Mass Migration: Uninvited Guests

"You cannot know someone's beliefs, values, and propensities from labels indicating their origin, ethnicity, or religion."

One cannot infer beliefs and values from one's religion? Seriously? Really? The author either doesn't mean this or is so deeply irreligious as to not really know what the word means.

I wonder how many people will read this excellent article?

excellent post, mr. salzman! indeed, the most salient point U made was that each person immigrating to another country should be examined *individually*. so long as each *individual* coming to canada or the u.s. (or any republic accepting immigrants) is willing to learn the lingua franca and obey the law, both that individual and the nation at large will benefit. those who refuse to engage with the larger community should be excluded.

Excellent article, full of wisdom and common sense that is becoming more and more rare. Thank you.

The fact that our 'governments' are bringing in these people by the millions is TREASON of the highest order.

It is entirely self-evident that the rules governing immigration have been distorted beyond all recognition. An immigrant, by defnition is a guest, a sojourner and a stranger util he takes on the mantle of responsible citizenhood with all that that entails in terms of contributing to the social order. A group determined to hang on to belief systems and ways of life that sustained them in their country of origin and have no intention of making the remotest effort to assimilate, are simply parasites - cuckoos in the nest who ultimately drive out the rightful owners from it.

Thank you, Philip Salzmann, for your excellent statement of truth and common sense regarding immigration to the West, to Canada and the USA. Unfortunately there are those with rose-colored glasses who think all cultures are equal, and every refugee should be welcomed! Simply a first step toward disaster for our countries and culture!

Teddy Roosevelt was correct, regardless of the country:

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

In a letter by then former president Roosevelt on January 3, 1919 to the president of the American Defense Society.

Order is the first order of business in creating or maintaining civilization. Animals migrate; humans emigrate--few in number, and under specific pre-arranged conditions of acceptance.

The USA should take in no person who is not invited by a specific entity who will make sure the immigrant functions properly and contributes to our way of life. In other words, someone is to want the immigrant and oversee the immediate beginning of, and the continuation of, the assimilation process.

The simple observation can help to interpret the migration trends. The immigrants coming from Asian and African countries are very different from the Westerners. Their culture, lifestyle, values, relationships drastically differ. Why is that so? Isn't it because this people are biologically wired to build and live in this particular political and social environment? This is indeed quite possible and, I'd say, based on reality.

The main proving factor is that when these types of migrants arrive they attempt to change the western democratic setting to the one which they have arrived from. This is not about which environment is better or worse but about the irreconcilable differences. And, if the South Asian migrants are able to assimilate and immerse into the Western democracy, the muslim's behaviour is totally opposite. Muslims try by any possible means to change the host environment to the one of their homeland.

Here is the question. Why, if they truly prefer their sharia lifestyle, have they moved to the totally different West? The one reason we can think of is purely economical/practical, i.e. free social assistance, available jobs and accessible women meaning better quality of life. The other reason is evidently spelled out in the koran, so the migration and procreation are today the most effective ways to dominate the world and spread Islam. This is the contemporary and very powerful way of jihad being proactively assisted by the neo-liberal Western governments.

Refugees unwilling to assimilate is a recipe for disaster, as seen in many places in the EU.

Re: "Is "the more the merrier" in multiculturalism sensible? Can all cultures, all ways of life, coexist happily? A society can only function smoothly if there is a large degree of agreement and commonality regarding to what language people shall speak, what rules they should follow in dealing with one another, and how government is to be established."

These days, it's more like "how the governments are to be destroyed" which is being considered by the not-so-mysterious forces behind global multiculturalism. For globalism to succeed, America must fail. So America must fail!

Remember when corporate propagandists like Fast Eddy Bernays encouraged all the women to enter the workforce, demanding equality; saying it was "unfair" and that men were enslaving them?!

That one scam garnered the business community double the number of available workers in their collective labour pool, and at half the former wages.

("So what if suddenly Westerners had to have less children because all the potential mothers were at work with dad in stead of at home raising them? Divide and conquer always works out in the end for everyone, doesn't it?")!

So well did it work for them that, as usual, they are again failing upwards: the lack of replaceable labour to keep their pension pyramid schemes afloat, means they now again "have to" import huge numbers of cheap-labour muslims from their 3rd-world slave-pens to replace us, again doubling the number of workers while halving our wages. Rinse and REPEAT endlessly!

