George Washington eloquently set forth the classical American policy on immigration in an address he delivered before an Irish association in December 1783. In his remarks, Washington stated that our borders were open, not just for the wealthy and educated, but also for the “oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions,” who were free to enjoy “a participation of all our rights and privileges – If,” he concluded, these newcomers comported by American standards of “decency and propriety of conduct.” That is, they had to assimilate to their new country’s values; then they would be accepted on an equal basis with those who came across on the Mayflower. This policy prevented the kind of quasi-civil war currently raging in Europe, yet today, some Americans want to change our policies based on Old Europe’s fatally flawed model.
Columnist Mark Steyn, in a November 3 interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt, discussed the current alarming situation in France – the Muslim riots that subsequently spread to Denmark and Belgium. These are the opening shots, Steyn says, in the start of a “Eurabian civil war.” The root cause of Muslim disaffection is non-assimilation. This happened for two reasons: Islamic fundamentalist immigrants chose not to assimilate and conscious government policy instituted by their host nations encouraged their separatism. Decades of multicultural secular humanism have excised Judeo-Christian core values from Old Europe, and a lethal element of separatist Islamofascism filled the void. This is a harsh, parasitic movement that intends to destroy its host. Indeed, in some cases the hosts have actually enacted rules to prevent such assimilation and to recognize the immigrant culture as equal to or preferable to the host.
This muddle-headed policy Steyn recounts, has resulted in hostile enclaves within states. In realistic terms “you're dealing with communities that are totally isolated from the mainstream of French life, where all kinds of practices that wouldn't be tolerated [take place].” Alex Alexiev, of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, and a major contributor to the newly released War Footing, agrees.
There may be as many as 1,000 Muslim enclaves in France alone. They have become states within states. Many practice Shari’a law inside of the enclave. As many as 400 enclaves are so closed that even French police fear to enter during daylight. At night, it is strictly mob rule.
Alexiev made this analysis more than a year before the contemporary French riots erupted. Steyn notes that several years prior to the riots, he toured sections of Muslim ghettos outside of Paris. They were the most appalling slums he had ever seen, worse even than some notorious Third World pits. “I was more afraid inside these places than in any place I’d been in the Middle East including Baghdad recently,” Steyn told Hugh Hewitt.
For what conceivable reason can a country like France have voluntarily abrogated sovereignty over large sections of its internal territory on a de facto basis? Alexiev points a finger to simple population figures as a prime factor: aging, non-reproducing Frenchmen versus youthful, procreating Muslims. He has studied European demographics for years. The numbers, Alexiev contends, are intentionally obscured by various countries, especially France, “but if you know how to look for them, you can find them.” His greatest concern is that using commonly accepted demographic models European countries have voluntarily slowed reproduction to the point where certain populations may be “unrecoverable.” Alexiev cites France, Holland, much of Scandinavia, and Italy as most alarming cases. Europeans are reproducing at a rate so low that they are no longer replacing themselves, much less expanding. By the end of the century some countries may be entirely depopulated of “classic” Europeans.
Can the trend be reversed? It may be too late, considering that the Europeans may have passed the tipping point. Given the explosive birthrate among the Muslim populations along with an open immigration policy bordering on national suicide, the transition of Europe to Eurabia may well be unstoppable by anything other than extraordinary intervention. It is precisely that kind of intervention that concerns Ralph Peters, author of New Glory, a look at where these trends lead. Europe – especially France, Peters contends – have a “blood-drenched history.” When European countries get pushed too far, they typically solve their domestic problems through war or by unrestrained internal repression. One need not look further back than the Holocaust to see the results, but historians relate centuries of blood-letting and ongoing discrimination by Europeans against Jews and other minorities.
There is a real fear among observers that the anti-Semitic, anti-foreign movements that came close to electoral victory in France are going to resurge as a result of the riots and the undeniable threat that Muslims pose to France. With both the Socialists and the neo-Fascists opposed to assimilation as a policy (the former can think only in terms of more welfare and appeasement, the latter in terms of removal) the political battle lines are drawn. Peters’ contention is that they may well be drawn in blood within a few short years if a sufficiently cruel element of French politics comes to power bent on deportation or elimination of the immigrant, “foreign” population.
Today, there are many who promote Euro-socialist values as a legitimate replacement for America’s Constitutional guarantees drafted by the Founding Fathers. For years they tried to make their case, despite tanking economies, social and moral bankruptcy, and military impotence that swept Europe into virtual irrelevance. Now nominally European citizens are taking arms against their own. Perhaps this is the ultimate cost of non-assimilation.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.