Contempt for Human Life

That is the title of a post by Christopher Bertram of Crooked Timber commenting on the tragic find of 39 dead Asians boxed in a truck container in the UK. To which Boris Johnson's immediate comment was: ‘All such traders in human beings should be hunted down and brought to justice.’

Here are the most salient passages of

Contempt for Human Life

That things are going so badly for people that they have to leave friends and family should be a reason for human sympathy whatever the cause, but tracing those causes often leads straight back to those of us who live in the countries they are heading for, the decisions of our politicians and our ways of life. These explanations will not form part of the investigations by the Essex police. The countries mentioned by Steen are marked by our interventions, sometimes directly, sometimes through sanctions, sometimes through actions in the wider region such as the 2003 Iraq invasion. The environmental changes that are pushing many people to move are caused by greenhouse gases that they did not emit. The rich world’s appetite for narcotics, and the decisions of our leaders to fight a ‘war’ against them, lie behind the criminal violence that drives people from Central America and elsewhere.

Those hard borders mean than people now have to pay smugglers to take them by dangerous methods and routes. The countries they are heading for, which never cease to trumpet how welcoming they are to ‘genuine’ refugees, are absolutely determined to prevent people who might claim asylum from arriving. A variety of measures, documented by David Scott Fitzgerald in Refuge Beyond Reach: How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers, now make it impossible for people with the wrong passport or the wrong profile to get on a plane from Tehran, Addis Ababa or Shanghai. They won’t be allowed to buy a ticket; airlines and shipping companies will stop them boarding without a visa, and no wealthy country will grant one. Countries along the way, often brutal dictatorships, are bribed to prevent the undesirable from crossing. Keep them there, out of sight: anywhere but here.

What our politicians and pundits object to is not the making of money from human suffering, or dead bodies, so long as the bodies are somewhere else. When they turn up in Essex, dead people are an embarrassment and the perpetrators must be found.

Hating and Mating

Interesting paper on refugees, sex ratios and mating competition in Germany.

Hating and Mating: 
Fears over Mate Competition and Violent Hate Crime against Refugees

Abstract

... Employing a comprehensive dataset on the incidence of hate crime across Germany, we first demonstrate that hate crime rises where men face disadvantages in local mating markets. Next, we deploy an original four-wave panel survey to confirm that support for hate crime increases when men fear that the inflow of refugees makes it more difficult to find female partners. Mate competition concerns remain a robust predictor even when controlling for anti-refugee views, perceived job competition, general frustration, and aggressiveness. We conclude that a more complete understanding of hate crime must incorporate mating markets and mate competition.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper we have turned the spotlight on an overlooked topic in the study of anti- migrant behavior: mate competition. We have shown that municipalities where native men find themselves disadvantaged in mating markets are more likely to be the sites of violent, anti-refugee crime. In particular, an excess number of males is a strong predictor of hate crime, and this relationship holds controlling for variety of economic, social, and political variables that could correlate with skewed sex ratios and hate crime.

...

Returning to our substantive findings, our survey allows us to test the micro-foundations underlying our ecological results. We demonstrate that perceived refugee-native mate com- petition is significantly higher among men who live in municipalities characterized by a mat- ing squeeze, and we further show that this perception is linked to support for hate crimes. This relationship between perceived mate competition and support for hate crimes remains even while controlling for leading alternative explanations related to economic competition, xenophobia, frustration, and aggressiveness.

...

Strategies to improve immigrant integration have in turn focused on the importance of creating inter-cultural dialogue alongside addressing economic opportunities for both migrants and natives. Though surely valuable, our study shows that these initiatives should be cognizant of another dimension of conflict, especially if migrants are disproportionately young men and are placed in areas with excess males where native men are already primed to conceive of male outsiders as competitors on the mating market. Competition over mates is neither specifically a cultural nor an economic phenomenon. Nor is the search for partners fleeting: it represents an enduring aspect of the human condition. As such, approaches that emphasize cultural and economic routes might be incomplete and divert our attention from other inherent structural predicaments.

...

And they conclude:

Risk assessment strategies should be in place that identify areas deemed more prone to violence based on structural features. Our evidence makes clear that local sex ratios must be part of such assessments.

Always look on the bright side of Chemnitz. Merkel's refugees policy backed by research

Merkel's refugees policy based on
sound research.

