Recently Austria, the last homogenous Western European nation, has been plunged into a state of debate over the issue of mass immigration. Key Officials in the Austrian government have called immigration into Austria of 100,000 thousand foreigners. This immigration will take place within a period of 10-20 years. The country will be transformed from a homogenous small nation to a multi-cultural nation within a rapid period. The supporters of mass immigration say that it is necessary, because Austrian birth-rate is too low and more skilled people are needed. As a young American man who has studied Austrian culture and politics and American politics and has lived a diverse, multi-cultural community all of his life, I will attempt to offer an opinion against mass immigration and convince you that the path advocated by Maria Fekter and others is a horrible mistake.
First off, regardless of wether someone is for, or against mass immigration, we would all agree that it will change Austria dramatically. Every Austrian institution would be affected: justice, healthcare, education, culture, politics etc.. Therefore, we should study mass immigration and the arguments both for and against it carefully. No one would argue with studying the issue. If the politicians are honest and truly beleive in immigration and want to help Austrians, they will allow studies. There is also no hurry to pass legislation aimed at increasing mass immigration. The reasons for supposedly increasing it are not so urgent as the problems claimed to be solved by mass immigration are over a long period of time anyway.
One thing that should be looked at is the effect of mass immigration in other countries. The United states, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France, Israel, Denamark etc.. all have their own experiences with immigration and issues. Generally speaking many experiences have been negative. Crime has increased, society has become divided, diseases have multiplied, health care and natural resouces have become strained etc...I am generally unsure that mass immigration of foreigners has been a sucess in any nation, and if it has been a sucess, to what extent. It also seems ALL of these nations are attempting to end or further limit immigration.
We should also look at the political controversies surrounding mass immigration in other countries. Here in the united states immigration is a controversial issue in politics. When one turns on Republican radio stations such as Rush limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage etc... You will hear harsh words towards immigration which is a reflection of much of American society and the GOP. The Republican party in particular has taken a stance against immigration. Even recently Senator Mitch Mcconell called for the repeal of the 14th ammendmant and the state of Arizona is in a state of upheaval due to mass immigration. Steve King R-Iowa, a leading Republican leader adressed the immigration situation in Europe and offered advice not to pursue mass immigration.
And America is not a "nation of immigrants" BS. We had clearly defined immigration laws that favored Europeans until 1965. The Tea Party movement currently is a reaction to the failed social policies since the 1960's and many people wish to turn back the clock. Our politicians also decieved us in much the same way the politicians in Europe have/are decieving their people.
Furthermore, the massive social changes which occured in the 1960's in the USA were done primarily by unelected leftist judges in a process known as judicial activism, in which laws are legislated illegaly by judges. Americans NEVER had a choice in the issue of imigration. Just as recently as last week "Judge" Bolton invalidated the Arizona immigration for example. Yet shockingly Austrian politicians tout our immigration laws and situation as something to aspire to and emulate and deceptively attempt to tell their citizens what Americans believe.
As far as immigration in Australia is concerned, both parties have pledged to cut back on immigration numbers in the future, but Tony Abbott has gone a step further in committing to process all refugee's offshore and even use the army to turn back boats full of asylum seekers. Annual immigration would be cut from 300,000 to just 170,000 to reduce the growing population, yet in an ironic twist Mr Abbott has also stated that he wants to see the country's birth rate rise as it was "significantly below replacement level". A strange thing to say when criticising a growing population that is apparently unsustainable.
Let us also not forget the immigration laws in israel. Israel recently deported their non-Jewish foreign workers and children. Isreal also has strict immigration laws which favor jews. Intermarriage between non-Jews and Jews is frowned upon. The only way one could be a jew is if one has a Jewish mother. I could go on all day about the experiences and policies of other nations, but these few are enough.
And of course we must evaluate the effects of immigration into Austria itself already. Already we find massive problems related to crime, unemployment, housing, welfare, block voting, terrorism, lower quality of life etc.. They can not even fix the problems from immigrants already, but yet they demand more ? Why not give the immigrants who already live in Austria and have massive unemployment jobs, before you bring afew million more in.
I don't think birth rates is an issue. The Austrian birth rate is approximately 1.7 or something. It could not be so hard to raise a birth rate less than half of a percentage point. They raised the birth rate in Denmark, Japan and Ierland when it was necessary. The recent "decline" in birth rates from 2008-2010 is nothing to worry about, because there was a financial crisis and birth rates often fall in a financial crisis. There is also the issue of Austrians who do want to have children, but can't because it is not convenient, lack of good housing, fast paced life, high taxes, lack of financial or cultural confidence, etc... One could easily adress these issues and raise the birth rate. All of these problems will increase with the population expansion and social effects of immigration and immigration will decrease the birth rate even more.
Even if birth rates were the reason for promoting mass immigration, would one not agree that brining in 100,000 foreigners into a small nation with 8 million people is a last resort or drastic solution ? Immigration of so many is irreversible. It is also much more difficult and risky than simply attempting to raise the national birth rate by half a percentage point. Offices of immigration may have to be established, things may not go according to plan and language barriers to be overcome. In addition the usual problems such as crime and others would apear. All the problems cost millions at a minimum. The recession may also unexpectedly return. Furthermore what if you bring in all the immigrants, then problems appear and you think you made a mistake ? then what ?
