Europe’s New Outlook On Migrants

At a time when the world begins to witness gradual changes in the traditional world order, much of Europe is turning—according to its own definition—rightist. Until a few years ago, it vociferously extolled the virtues of multiculturalism. Strange as it might seem, several states in Europe are, of late, having a rethink about the cultural universalism they tried adjusting to but robustly prescribed it to others. Significant political quarters in Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden sound resigned to retracing their steps in the wake of a series of disturbing developments.They have unambiguously expressed consternations about “unpalatable” and “incompatible” conditions created by the influx of immigrants and refugees.

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni sums up her concern: “Islam is incompatible with Europe.” Head scarves worn by Muslim women are among the causes of their concern. At the turn of the century, no such reservation was tossed up. Undeclared segregation is another issue.The Dutch complain against migrants from other parts of the world, who make it difficult in distinguishing who is who and from which culture. They echoed the changing mood by enabling an openly anti-immigrant Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom to secure 37 seats in the recent elections. Wilders’ is the single-largest grouping in a house of 150 members, with the nearest rival credited with only 25 seats.

‘Parallel societies’

Sweden’s former Prime Minister Eva Magdalena Andersson despairs over what she saw as “parallel societies and segregation” threatening national social harmony. Denmark offers money to refugees mostly from Muslim countries, to return home. If the latter fail to respond promptly, they are forcibly deported without any ceremony and incentives. Listed as one of the most peaceful nations, Swedes are complaining that migrants have contributed to making hospital waiting time long and one of the worst in Europe. Some complain against falling educational standards. Finland, too, is having second thoughts over their policy on immigrants.

Muslims in France are not allowed to wear hijab (head scarves) at educational and other institutions as they represent religious semiotics that do not match with the secular social characteristic the Fifth Republic envisages. Burqa, a long dress that covers women from head to ankles, is also disallowed at schools, campuses and other institutions. When France prohibited head scarves, some sections in the dominant class were worried about the implications the regulation would have on the country’s secular credentials. But the ban has stuck firm. 

The Dutch government, too, followed the French course. Some sections of the dominant population targets 750,000 Muslims as a threat to their “core values”. The most candid comments came from the Dutch political party led by Wilders. He did not mince words when he clearly and loudly voiced for packing off migrants who refused to “integrate” in mainstream Dutchness. Wilders has round-the-clock police protection following death threats from Muslim groups enraged by his views on their community. Concerned over what is seen as risks to their “core values”, politicians and intellectuals brandish the argument: “Protecting Christian values and culture isn’t wrong.” Many find relief over the subject at long last being debated. The latest electoral gains Wilders’ party garnered reiterated the strength gathered by views targeting the religious minority, whose members are reported to be involved in increased inconvenience for the dominant section. Muslim youth are blamed for the rise in crime rate also. 

They also generate jealousy in the dominant community because of the success many immigrant families achieve through prosperity earned by sheer hard work at educational institutions and work place. An atmosphere of distrust is growing, as migrants are seen as either perpetrators or victims of disproportionately larger percentage of crimes. A new European model for social integration seems to be gradually emerging, though contradictory to what the dominant groups previously extolled and nudged others to adopt. Some of the countries, which regularly figure in the list of the best governed, have installed rightist parties in power. Elsewhere, organisations with rightist lenses captain coalition cabinets with their own leaders in prime ministerial chairs. 

The EU is planning major changes in asylum laws. Millions of Germans are reported to have regretted their former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal policy of admitting half a million migrants to Germany in the “crisis year” when the borders were thrown upon to receive refugees in hundreds of thousands. Merkel’s policy was to attract labour shortage and to meet skilled foreign hands, so that the number of non-European Union workers increased by 60,000 a year. Now, most Germans are dissatisfied with the policy. Poland’s leaders have been stressing on their desire to preserve Polish way of life. 

Reverse gear

Strange as it might sound to some, an increasing number of countries that erstwhile proactively promoted multiculturalism are backtracking. They apply the reverse gear so that their dominant identities do not get sidelined or become indistinguishable from those of other communities. To them, multiculturalism won’t work—a conclusion that would have disconcerted them until recently. At least seven European states now ban facial veil and a robe-like garment that covers a woman from head to ankles. Latest reports suggest that the Dutch leader Geert is drawing increasing appreciation in as many as 20 European states. 

Illegal immigrants are being deported to the African state of Rwanda and other locations in return for billions of dollars for the relatively lucrative but not much appreciated service for the rich Western governments. The reverse outlook is gaining ground not only in Europe but also in other industrially rich countries. A recent survey conducted by Pew Research Centre indicated that 63 per cent of respondents in the United States considered the news media portraying black people in negative terms. This contrasted with the 28 per cent of the respondents, who thought that the general coverage of such news was equal for all racial groups.  The digest of universalism spawned earlier does not disturb the sensibilities of economically advanced lands that until the 1990s employed terms like “melting pot” and “assimilation” in self-congratulation before flushing with “universalism”. The ensuing months should speak more specifically on what is in store on this score. 

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)