Just when the refugees allocation/instrumentalization discussion turned lively, Chemnitz said 'Hi'. People felt dismayed. Why? What's not to like about the proposal of

Kramp-Karrenbauer* encourages duty for refugees

The CDU general secretary wants asylum seekers to complete a general service year. This serves their integration and increases the acceptance in the population.

You don't need much fantasy to anticipate headlines in German newspapers about an uptick in criminal acts  in social institutions if that would be implemented. So what?

Then there was the silly idea of the Bundeswehr recruiting foreigners with the prospect of getting a German passport. A perfect recipe for disaster?

Here comes the NYT painting a bleak picture of Mutti-Land while meanwhile the Swiss have issued a travel warning for Germany. Are they all nuts? Mutti has it all under control. So much she could travel to them bimbos in Africa.

Mob Protests in Germany Show New Strength of the Far Right

"Chemnitz, a city of some 250,000 in eastern Germany, has a history of neo-Nazi protests. Usually they draw a few hundred from the fringes of society — and far larger counter-demonstrations, city officials say. The crowd this time was 8,000-strong. Led by several hundred identifiable neo-Nazis, it appeared to be joined by thousands of ordinary citizens. More marches are planned Saturday.

The city had never seen anything like this — and, to some degree, neither had post-World War II Germany. The rampage now stands as a high-water mark in the outpouring of anti-immigrant hatred that has swelled as Germany struggles to absorb the nearly one million asylum seekers who arrived in the country after Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to open the borders in 2015.

That decision sharply divided Germany, with critics soon arguing that Ms. Merkel’s administration had lost control of the situation. Three years later, what the government is struggling to control is an anti-immigrant backlash."

They all have a point but they are missing crucial results of recent or fairly recent studies. There is the research article

'Heterogeneity of long-history migration predicts smiling, laughter and positive emotion across the globe and within the United States'.

"Residents of countries characterized by high ancestral diversity display emotion expressions that are easier to decode by observers, endorse norms of higher emotion expressivity, and smile more in response to certain stimuli than residents of countries that lack ancestral diversity."

It is an encouraging read and is unfortunately not being properly appreciated among German folks and in particular among the Chemnitz intellectuals.

"Study 1 finds that historical heterogeneity is positively associated with self-reports of smiling, laughter, and positive emotions in the Gallup World Poll when controlling for GDP and present-day population diversity."

It concludes in the abstracts:

"Together, the findings further demonstrate the important role of long-history migration in shaping emotion cultures of countries and states, which persist beyond the original socioecological conditions ..."

Another interesting study that should not lightly be dismissed in Chemnitz and beyond is

'All Diversity Ideologies Creatively Equal? The Diverging Consequences of Colorblindness, Multiculturalism, and Polyculturalism'

"In three studies, we examined how diversity ideologies can differentially affect creativity. Building on past research establishing that embracing foreign ideas contributes to creativity in problem solving, we predicted that diversity ideologies would have consequences for cultural creativity through their differential impact on how people would make use of foreign knowledge. We found that colorblindness (the ethos of disregarding cultural differences) was associated with lower cultural creativity through reduced inclusion of foreign ideas. Polyculturalism (the ethos of fostering intercultural interaction) was associated with higher cultural creativity through greater inclusion of foreign ideas. Finally, we found that classical multiculturalism (the ethos of preserving separate cultural traditions) had no effects on creative problem solving."

This is an inspiring study and is reflected in policy making in Berlin by Mutti.

Finally there is a group level study with a baffling result that more than catapults aspirations of inclusion forward.

'Loving the Group That Denies You First: Social Identity Effects of Ostracism Before Inclusion.'

Intrigued to learn more? Here ya go. The abstract says it all and it is a mystery why some folks in Berlin and the AfD for that matter have reservations.

"Abstract

Ostracism is an aversive situation that occurs frequently in everyday life; however, few empirical studies have investigated multiple experiences of inclusion or ostracism from the same group. The prior work in this area has also not evaluated the influence of subsequent inclusion and ostracism on identification with the group, perceptions of the group, or group member behaviors. Across three experiments, the current study investigated the impact of subsequent inclusion and ostracism on an individual's fundamental needs, identification with the group, perceptions of the group, and risk taking to benefit the group. It was hypothesized that participants who were ostracized and then included would show significant increases in group identification, positive group perceptions, and risk taking to benefit the group. Support for these hypotheses was found. Results are discussed regarding the impact of subsequent experiences of ostracism and inclusion on the individual and his or her relationship with the group."

