DEMOGRAPHIC MAPS all over the world are rapidly being redrawn and the actors are changing both in style and means. The rise in global migrations, which took an unprecedented turn in the past two decades, was praised in many quarters as signs of progress along the lines of inclusiveness and upholding of human rights. These sentiments, ignoring the impacts of culture shocks and misalignment of national values, fed well into the evolving globalism that was becoming more popular all across the world as globalism was also wrapped up in immigration, especially by Western countries. In this circumstance, the prospects of immigrant destination nations losing their identities became more and more glaring. Without in-depth consideration for avoidable causes and the unintended consequences, mass migration was praised by some in both the countries of origin and the destination countries as a healthy development.
One of the most popular arguments made by the ruling class in support of mass migration is that it is needed because Western nations are ageing societies. Wars, famines and insecurity, the real causes of mass migration from the Horn of Africa to the Scandinavian countries, for instance, received little or no attention when it mattered most. The idea was supposed to have been how to help stop the mass migration in the first instance rather than much emphasis on compassion that would turn out to haunt the destination countries. To put the arguments made in favour of immigrants into the Western countries, especially Europe, in context, it was said that there are too many pensioners in the West and too few workers but there are millions of immigrants to fill the gap. Well and good.
The only problem with this argument is that, as pointed out by Professor David Miles, immigrants get old too. The more people you bring in, the more people you need to sustain the entire system. Immigrants use public services. They use the welfare state. They take billions out of the welfare state. They bring dependants into the country. Yes, there are short term fiscal benefits from immigration, which disappear over a longer term such that more and more will be needed to keep the system going. The results are beginning to show, especially with increasing migrants’ overreach and the attempts in many places to take over their destination countries where they take undue advantage of liberal democracies and immigration windows. Such opportunities are offered on the basis of compassion and human rights protection for asylum seekers, career opportunities for talented or trained professionals who are immigrants, openings for migrant labour for menial jobs and consideration for keeping the population stable in countries with shrinking demographics.
According to Miles, the UK will need 20 million migrant workers to keep that population up to 100 million people by the middle of this century, which is completely unsustainable. Laxity in immigration system is insidiously harming the destination countries. The results are beginning to show, with migrants’ overreach and aggressive approach in trying to dominate in the affairs of the destination countries. This will definitely rattle the natives and spur them to react in bewildering ways. Canada is already living with the consequences, albeit insidiously. Germany, France and the US are witnesses to this reality. It is becoming clear that there is need for an overhaul for a number of reasons, beginning from the impacts on destination countries. For example, now, there are over 10,000 foreign nationals in UK prisons. How did it get to this? Thousands caught in the US on drugs, human trafficking, murders and sex-related offences have reportedly been linked to illegal migration. The majority of them were said to have illegally crossed the southern US border with Mexico in the past couple of years. Internal politics of the Western countries will continue to play significant roles in sustaining or stemming their migrant crisis. The migrant crisis is both known and recognised by politicians in destination countries to the extent that they use it as campaign talking points but hardly do anything to stem the flow when they take office. Rather, they tend to pander to the immigrant population in attempts to secure their votes during elections as done in campaigns on the basis of those sentiments by the Democrats and Labour in the US and UK respectively.
The UK, as an example of a country already feeling the weight, will not be able to do much to control illegal immigrants except and until it opts out of the EU convention on human rights before it can be able to independently control its own borders and remove illegal immigrants from its territory. That seems unlikely under the present Labour-led government. It is apparent that the attention span of many citizens in Europe and North America is short when it comes to issues of global migrations and the root causes. Many of them fall easily under the gimmicks of Western liberal politicians who try to either avoid controversial but existential issues or prefer to take side with populist ideologies. They have found an easy avenue into the hearts of malleable and gullible followers through their characterisation, portrayal and profiling under many descriptions that have gained wide popularity. Such descriptions became their standards of measuring individuals or groups who disagree with their liberal ideologies. Examples are Nazism, fascism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, misogyny.
Politicians in the UK, especially in the Labour Party, want the definition of islamophobia to be framed in such a way that discussions that question religion should be avoided. Free speech is now subjective as there are things people are not free to criticise.
The subject has metamorphosed into one of control and censorship rather than moderation as certain hitherto innocuous comments are now criminalised by those seeking to redefine what constitutes free speech. Profiling as far right, those who refuse to adapt, has gained ground even among liberal intellectuals in ivy league universities; has gained ground on the streets; and has become a practice and a sing-song among activists. The boundaries of what constitutes hate speech have become blurred. In the US, before the return of Trump, gender issues became so sensitive that one can be faulted for calling a masculine person a man or a feminine person a woman. Free speech in the UK now, under Keir Starmer, is also a delicate issue. An African immigrant in the US recently narrated how he narrowly escaped going to jail for addressing a woman in his office as female as the person so addressed frowned at and rejected the idea of being referred to as a female.
