Cultural Assimilation, Reluctant Refugee-havens and Why Refugees go West

A nation is responsible to its own citizens first, then to its neighbouring nations, and lastly, to the international community.

The Nation State

It is crucial to understand what actually constitutes a 'nation', before looking into the issues of social or political conflicts between two or more nations or its people. Neither religion nor colour define what a nation is, its culture does. It is the umbrella under which come Religion, Language, Traditions and Social Customs and Value systems.

A nation may have more than a language, several religions and variations of a similar set of social values and traditions. However , there is always a meeting point where people from different sub-cultures can agree with one another and co-exist, based on several broad similarities in their way of life. This is very true in the context of Pre-Islamic India.

Majority of the nations' borders today are the result of a cultural link or relation among the subject population within these nations. Africa and the Middle East are an exception to this rule, as most of the areas have been divided hastily by departing colonialists who couldn't afford an expensive war back home that they feared they may lose, whilst simultaneously attempting to quell independence and rebel uprisings.

Over time, due to the side effects of rapid globalization overall more flexible borders, these cultural differences have no doubt thinned out at the expense of national identity and have led to inevitable cultural conflict in various parts of the world.

Multiculturalism and Cultural Assimilation

To understand the implications of Cultural Assimilation, the first and most practical step would be to understand the opposing value systems between the two or more social groups and most importantly, their ability to find consensus to co-exist.

The best example for this would be in the case of Europe and its Open Borders policy. France, for instance, has over two decades implemented ultra liberal policies by accepting large number of immigrants from North Africa and granting many of them citizenship after a period of living on welfare provided by the State, until they are able to find employment themselves.

The majority of these immigrants, if not all, happen to be from the very same regions that were once French colonies, some until very recently. These nations were not left in the same socio economic condition as India was left by the British : with basic infrastructure like roads and a diverse rail network to build the nation upon.

Hence these North African nations, namely Morocco, Algeria and Libya(ex Italian colony) face serious health and education related issues. These people also have very vocal resentment against the European way of life, and against their previous colonizers, France in particular.

This is where the real problem lies, when the Islamic cultural norms clash with the modern European outlook to society. The biggest departure in a scenario where these two social groups are expected to assimilate is no doubt surrounding Women's Rights.

	Europe	North Africa/ Mid east (barring few exceptions)
Women's Rights	Liberal, Complete Equality	Next to non-existent, curbs on working, driving. Hijab compulsory.
Marriage	Monogamy	Bigamy
Finance/Banking	Proper Banking system with credit and interest	Concepts of credit, loans and interest are Haram.(There are exceptions)
Child Marriage	Illegal	Allowed, often encouraged. Age of puberty of girl is taken as marriageable age.

Though this is a very simplistic breakdown of some of the conflicting values between these two cultural groups, and though there are clear exceptions to the rule laid down above regarding these differences, it is still quite clear that they are nonetheless incompatible and bound to lead to friction.

Rape has often been naturalized in many Islamic societies if the rapist agrees to marry the rape victim. Furthermore, the universal age of consent is not considered during marriage as the attainment of puberty is the determining factor, especially for girls.

Child marriage is often promoted with the belief that the girl-child will get time to get accustomed to her old

husband.

The influx of refugees and migrants has fueled the rape count and assault count in previously relatively peaceful nations like France, Germany and Sweden.  Media houses and leading social and political figures abstain from mentioning the identity of the attackers as "muslim" or as "immigrants/ refugees" in order to avoid being labeled Racist or out of caution to not 'marginalize' a group of people(muslims).

This is how expensive the truth has become, where it would rather be stifled in order to prevent 'Race based attacks' in the future against such Muslim Immigrants.  There is no shortage of shocking incidents where the attackers have justified sexual assault on minors as 'as something acceptable back home' where they come from, while their lawyers actually use this 'cultural gap' excuse as a legit defence for these offenders in the court of law.          

A culture that naturalizes rape, legitimizes sexual assault and even encourages violence on women and girls alike, is not a culture worth respecting. No amount of labeling or slurring like 'Racist, Intolerant Bigot, or Xenophobe' can prevent a reasonable person from pointing out these clear flaws within this archaic and outdated so-called 'culture'.

Migrant crisis facilitating Far Right

One clear impact of the refugee crisis is the resurgence of Right Wing and Far Right political movements across the European continent. At a time where all leading established political parties are refusing to condemn attacks by refugees and the various problems they bring, fringe groups have taken it upon themselves to defend their national and cultural integrity and bring to light the various crimes committed by illegals, which are not covered by the media to avoid stoking tensions.

In the European Union, nations do not exercise complete sovereignty, in the sense that borders are generally open between Schengen nations and travel between these nations is easy and flexible. Far right groups across Europe have tighter border control, a cut down on immigration and a complete big no on refugees as part of their main agenda.

Alternate future for Deutschland (AfD) is a right wing political party which has enjoyed considerable success after the crisis erupted onto the continent. They gained so much momentum, that Angela Merkel, the architect of the refugee quotas, even went onto say 'she would turn back the clock on the refugee intake' and plan the policy better. The percentage of refugees who have attained employment is a very lowly 10-15 % according to German sources, while the rest of the refugee population lives off welfare which is paid for by tax-paying, hard working German citizens.

Another alarming situation is with regard to Syrian refugee 'children' and the number of years they have spent without a home, and consequently, without any education.
For example a 15 year old kid who might have fled Syria with his family around 2011 when ISIS first made gains, and got asylum and a home in 2016, would be 20 years old by the time his family find a home.
That's now a fighting age male adult who's personally witnessed the horrors of war and has missed out on a  minimum of 3 years worth education. While it was obvious that the nation (modern European welfare state) which grants his family asylum will have to provide him with free education for the years he missed out, it is also essential to point out here that this child is the ideal radicalization material. Radical groups look to turn a sense of loss or emptiness into anger and resentment and convince the subject that this violence has a meaning, a purpose.