This general assessment by Thomas Frank sounds undeservedly bleak:

"This is what a society looks like when the glue that holds it together starts to dissolve. This is the way ordinary citizens react when they learn that the structure beneath them is crumbling."

He is excused by being American. What do they know that a Chemnitz/German intellectual could not easily dismiss and which Mutti Merkel proves wrong every single day. Just trust the wisdom of Das Maedchen Merkel.


* pronounce that name five times in a row fast and you will have difficulties chewing anything for the next half hour.

Merkel in Africa, or "How to Create Refugees" the German way

First the fake news mantra on what ails those bimbos down there. Let's pick the FAZ. We could take any other junk paper.

What Africa really suffers from (in German)

What could it be when viewed from higher floors up in sleepy Frankfurt? How about

"Africa is still being held back by mismanagement, corruption and ailing infrastructure - despite hundreds of billions of dollars in development aid. Before the Chancellor's visit, it becomes clear that governments must start acting themselves."

Ok, so Germany has a clean sheet. Fault lies full in the court of these Africans. Who would have thunk differently? Does Germany really have a clean conscience or are there reasons that people from Africa are totally gaga about coming to the country of those picturesque Fachwerkhauser. And speaking about emigration from Africa is Germany really that high on the dream list of those poor black souls?

This article suggests otherwise.

How to Create Refugees

It is from the "Information on German Foreign Policy" and copyrighted but the gist in their article is:

• There is a high real interest in emigration, not just talk.
• Top of the list as destination is the USA and certainly not Germany for reasons of language and culture.
• There is high unemployment. Up to 40%.

There has to be a reason for this and to solve this question let's get back to the FAZ bloke that the Africans should really now get their shit together and "governments must start acting themselves".

Aha, they are not only idling about, these sweaty bimbos, they are splurging on those aid dollars and euros, right?

To which the FAZ guy would reply 'that's exactly what I am saying here in my sunny office sipping a smoothie, oh and here is my secretary with a delicious chocolate cake, what was I talking about again? Right, build industries, create jobs and ... Bingo. Oh, that cake is heaven'.

Problem is, as the article points out, they have a couple of industries and they were doing just fine until the EU showed up.

• Their ocean has been fished clean
• Their successful poultry industry has been wrecked

So what is Merkel's trip really about? Building walls against emigration. Ok, sounds a little harsh, so ze Germans call them "Migration Advisory Center". Just last December, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier inaugurated a "Migration Advisory Center".

There is a slight flaw in zat German zinking. Nothing stops migration, not even walls which Merkel should know from experience. As always, it was highly entertaining seeing her in her trademark clumsiness moving about.

Now where are my Negerküsse?

Nutella Facebook page users prove: "Facebook Fueled Anti-Refugee Attacks in Germany"

Hah, got you. The complete NYT headline is

"Facebook Fueled Anti-Refugee Attacks in Germany, New Research Suggests"

Here is the study

Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime

By Karsten Muller and Carlo Schwarz

Racy title indeed.

Here is the expert of striped taylor-made shirts and connoisseur of wines up to $ 50 at Slate.

He is not quite buying it and has some valid points. Unfortunately, Felix misses the forest for the trees. By reading this concocted, convoluted German study it gets obvious pretty early on that the result of the study was a given. The only question was, how do we back it up?

Here is Felix:

"The idea here is that by looking at how many people are active on the Nutella Facebook page, you can get a good indication of how active the broader population is on social media."

One might as well look at the Tour de France FB page or a pop star's page and could perhaps draw the same conclusions. Or as Tyler Cowen suggests, why not Zwetschgenkuchen?

"And areas in the top third of Nutella activity on Facebook do seem to have more attacks on refugees." 

Beware of sweet tooths!

Their methodology is weird. This is from their paper:

"Finally, we obtain data from Google trends for the overall interest in the search terms “Brexit”, “Trump” and “UEFA Euro 2016” in Germany to proxy for distracting news events. Google scales the weekly number of searches for these terms on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 marks the week with the highest search interest in the preceding 5 years. Time series plots suggest that these measures are sound approximations for attention paid to Brexit, the Trump election, and the UEFA European Championship (one of the most widely followed sports events in Germany)."