And their pet politicians and media who slander and shame us into Submitting to our replacement, who work on us from our own culture's Christian mistake - that PITY is always Good, and ANGER is always Bad - get promised big fat pension augments on their masters' director boards as rewards for their faithful service after they retire.

Replacing their largest and most easily-cut cost - worker's salaries - is what's really behind the globalist corporazi oil-banksters "pity the migrants, you hatefully bigoted racists!" scam. Always follow the money. And of course the socialist labour union dupes, being in a symbiotic relationship with the globalists, support their own suicide, as of course do their mindless SJW minions.

The real reason the islamic threat is being ignored in public, is this not-so-nascent "Globalization" Agenda21 movement, which is clearly treason to ALL sovereign national people's governments. It's a plutocratic kleptocracy to be run by all those corporazis who never want to pay any taxes to anyone, anywhere, ever; by the global communazi labour guys who want free movement and the same lowest common denominator wages for their 3rd-world slaves, and of course by the moslems who want their one-world islamic ummah, to be run by their theocratic caliphate government. It's a triple-threat.

Against all these evil forces, we have only the Truth ... while only they currently control both the fear and the greed - the stick and carrot of the threat of having their careers protested by angry mobs of swarthy criminals (like happened at recent Trump rallies) or their own families targeted for beheadings and their homes incinerated by jihad - or taking oil-money bribes to keep their pensions.

This rather nebulously glossy, milk toast view of how the West, supposedly looks or should look at those who desire to immigrate here doesn't come close to addressing the reality of it. Some serious problems we have here are simply not addressed. We are mostly ignorant of cultures other then ours because of (news) media and educational institutions that fail miserably to inform and educate us. We have adherents of post-modernist Marxism willfully and viciously hell bent on destroying by any means everything Western Civilization stands for. The incessant elevation and vilification of certain groups has caused societal damage far greater than most people think. It is an ugly truth most people don't want to see. Before we open our arms to cultures we don't understand we need to heal our own culture first. Doing that will take on the ground courage and guts, rather than fluff if it is to be done at all.

Muslims do not integrate. Their ideology claims it is supreme, so they come to convert and dominate. Muslims have no right to immigrate. They should be excluded.

The simple fact is that homogeneous countries are always the most stable and peaceful no matter what the ignorant, politically correct, brain dead, flavour of the month ideologue academics and pandering politicians claim.

At the risk of repeating myself, I feel that we have to take this matter back a stage and not simply accept that the phenomenon of any kind of large-scale migration is either necessary or desirable. It should be possible for any average human group to be able to organise itself to achieve a perfectly satisfactory standard of living virtually anywhere on the planet that might be deemed 'habitable'. This is not to say that the geographical or climactic conditions would always be 'ideal', but with varying levels of effort, inventiveness and collective self-discipline, a perfectly acceptable and sustainable lifestyle should be achievable in most locations on the earth's surface. So, for example, we have groups formerly known as 'eskimos' surviving well in harsh, high-latitude environments and amazingly successful western-style cities like Hong Kong flourishing on what were originally modestly-proportioned, remote, barren off-shore sub-tropical islands.

The only reason why peoples should feel the need to leave any established environment would be because it represented some kind of out-of-control danger to life either through natural disaster or serious political disaster, or maybe severe overcrowding. So, starting from that standpoint, any significant migration from an established location might be seen as a symptom of some kind of failure, which could be simply a perfectly acceptable inability to cope with excessively bad circumstances, natural or otherwise, which cannot reasonably be remedied within an acceptable timescale. On the other hand, it could be symptomatic of a collective incompetence to deal adequately with environmental or social/political issues or a tacit admission of an incompetence to create a desired quality of life that might have been achieved by other demonstrably more successful groups in other (not necessarily superior) locations. Thus, migrants may or may not have justifiable reasons to move location.

Then we have to ask ourselves about the actual motivations of migrants or migrant groups and the obligations of host groups to accommodate these migrants. To take the latter point first, in polite society it is normally considered obligatory for any individual/group to accommodate anyone else only if the 'anyone else' in question has first been specifically invited, and then their continued presence is normally subject to time constraints and acceptable standards of conduct. Otherwise, there can be no obligation to accommodate others. Proxy invitations issued by third parties or 'representatives' are highly unsatisfactory since those expected to actually offer the practical accommodation and tolerance might not have been properly consulted, and therefore no real social contact would exist. Thus, any assumed obligation for one party to accept another party and any consequent assumed duties of 'tolerance' might be highly dubious.

