Angela Merkel has made it clear that it is Germany’s duty to take in every refugee that manages to make it to Germany’s borders. She has repeatedly advocated strong refugee rights based on economic reasoning and a sense of moral duty. Furthermore, she has made it clear that she is determined to lose the reputation that Germany garnered in the past century, by turning the country into a ‘Willkommenskultur’ (welcoming culture). It is within this context, that many proponents to the resettlement of masses amount of refugees are branded racist and economically illiterate.
Undoubtedly some of these people are indeed racist and economically illiterate, but does that mean there are no good economic reasons and non-racial reasons to oppose Merkel’s stance?
If we take the average refugee who only desires to be German and loathes jihad, this is what is required for successful rehabilitation and integration into German society. The country first needs to find housing for him, provide him with counselling services, teach him the national language and develop his skills to a standard where he can find his own employment and give back to his host country. This is money consuming, time consuming and taxing on Germany’s infrastructure. In Germany’s situation, there is already high unemployment, and, largely thanks to the amount of refugees Germany is taking, inadequate housing and a massive strain on infrastructure and refugee counselling and vetting services. This means that it is likely the average refugee will not receive the counselling he requires, nor the language and skill lessons necessary to be employed and self-functioning. Instead he will contend with ghettoization, untreated trauma issues and false hopes that Germany will provide for him.
If for a moment, we put the economic considerations to one side, let’s look at other considerations. Merkel believes she has morality on her side. As previously stated, those who do not agree with her sense of morality are often seen as seriously flawed human beings. But, as the economist Thomas Sowell once said, there are no solutions to a problem, only trade-offs. And in this situation, what is Germany willing to trade off in order to show its superior sense of morality?
One thing that is becoming increasingly clear, is women. This is not only occurring in Germany, but also worldwide, where women’s rights and safety decreases as the number of men from the same cultural milieu as the refugees’ increase. As refugees do not arrive to a country as a blank slate, but rather they arrive with their own unique culture, it is important to note the position of women in those cultures. Northern African and Middle Eastern refugees come from cultures with rampant misogyny, gender segregation, and an incredible fear and hatred of female sexuality and female independence. If a man has been marinating in that type of culture for his whole life, how much effort will it take to undo that indoctrination (and that is on the premise that he wants to treat women better). How much worse will it be if he has no desire to treat women better than he was taught.
What about Gay people? As this is an issue which Germany is nearly completely silent about, we have to look to her neighbouring country, the Netherlands. The Netherlands was, once upon a time, a gay haven. A place where gays felt safe and could freely express their love. Now, not so much. Gay bashings are far more routine than Gay marriages. Amsterdam is gradually making a name for itself, not as the Gay Capital of the world (as it once was), but, as the gay bashing capital of the world. Every year the amount increases, and every year the perpetrators remain the same. They are the same Northern African and Middle Eastern men that Merkel is unwittingly unleashing her gay community.
I hope that people will see that objections to taking in Northern African and Middle Eastern refugees does not always stem from callousness, but can stem from sound economic reasoning and a sense of morality. Perhaps it is time for Merkel to listen to her proponents.