And next it says:

"We start our analysis by documenting simple correlations between social media and attacks on refugees in Germany. The results in this section should be interpreted as purely suggestive and do not allow for causal inference. Nevertheless, we consider the findings insightful, because we are not aware of previous empirical evidence on the cross-sectional and time series relationships between social media and hate crime."

Tyler Cowen has the best take on this paper and the graph on his post says it all.

And here is XKCD.

Still one of the best tweets ever.

Die Fachkräfte kommen

The Swiss were not amused as it perhaps tainted their vaunted neutrality. There was no reason for them to hide behind the bush, feel embarrassed, or wrong-footed. The image shows distilled neoliberal economics and human endeavor.

Sometimes it's so easy to visualize the benefits of free trade and open borders. And ultimately societal equilibrium. It's a win-win. Even Dr Z realized that early on.

"The European Union has always been sold, to its citizens, on a practical basis: Cheaper products. Easier travel. Prosperity and security."

"But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state, whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation."

The NYT has an article

Why Europe Could Melt Down Over a Simple Question of Borders

"France’s foreign minister, announcing the bloc’s precursor in 1949, called it “a great experiment” that would put “an end to war” and guarantee “an eternal peace.”
...
“The keen feeling of national identity must be considered a real barrier to European integration,” Mr. Lange wrote in an essay that became a foundational European Union text.

But instead of overcoming that barrier, European leaders pretended it didn’t exist. More damning, they entirely avoided mentioning what Europeans would need to give up: a degree of their deeply felt national identities and hard-won national sovereignty.
...
“The keen feeling of national identity must be considered a real barrier to European integration,” Norway’s foreign minister, Halvard M. Lange, once wrote."


Top-rated comments

"It's one thing to merge with other countries in Europe.
It's another to feel like one is merging with the Middle East or Africa. the EU was not supposed to be about that."

and

"It is one thing for a nation like Germany to share a common market and porous border with Luxembourg or Belgium. It is quite another to share one de facto with Syria and Chad."

The Federal Rep. of Germany is seeking: Transit Resort Human Resources Managers cum SSupervisor

Job Offer

The Government of the Federal Rep. of Germany is seeking:

Transit Resort Human Resources Managers cum SSupervisor

Expected skills:

• Strong people skills,
• Advanced concentration capabilities, also to be applied on human resources lounging in concentrated environ,
• Excellent visual acuity particularly trained on tourists dressed in pleasing vertically-striped suits,
• Physically and emotionally demanding working environment with often strong-willed tourists,
• You are action-packed and short-fuse decisioned,
• Immunity to sexually attractive tourists and/or advances by them,
• Kick-ass approach on all occasions,
• You show convincing tactile proficiency,
• Basic interlocutory capabilities, less is more,
• Highly developed olfactory tolerance level and cultural indifference,
• Diploma in German Leitkultur a definite plus.

Transit Resorts are located in the province of Bavaria populated by rather sullen indigenous people speaking a strange dialect. Applicants need to be prepared to face impromptu exchanges with former colony to the South.

Tazer training provided plus pabulum and generously stocked bar with indigenous spirits. You've been warned.

Please note: ONLY the BEST need to apply!

If you feel you have got what it takes, please contact VBFL (Völkisches Büro für Flüchtlingslösung) next to Chancellory in Berlin. STILLGESTANDEN!

Becoming White: How Mass Warfare Turned Immigrants into Americans. How this might be of concern for Germany with its refugees influx.

Marginal Revolution points to an interesting study about assimilitation and integration of refugees/immigrants in the USA around the time of World War I. The title is

Becoming White: How Mass Warfare Turned Immigrants into Americans

The study focuses on refugees of European nativity and as such they are much closer to the culture of the Americans. The conclusions of the study should give Germany some serious concerns about ever being able to get the refugees/immigrants who entered the country since 2015 integrated, let alone culturally assimilated.

Germany's track record in integrating foreigners is not particularly encouraging judging by the fact that Turks who started entering the country as guest workers from the 1960s onward are still not very well integrated. The new wave of refugees/immigrants could hardly be further apart from Germany's culture and their numbers are staggering.

In 2015 and 2016, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were the main countries of origin of asylum seekers. [5] In 2016, approx. 280,000 arrived in Germany (in the previous year approx. 890,000). In 2016, 745,545 applications for asylum were filed (2015: 476,649). At the end of September 2017, fewer than asylum applications were pending at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) with almost 100,000 asylum cases than at the beginning of the crisis. 73,000 family members of eligible Syrians and Iraqis arrived in 2016 with a visa (2015: 24,000).