The nations that are the strictest on their borders and on refugee/migrant intakes, also happen to have recorded the least and often zero terror attacks. (Poland, Hungary, Russia, Slovakia).

Why go West? A look at 'reluctant refugee havens'.

Muslims being turned away by Muslims.

 

The journey from conflict-zones to safer areas is indeed a treacherous one. But a closer look at the map will make one wonder why these refugees are travelling WEST.

How is that while much is spoken about being tolerant towards people from Muslim backgrounds and accepting them into Western societies, that none of the Muslim nations surrounding Syria and Iraq, especially the richer ones like Saudi, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and U.A.E, have offered a helping hand to their Muslim brothers?

The answer is simple, these nations are not willing to accept refugees, and refugees find their own Islamic Republics or Monarchies too oppressive to live in. Syrians can only be granted resettlement in Saudi if they have a kin already residing in Saudi Arabia. However, the refugees themselves can be quite picky

It is not a co incidence that the nations which are most sought after by refugees : Germany, Belgium and Sweden; also have the best welfare schemes and highest standards of living across the globe.

This is why, despite the fact that it would be more practical for refugees to integrate into their neighbouring Muslim nations, they choose to travel thousands of miles to the greener pastures of Central Europe and Scandinavia. And the pastures are GREEN alright. From unemployment benefits, subsidized land as well products, and benefits for companies taking in refugees as employees, only adds to the comfort of their new found lives. All at the expense of the local taxpayer.

What are 'reluctant refugee havens'?

Coming back to the essence of the title, certain nations that fall in this 'path' that refugees take have to often reluctantly accept refugees due to EU-imposed quotas from Brussels, or as a consequence to allowing them to pass through wherein several intentionally try staying and merging into the local population as illegals.

These nations are primarily Eastern European and 'Balkan States', namely : Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia etc. These nations do not enjoy the same standard of living as their Central European partners who have enforced this quota upon them. These nations also have several major socio-economic issues of their own.  Some of the  biggest drawbacks or disadvantages these nations face are outdated Soviet or Yugoslav-era infrastructure which are now almost 30 years outdated, poor education systems and major trouble in generating employment for the middle and lower class populations, especially the young generations.

With majority of the refugee workforce themselves being unskilled labour with poor qualifications, it is inevitable that the ones that do get employment do land up taking the lower paying jobs. While the saying 'they are taking our jobs' is commonly attached to Right wing political rhetoric, it is nonetheless more often than not, very true.
Barring South and East asians, even the majority of LEGAL migrants do not take up the high salaried jobs due to lack of qualifications, which is a betrayal to the middle and lower class citizens that are struggling to find employment.
A nation's duty must be to its provide education and generate employment for its OWN citizens first, not providing employment, healthcare and welfare at the cost of its tax payers.

It is highly unfortunate that the nations that can economically afford to take in a portion of refugees expect the economically weaker nations to do the same. For instance, when Hungary put its foot down and fenced up its entire border with barbed wire, there was international media outcry about apparent 'Xenophobia' and inhumane behaviour on the part of Viktor Orban.

Political Correctness  and Changing Tides in Ideology

Majority of the people today who are aware of the refugee crisis are easily influenced by the media which instills in them ethical and moral considerations regarding accepting large numbers of people, as well as the belief that these humanitarian considerations outweigh social, political, economical and governance related considerations that clearly point to what a disaster this kind of 'forced assimilation' can lead to.

No nation can have a moral obligation to take any number of people, unless they have directly contributed to the displacement of these populations, as in the case of United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Even then, there is NO legal obligation to do so if the nation deems it a threat to its internal/external security, law and order and especially its way of life.

Since the end of the Second World War, and the so called triumph of Democracy over Fascism, ideologies like Nationalism and even patriotism have been looked down upon for far too long and have been tabooed by political groups and media alike.  The tide is turning, however. The shackles that kept individuals from voicing these legit grievances and concerns are now being broken. And this shackle is nothing other than - Political Correctness.

Political Correctness is basically a filter that prevents people from expressing their opinions or thoughts on certain issues, out of caution to make sure that no individual or group of people are offended by such an opinion.  This 'filter' works as a useful tool for liberal and left-liberal political parties and other groups that have vested interests which would otherwise be harmed were these statements seen to be acceptable in mainstream media and everyday life.
What are these 'interests' and why would a politician bring so much chaos to his/her own nation to help others? Answer is simple, and its the very same people that liberals and anti-capitalists loathe that are taking advantage of the refugee crisis.  Refugees are cheap labour. And large businesses and industries can save millions of dollars by saving up on employee salaries by employing refugees instead who would be more than happy to work at half of the prevailing wage rate.
One look at the details of the recent terror attacks across Europe post-Charlie Hebdo will enlighten the reader that the nations most welcoming have been the biggest targets of these attacks. Moreover, many of these attacks were planned on European soil and within the nations that were the very victims. This points towards the existence of active and sleeper terror cells operating on European soil. Their birth and subsequent growth has only been nurtured by the caution with which authorities have tackled these issues due to the fear of targeting one community.

The outcome of the refugee intake, along with the spike in both terror and crime, should serve as a stern warning for those that aspire to see world without borders.

For those that argue that a multi cultural world is inevitable, such a change must be left to the mercy of time and history.
Forcing the hand here could be a recipe for disaster.