The other question concerning the motivation of migrants also raises a few issues. Where migrants leave their home territory for new territories that are effectively unclaimed or uninhabited, the question of their motivations and subsequent behaviours is largely irrelevant since the presence of these people will not as a rule impinge on others. However, these considerations are of prime importance where migrants seek to impose themselves on the organised territories of other pre-existing communities, where the incoming parties will seek to avail themselves of the socio-economic infrastructures established at their destinations. The migrants in this situation will want to have the use of goods and services to which they have in no way contributed and therefore have no rights of ownership. The only way in which this can be justified would be to liken the situation to joining an association or club, where access to facilities is dependent on prior acceptance by the existing membership on condition of the migrants' acceptance of the association's aims and rules and demands of appropriate conduct, and on expectation of them making a positive contribution to the association. Thus, a migrant who seeks to live in somebody else's country would be expected to make that move because the migrant actively wishes to identify with that country and what it stands for, and intends to be a co-operative and useful citizen. Simply saying (as many do) that they have come 'for a better life' is quite unsatisfactory, since it implies that they are only interested in exploiting the country's facilities for their own selfish purposes, do not necessarily identify with the ethos of the country and therefore are highly likely not to show it nor its citizens proper respect. Anyone seeking membership of an association or organisation and offering this sort of thing as motivation on an application form or at an interview probably either wouldn't get very far or would find their membership terminated in quite a short space of time. Yet this is precisely what we are getting in Europe and the UK and we are supposed to accept and 'include' these people even though their 'membership' is at best only of marginal value and at worst downright destructive and dangerous.

Some countries are different, but in the United States, at least, we have a Constitution. In order for the Constitution to change, it must be amended, a very difficult process. No law can pass unless it conforms to the Constitution, as presently stated.

Therefore, in the USA, we are immune to the dictates of, for instance, Sharia Law and other foreign influences, unless, by coincidence, it conforms to the Constitution. In that regard we are lucky, as we can depend on the laws and the culture will remain the same, no matter what foreign influences are directed at us.

Philip Salzman's article very reasonably argues the case for immigrants to Western countries being expected to adapt to those countries by respecting their cultures and way of life, as has been the case in the USA. The Pledge of Allegiance is a sensible and logical requirement. It is a great pity that the UK and other European states don't have a similar obligation. Multiculturalism is simply an excuse to downgrade and bury the indigenous cultures of Western countries, to the detriment of both the native population and the immigrants themselves. In the UK, we have welcomed people of all races and religions for many decades and we can be proud of our liberal, compassionate tradition. However, now that the issue of sharia law has thrown a very large spoke into the wheel of social harmony, our tolerance must be conditioned by a firm requirement that our democratic, liberal secular laws override those of sharia. In my view, allowing sharia law to operate in this country runs counter to and undermines undermines our national secular traditions. In a large number of Islamic states, the practice of other religions is frowned upon and often banned. Should Moslems have a problem with living in a country without sharia law, they have the freedom to move to another state where it has has overriding precedence, whether it be an Islamic theocracy or some other illiberal form of despotism. Allowing sharia law to operate in the UK sets Moslems apart from all other races, who, by and large, live in harmony with each other and who don't make special demands upon the host nation. Most Moslems are undoubtedly peaceful and of goodwill but many of them by choice show unwillingness to assimilate into Western society; unfortunately there is a growing number of radicalised fifth columnists who seek to do us harm and their activities are not being seriously challenged by the Islamic community at large. If Enoch Powell's visions are not to become a ghastly reality, our politicians need to start telling the truth, taking the necessary steps to change the agenda to restore the balance in favour of the rights and traditions of the host nation. This should simply mean offering newcomers a safe home on our terms, without the least capitulation to any demands they might make that run counter to indigenous culture and law. The pendulum urgently needs to swing back, to prevent the distinct possibility of civil conflict in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you Prof. Salzman for enlightening your readers to the principal reasons for immigration success (or failure) to the West. A few thoughts crossed my mind as your sensible and practical reasoning on this matter unfolded. First, East and West have not lived in isolation from each other over the past centuries. The diplomatic service provided the necessary information to governments regarding political, cultural and religious differences - and how best to circumvent 'misunderstandings'.

It is puzzling that these historic accounts, compiled by some of the best historians, politicians, diplomats and writers, have been so steadfastly disregarded by many western governments. The formula for the success or failure of immigrants was long ago established " While in Rome, do as the Romans do" Clearly, many EU countries disagree; failure to conform to established standards in many non western countries predictably resulted in tragedy - but now, western politicians are attempting to rework the successful formula, and are failing spectacularly.