Not only Syrians and refugees from other countries of the Middle East sought asylum in Germany in 2015/16, but also migrants from Africa, from non-EU states of the Balkans, from Pakistan [3] and from Afghanistan. (Google translate)

Here is the Harvard University study:

Becoming White: How Mass Warfare Turned Immigrants into Americans (Pdf)

How do groups on the social periphery assimilate into the social core of a nation? I develop a theory of cultural assimilation that highlights the way in which mass mobilization around warfare can reduce ethnic stratifications by incorporating low-status ethnic groups into the dominant national culture. To test the theory, I focus on the case of World War I in the United States–a period that closely followed a massive wave of immigration into the United States. Using an instrumental variables strategy exploiting the combination of the exogenous timing of the war and features of the draft system, I show that individuals of foreign, European nativity–especially, the Italians and Eastern Europeans–were more likely to assimilate into American society. I also provide evidence of backlash against Germans despite their service for the United States in World War I. The theory and results contribute to our understanding of the ways in which states make identity and the prospects for immigrant assimilation in an age without mass warfare.

Conclusion

How did immigrants become (white) Americans? In this paper, I advance a theory that emphasizes the central role of the state in shaping the cultural incorporation of marginalized groups such as immigrants into a polity; particularly, I argue and show that participation in mass warfare is an important factor in moving individuals from the social periphery into the social core of a nation. Using an instrumental variables strategy exploiting the exogenous variation in the likelihood of military service across birth cohorts paired with individuallevel, administrative data on over 4 million immigrants from 1930 U.S. Census, I find that on average immigrant veterans were more likely to marry natives, more likely to petition for citizenship, more likely to become naturalized citizens, and more likely to name themselves and their children more “American” sounding names. When examining heterogeneity across ethnic groups, I also find that these effects seem to be concentrated among newer immigrant groups such as Eastern Europeans and Italians and less so among the Irish. This finding is consistent with the notion that military service has the potential to inculcate and socialize individuals into a national culture. Finally when looking at Germans, I find that natives’ preferences and the backlash they had against German immigrants mattered in terms ofthe ability ofGermans to ultimately become U.S. citizens. 

In general, the theory and results provide further evidence of the powerful force ofmass warfare in the creation of political order, democracy, and equality (Tilly 1990; Scheve and Stasavage 2012; Ferejohn and Rosenbluth 2016; Scheidel 2017). While the vast majority of studies in this tradition emphasize the role that warfare has on our political institutions, I provide a novel theory in which warfare can fundamentally reshape our social identities. This idea is related to the broader notion that mass mobilization can change the ideological context of a nation. For example, Klinkner and Smith (1999) recount howWorld War II shifted ideas about the compatibility ofdemocracy and the Jim Crow system ofracial discrimination in the United States. While these studies tend to highlight the broader ideological changes that come withmass warfare, this paper highlights the incredibly personal way in which participation in mass warfare can reshape who we are. 

This paper also has important implications for contemporary debates about the way in which liberal societies can incorporate immigrants. Though scholars have convincingly shown that immigrants face a massive degree of discrimination, we know much less about the factors that can help to incorporate immigrants (Hopkins 2010; Newman 2012; Fouka 2016, 2017; Halla, Wagner, and Zweimuller 2017). Several recent studies show that the state can play an important role in facilitating immigrant incorporation. For example, Hainmueller, Hangartner, and Pietrantuono (2015, 2017) show that providing citizenship to immigrants increases their assimilation into society across political and social dimensions. At the same time, Hainmueller and Hangartner (2013) show that natives preferences over these immigrants play a strong role in determining which immigrants natives are willing to accept into their society.

In short, there are many factors that influence both an immigrant’s willingness to assimilate and natives’ willingness to accept an immigrant that shape the decision to naturalize. Instead, I show that participation in mass warfare can jointly affect both channels. 

On a much broader note, this study, when viewed alongside the broader literature on the relationship between warfare and egalitarianism, raises a number of thorny normative questions. Are the status-leveling features ofmass warfare compatible with the principles ofliberal democracy especially when considering the mass violence and destruction associated with warfare? If warfare does actually lead to prodigious societal progress, what are the prospects for maintaining equality and reducing new inequalities in an age where nations no longer engage in mass warfare for normative and technological reasons? Obviously, there are no easy answers for these questions, but in an age where discrimination and inequality are now again on the rise, we must grapple with this irony of social progress.