Events in Britain now question British identity, exposing integration challenges, the need for Britain to have a ‘factory reset’ to address these challenges. Under President Trump’s second coming, the US now revokes visas of immigrants based on the dogmas and sentiments they exhibit. Social media accounts are now being scrutinised. The US has started removing people of questionable backgrounds and sending them back to the countries they come from. Taxpayers-funded hotels or apartments for migrants that became sanctuaries for illegal immigrants are now being raided in the US. Those in the UK could be the next as Trump effects sweep across Europe in response to the migrant crisis. Hitherto, the use of Spanish has enabled immigrants of Latin America to pour in massively through the border with Mexico. But, recently, English has been reaffirmed as the official language in the US. In the UK, the stark reality of this is yet to hit the political class hard as it did the US. Many children born in the UK today cannot speak good English, a sign of what could be described as rebellion, resistance or rejection of the host country’s rules and practices. English is no longer a main language in more than 2,000 schools in Britain. The Daily Mail newspaper, in a recent finding from the freedom of information request, found that in two schools in Britain, not a single child could speak English as their main language. If a large number of people in your nation cannot speak the national language, how can you hope to unify that nation?
Professor Matt Goodwin, in his demographic projections, warned that without serious consideration of these demographic shifts, Britain risks social fragmentation that could undermine the foundations of British society. Trump’s concerns for the US and the sweeping changes he is making now could therefore be understandable. Migrants are not only taking undue advantage of the liberal democracies and windows available for immigration, the tendencies to aggression and violence are raising eyebrows from the natives. Yet, the left leaning political class tends to have become complacent since their logic and characterisation of those opposed to them as far right and intolerant has been widely echoed by sympathetic but a bit ignorant media, raising their popularity among those seeking to exploit the liberal culture and then overrun it. Recently, that complacency was punctured by the American voters to Democrats’ chagrin and consternation as the people spoke through their re-election of Donald J. Trump as the president. Realising how low the US has sunk in recent times, Trump wasted no time in dismantling the system that has already become an existential threat to the US, especially the one of illegal migrants.
There are some similarities among politicians in the US and the UK in exploiting the immigrant surge and the accompanying crisis. They are generally regarded as a voting bloc, to be used to advantage during elections. This thought alone has influenced decisions about eligibility for elections. In the US, the argument has been that of waiving the requirements to present voter’s ID cards before voting. Any arrangement that favours voting without an ID automatically plays well to the defenders’ advantage, looking at the short term benefits to the politicians, but ignoring the long term implications to the country. Meanwhile, with this, the favoured politicians will have an avenue to hold on to power for as long as possible.
But, experiences in recent times would be valuable in evaluating the cost and benefits of such lax political and policy decisions. Apart from immigrants who are yet to naturalise, it is presumed that those who have become citizens swore to some oath of allegiance to their new country. But, in reality, it seems like that is not always the case. It is now obvious that, instead of integrating, many immigrants have chosen to create their own micro countries within their destination countries.
Texas, Minnesota and Michigan are three states in the US that are having rising influences of immigrants that seem unwilling to blend with the country they now live in. Those who were absorbed into the US under the compassion of asylum from regimes that tormented them back home now form clusters in America to clone the same system they ran away from while seeking asylum.
In Texas, EPIC City is a master-planned Islamic community-centered residential development project in Texas, situated approximately 40 minutes from Dallas. It is a community intended to have its own system independent of the country. In August 2024, a proposed “Muslim-friendly” community near Minneapolis was called segregationist. The backlash was called Islamophobic. Dearborn, a Michigan suburb with a high Muslim population, has found itself at the centre of a heated national debate after an opinion piece described it as “America’s jihad capital.” This debate shows no sign of going away. Following the publication of a Wall Street Journal opinion article headlined “Welcome to Dearborn, America’s Jihad Capital,” Mayor Abdullah Hammoud of Dearborn announced via Twitter that the city’s police have intensified patrols at key religious sites and vital infrastructure locations, attributing this action as a “direct result” of the article. London, the capital of the UK, is currently grappling with the immigrant crisis.
The task of reducing the migrants’ inflow rests squarely on strong cooperation and collaboration between the destination and countries of origin. What are the Western countries doing in partnership to help the countries of origin to reduce the migrant surge? Major causes of migration are the same, whether from Asia, Latin America or Africa. The various crises triggering and sustaining mass migration emanate from political, economic, religious and environmental causes. African countries have a large share of these crises. Their proximity to Europe is of particular relevance in influencing the influx of people to Europe from there.
Without stability in polity, economy, religious harmony, conducive weather and environment, more and more Africans will keep migrating, embarking on desperate journeys and using illegal means to enter those countries of destination. Just as many immigrants from elsewhere are prone to various practices considered incongruous with those in their destination countries, the increasing cases of such practices are forcing those countries to review their liberal approach in response.
The tougher measures now being contemplated or implemented will continue to hurt both the countries of origin and destination.
The disproportionate effects will be felt more by the countries of origin as many decent immigrants stand the chance of being denied entry based on the general perception from the crises orchestrated by those who have come before them.
The chaos caused by the migrant crisis will likely be sustained since every country rightly needs to preserve its identity, culture, language and faith. But they will be right to resist outsiders who may want to come in to upset their apple cart.