We must also consider the numbers and do the math. Austria also already has immigration. Thousands of Asylum seekers come illegaly and what not. Not only will you have "active" legal immigration, but also illegal immigration. Furthermore these 100,000 immigrants will inevitably bring their familes. They could also have a higher birth rate than whatever is left of the native austrians. 100,000 immigrants will easily turn into 100,000,000 immigrants. And won't the same circumstances which cause the low birth rate in Austria still exist after you bring the immigrants in ? Therefore we can conclude that 100,000 will not be enough, but you will have to bring in more and more and more and more....
I also question the "skilled immigrants" argument. The educational standards in other nations are far below western nations. A medical degree from india is NOT the same as an Austrian degree. This loophole is readily open to abuse. And just because an immigrant is "skilled" it does not mean there will be no problems. Having a "Skill" does not translate into a job. There are plenty of unemployed people with skills, because the skills might not in be demand. How do you contemplate that you will bring in 100,000 doctors and engineers in 20 years and give them work in their career field at good wages ? And your definition of "skills" is questionable, you think that a waiter or carpenter is a skilled professional. In reality that is a menial job that any austrian could be trained to do. The "skilled" immigration idea is nothing new and has been a failure in other nations. Furthermore, so what if they are "skilled" they are still foreigners and it is 100,000 + of them.
I also do not see a deficit of talent in the Austrian population. Austria has a very high number of college graduates, which is almost above average in number. According to wikioedia, it even says Austrian college grads are so numerous that they have trouble finding jobs in their field. The average Austrian IQ is also higher than most nations in the world, including other European nations. Some of the most famous inventors and musicians have come from Austria, such as Gaston Glock. Austrians have also become celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenneger. I sincerely doubt the imported foreigners could be better than the Austrians and that there is anything Austrians can't do.
I personally wonder why a center right party like the OVP would take such an extreme left wing position on immigration. I would imagine the sister parties of the OVP are the Republicans and conservatives in the UK--BOTH parties fundamentally opposed to mass immigration. David Cameron recently ended mass immigration, which was established by the left labour party in the UK to build up the leftist vote. And The Republicans have just gone wild on the immigrant issue lately. can we not learn from this situation ?
When you study the politics and voting trends of nations affected by mass immigration such as the USA and UK, you generally find that it disadvantages a right leaning or free market political party. In the USA the democratic party is almost entirely ethnic and religious minority, with the exception of afew white liberal zealot marxists like hillary clinton. In contrast the Republican party is almost entirely White and christian, despite massive outreach to minority communities and having a Black chairman once. The reason for this is not racism or bias, but rather the fact that only certain issues resonate with them and diferent groups have different interests. Those immigrant people tend to support socialist policies and governemnt benefits more and want resources, not for the entire community but only for their ethnic group/self interest. Thus social/political cohesion is destroyed by a diverse society and political affiliation is based on ethnicity, religion or race by coincidence.
If we were to transalte block voting into Austria, we would find a gain in Green votes and some SPO, but not OVP, and possibly some gains for FPO beause the remaining Austrians would probably be upset if the immigration produces negative results. From what I understand, Green is already dispraportionately immigrant and will grow with the new arrivals. I doubt the new arrivals would the OVP support.
There is no moral foundation for this mass immigration. Austria has NO colonial history in the third world. Austria is far too small to accomodate large numbers of people, And using thousands of foreign immigrants to replace the indigenous Austrian people is an act of genocide of the worst kind. If hundreds of thousands of Austrians were coming into Africa and native Africans were dissapearing and losing their way of life, what would you say ? Would you say these Austrians could just learn Zulu and would be exactly the same ? If Austria was humanitarian, they would preserve their people culture and way of life for other people and be the best they could be and others would follow. A person with hatred for their own people can have no love for other peoples. Furthermore, EVERY nation has immigration policies which favor themselves. Also the immigration itself will inevitably and unintentionally destroy the host nation, leaving nothing for anyone in time. In the end neither the Austrian, or the imigrant would benefit.
One may also view the immigrants as being discriminated against, but in reality the Austrian will be discriminated against. In every nation that has accepted immigration the immigrant population is often unkind to host citizens. In schools immigrants often bully and abuse other students. The native culture is generally not respected or appreciated. Their politicians when participating in democracy also often advocate active discrimination under law against native people. In the United states this discrimination takes the form of "Affirmative Action" where immigrants and people of color are favored for hiring, promotion, college admissions, loans and housing. In Germany Affirmative Action also exists-- recently in berlin leftist parties upported by ethnic minority voters introduced affimative action to the Berlin area.
I think personally Austria is perfectly fine and does not need 100,000 immigrants. I have talked to many Austrians and find them very intelligent (although a bit naive at times) The women are very atractive looking. The culture of the people and history is also very interesing. I don't know why one would wish to change it into something completely different. When I travel, or my family travels, I want them to see it the way it was and be able to experience the people. The country will never be the same with 100,000, 000 immigrants and I know from expereince it won't change for the better. These great people will just destoy themselves and it is very difficult to watch.History is repeating itself . One may also say that there will be no problems and non of the issues mentioned will appear, but in reality as soon as you let them in, you will have no control over what happens and the warning signs are as clear as day.
No comments:
Post a Comment