As it happens, I spent almost twenty years residing in a totalitarian, Muslim dominated country. Failure to conform to established traditions there resulted in deportation - worse if the infraction was deemed disrespect for either the leader or the faith. Regaling my family and friends with accounts of life in this country - and with the dire prediction that wherever these citizens took up residence, they would immediately begin the process of replicating what they left behind, my family members and friends expressed shock at my intolerable racism. I found it curious that my firsthand accounts of nearly twenty years experience was summarily discarded by those who really knew nothing of life in a Muslim dominated dictatorship.

Looking back, I can see that much of the distaste for my stance, rested on the notion " there but for the grace of God go I". I believe that current EU citizens are being gulled into accepting the immigration chaos in their countries by this sentiment, and many others, including cultural relativism. It is impossible to ignore the evidence that prevails - everywhere - that the historic past, with its abundance of knowledge, is being completely ignored by politicians desperately engaged in attempts to reinvent the wheel. This matter will not end well.

As heartless as it might sound, democratic countries cannot accept immigrants who are not prepared to live by the mores and values of the countries to which they want to immigrate. We have worked hard to assure the populace of our democratic countries that they will be well looked after and well treated. People who want want to maintain the cultures of the countries from which they came, such as caste issues and sharia law, cannot be accepted in democratic countries. What people do in their own homes is their choice but in a democratic society, they would have to accept males and females associating together and the school curriculum of the country, among other things. There should be no allowance made for the teaching of sharia law, murder of women for marrying the wrong man or accepting the status of caste. Such immigrants would have to find countries in which their former values can be maintained.

Dear Dr. Salzman, your article concerning the cultures of the world and the Arabs, is interesting and has merit for reiterating many things already know. I am glad to read - underneath your verbiage - that you know there is a problem with many cultures and that you uplift the better cultures of Western civilization for their constitutions and cultures, which have moral codes and ethics built upon most of those moral codes.

However, what your right hand gives your left hand takes away. You build a way toward a truthful consensus, and then abandon it from a sense of wanting to be considered a person of compassion and fairness. This is not rational. Law comes before mitigation. Your statements that: "There is, unfortunately, no simple policy solution" and "Are all cultures around the world equally good...? - a question styled to "schooze" us into biting the forbidden fruit.

No sir; there is a simple solution – civil law, and there are many cultures that are exceptionally bad! To state that may not win friends, but it does promote truth, and an honest lectern - from which to assert the reasons those cultures are bad, and how they can be repaired - if possible, regardless of the few minor "good" attributes they may evince.

This is the sort of back door approach into American society that the British and the Europeans have exercise for over 100 years. They use ideological Fabians to take both sides at once, while sounding above it all, and slowly erode our safe boundaries, and slip in that European social-socialism. Americans, Canadians, Christians and Jewish people need not be liked by everyone. Our Creator gets the first look at our morality and it is he who must like what we do. The commonality that binds human beings is: natural affection; a desire to follow agreed upon statutes of law, for personal safety and commercial success; and an adherence to moral absolutes.

That is why in Canada and the USA, dead bodies are picked up from the streets with dignity and we do not have public bloodletting at a moment's notice. If immigrants, emerges, and refugees need a safe haven or desire to live among us, have them change their moral and ethical views and we will have solidarity. If not they should go back to the jungle they came from. To God's Law sir - it is the teacher that brings us to favor. You should have stayed with your statement in your book; "The Arab Middle East has remained largely a pre-modern society, governed by clan relationships and violent coercion. People... tend to trust only their relatives, and then only relative to their degree of closeness... A pervasive cult of honour requires that people support their own groups, violently if necessary, when conflict arises."

This is among the most important pieces Gatestone has ever published. It flies in the face of the uber liberal assumptions that all diversity is wonderful, that no culture is better than any other. It says, perhaps too politely, that the leaders of Western Europe are idiots. It also says, indirectly, that we should thank God that HRC lost to Trump, or she would have brought in hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions over her term in office, of people who rank Sharia higher than human rights and shared (or used to be shared, in some places) "Western values."

The limited numbers arriving in our country (the UK) in the future need to make an effort to integrate with us, not us with them. They must learn our language, our culture, our laws. We do not want their drugs, their honour killings, their terrorism, their forceful religions, their violent ways, their treatment of women etc. They seem to want to live together with their own types causing the unfortunate English to go away.

