be covering the cost of people who have not contributed and who will not contribute for many years.
Another basic-need will be the medical care for the refugees. When they become residents, the universal healthcare programs in Europe will automatically cover them. They will be granted immediate access to all programs. Again, this is a program that is already spending a lot of money to help with the Europeans that are struggling.
More basic-needs are food and clothing that will have to come from somewhere. The taxpayers of the European countries that are accepting the refugees have to prepare for this large increase in welfare spending.
Another, and very un-politically correct, reason that Europe wants to put a cap on the refugees is the fear of a political wind of change that will happen in the future. Once the refugees become settled in their new homes, they will begin to have a political voice that could change the way things are currently.
Eventually, the people who have left their home begin to become homesick. These people, like all people, become nostalgic and begin to miss the way things were in their home. This leads to a group of people with a voice in politics that they could possibly use to begin to make changes in their new homes. Changes that the majority of Europeans will not want to make.
The majority of the refugees are Muslims, who in general are a conservative class of people. Their views on women’s rights and gay rights are generally very strict, a great variance from the collective European attitudes. Like stated above, most of these refugees are a certain sect of Muslims. They have religious beliefs that counter many of the European views on society and laws. This will not be said publically, because of political correctness, but it is discussed among the people of the European countries.
The most un-politically correct reason on the minds of a majority of European leaders is the possibility of bringing in scores of Islamic extremist. It is almost impossible to screen the refugees before they enter their welcoming country. Worshipers of Islam will tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, but the problem is that there are an almost uncountable number of extremists in the Syrian region. I.S.I.S. has a stronghold in the region and has been looking for many ways of infiltrating the West with supporters who will eventually carry out domestic terror attacks. Many Westerners are concerned that some the new residents will be coming with the intent of causing trouble in their new homes.
Residents of many countries are worried about losing their country. Like stated above, the political change could be something that comes strong when the new refugees get a collective voice. There are other things that could happen if the refuges are escorted into countries without a limit.
If the influx comes in the tens of millions to Central and Western Europe, there could be virtual loss of borders. The refuges placed in neighboring countries could begin to associate more with their kind and not build a national pride for their new homes. This can lead to a large part of Europe with a Middle Eastern pride that could challenge the borders of Europe and nationalism that is needed for protection and military prowess.
Another aspect that could lead to the loss of country is the language. Refugees, in large numbers, will tend to stay in groups with people from their home. This leads to a lack of pressure to learn the new language of the hosting country. The lack of language assimilation leads to difficulties in, and pressure on, the educational and judicial systems of the countries accepting the refugees.
Germans refer to the Turkish immigrants and their lack of assimilation into German society as a possible future prediction of the Syrian refugees. It is too un-PC for Europeans to say these things, but it is a part of the psyche that is discussed in private.
The lack of assimilation leads to a weakening of the overall culture of the host nations. It is a fear that these weakening social constructs could lead to the eventual downfall of the country. When a country loses its borders, language, and culture, it begins to cease being a sovereign nation.
Europeans have been voicing a lot of concerns about the influx of refugees and have been defending their countries’ decisions for putting a limit on refugees and not accepting all of them. These reasons have covered many topics, but there seems to be a collective fear of losing their country and culture for the sake of humanitarianism. Should the European nations risk a big political and cultural change to appease those who want to criticize the political decisions of how to handle the immigrant crisis? That’s a question for Europeans, not the press.
Worldwide Huff 