This is why the Marxist Socialist Multiculturalism ideology is so very dangerous to Western Democratic societies because that is a horrible dictate that states that ALL CULTURES are EQUAL which is NONSENSE!

This Dictate has allowed & encouraged other cultures to invade the Western Democracies with beliefs of SUPERIORITY & also BELIEFS that people of other faiths are worthless & where they can be abused & at times killed at will!

MULTICULTURALISM protected by POLITICAL CORRECTNESS if allowed to grow unchecked will destroy Western Democratic Societies as we know & value them!

As a general statement to Americans and citizens of NATO countries who complain about the influx of Muslim refugees from the wartorn Middle East, maybe you should have taken that easily predicted consequence before you so eagerly imposed war on that area.

Why, exactly, must we welcome anyone from anywhere? 300 million in America. I prefer we voluntarily aid those in need...in their own lands.

What the author does not address, and I believe he may better than I can, is the issue of pluralism and the democratic principle of co-existing paradigms. Muslim and Christian can co exist as equals. If each acknowledges the right for other groups to hold onto their ideals and beliefs. Where the conflict originates is when one paradigm demand it be the only paradigm. The issue is further complicated when it is not only some immigrant groups who seek to destroy the co-existence of competing paradigms but liberal socialists in the west who enable one party perspectives of a peoples "democracy" and deem Iranian Revolution an expression of modernity and an enviable. The sort of birds socialists can flock with.

Mass migrations were originally defended by the UN as a matter that without the ability for regional labor to cross national boundaries, imposed by the UN, migrant laborers in the first instances African, would loose the means to sustain themselves. Essentially the UN was correcting a problem the UN created by imposing national borders without special conditions.

This cannot be said of laborers who streamed into the USA because the USG encouraged the trafficking of cheap labor. There is no reason the UN can manufacture that makes the two instances comparative.

Much has been made of the intent to assist the survival of peoples by the policy of mass immigration versus the impact on national borders and national identities. The socialist leaning UN would use this argument as a basis to redistribute wealth going much beyond assisting people to survive and more importantly challenged improve themselves and their countries of origin.

Always a very good and informative read. Close scrutiny is the ideal but it is not a ideal world. All borders are open in Europe alone.
Systematic abuse is evident--The UK government are still allowing anybody in, hence law and disorder prevails all against the rights of UK citizens.
Potential immigrants to a civilised country need to be totally assessed in order for assimilation and contribution to that country.

There is no such thing as a "Muslim immigrant". Muslims, what ever the circumstances, travel to an infidel country primarily as colonist missionaries, intent upon firstly proselytising their ideology and then subduing the inhabitants of their new country. Immigrants arrive to gain advantage by assimilating in their new land.

A very useful notion of the Cairo declaration of Human rights. Note the paradox that we accept people from the Islamic world on the basis of the Geneva declaration of human rights, which they never ratified.

Here's one important thing worth a reaction though:

"If all countries are equally good and valuable, why should a vast number of people be trying to escape the Middle East and Africa to come to North America and Europe? Is that not testimony to which countries and cultures they judge as "better" and which they judge as "worse"?"

According to the doctrine of Islam, there is only one culture and one system for the world - and that is Islam. Migration in the name of Islam (Hijra) is one of the greatest accomplishments in the life of a believer, on par with Jihad.

So if a follower is true to the doctrine of Islam, he can never, in no way, regard the host culture as "better". He is commanded to make that culture, any man made culture, surrender to the Islamic culture that he brings and is commanded to proliferate.

Islam, according to its doctrine, doesn't come to get assimilated or replaced by a man made code of conduct, its followers however, may adhere to it as long as it helps to spread Islam in power and in numbers.

This is an outmost important, and fundamental part of the doctrine of Islam to understand if we want to talk about the Islamic migration.

Multiculturalism eventually leads to conflict and violence in the longer term...Balkanisation...even here in Ireland there are black African areas that do not mix with native Irish and even target native Irish for threats and violence. Of course the mainstream media will not show this and is termed "racism" to mention facts. In 1986, the population of Ireland was 3.4 million...it is now at 5.2+ million and rising...all we now hear of is the "new" Irish and the "Nigerian community", "Muslim community" et al..always portrayed as better than native Irish...not one negative factual thing can be aired about the "new Irish" or be hounded for bigotry, racism etc...There is a housing and homelessness crisis in Ireland...no "new" Irish are on the streets...they are nearly all Irish natives....

I agree! No more "for English press one." Everryone should learn the language of the land like it or not.