There is an interesting observation regarding Germans and their reduced likelihood of receiving naturalization.

Finally turning to just the Germans, another set of interesting patterns emerges. Across all outcomes where individuals themselves can largely determine the outcome, veterans of German heritage seem to invest more in becoming assimilated. When it comes time for natives and the state to directly intervene, however, on cases of actual naturalization, Germans actually have a much lower effect relative to all other groups. Moreover, this effect is actually negative whereby German veterans of WWI are actually less likely to receive naturalization even though they seem to increase their rates of petitioning. These results are consistent with Hypothesis 3 from the theory where native preferences should also partially determine assimilation patterns. That is, when natives have a negative preference toward certain groups, then we should see natives being less likely to accept individuals from those groups into their own.

By extension one can with certainty assume a much larger negative preference towards todays refugees and immigrants from the Middle East and Africa from Germans.

Germany has its work cut out and it will influence the political landscape on a vast scale.

W. Streeck's Germany "In search of the additional population". Some nuggets of wisdom

From 'Die Zeit', Sept. 21, 2017, so before the elections. Download Pdf here (article is in German). Streeck's blog is here.

In search of the additional population

The whole article is worthwhile to read. I have picked out the best nuggets, in my opinion. That Schäuble remark was new to me.

Schäuble im Juni 2016, dass Abschottung »uns in Inzucht degenerieren lassen« würde: »Schauen Sie sich doch mal die dritte Generation der Türken an, gerade auch die Frauen! Das ist doch ein enormes innovatorisches Potenzial!«

Schäuble in June 2016, that walling-off "would degenerate us into inbred": "Look at the third generation of the Turks, especially the women! This is an enormous innovative potential! «

Mitte September 2015 versprach sich der Daimler-Chef Dieter Zetsche von den Flüchtlingen »das nächste deutsche Wirtschaftswunder«; ein Jahr später waren dann Flüchtlinge bei genau drei der dreißig Dax-Konzerne regulär beschäftigt, und zwar 50 bei der Deutschen Post (als Zusteller) und vier bei den beiden anderen. Wie schlecht Humanität und Humankapitalbeschaffung zusammenpassen, zeigte sich auch, als sich die Bundesregierung auf diplomatischem Wege darüber beschwerte, dass die Türkei in Ausführung der Merkel-Erdoğan-Vereinbarung nur gering qualifizierte und aus anderen, auch gesundheitlichen Gründen schwer integrierbare Syrer nach Europa, sprich Deutschland, schicke. Flüchtlinge mit Universitätsausbildung würden zurückbehalten. Die türkische Regierung erklärte, dass sie bewusst diejenigen Antragsteller nach Deutschland sende, die eine Umsiedlung aus humanitären Gründen am nötigsten hätten.

In the middle of September 2015, Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche promised "the next German economic miracle" from the refugees; a year later, refugees were regularly employed by precisely three of the thirty Dax corporations, 50 at the Deutsche Post (as delivery staff) and four at the other two. How poor humanity and human capital accumulation matched was also shown when the German government criticized diplomatically that Turkey, in execution of the Merkel-Erdoğan agreement, had only poorly qualified Syrians who were difficult to integrate into Europe, ie Germany, for other reasons that were difficult to integrate , send Refugees with university education would be retained. The Turkish government stated that it would deliberately send those applicants to Germany, which would need a resettlement for humanitarian reasons.

Auf dem Höhepunkt der Willkommenswelle wurde bisweilen öffentlich darüber spekuliert, dass insbesondere die Anreise der Migranten über die Balkanroute als eine Art Assessment-Center für die physische und psychische Belastbarkeit und das Unternehmertum der Flüchtlinge fungieren könne – eine sozialdarwinistische Survival of the fittest-Theorie der Personalauswahl, wie sie bei Arbeitgebern heute mehr denn je im Schwange ist. So erklärte der Soziologe Stephan Lessenich »den Flüchtling« zum »sozialen  Ideal des aktiven, unternehmerischen Subjekts« – ähnlich wie Zetsche einen Monat davor, dem zufolge »hoch motiviert« sei, wer »sein komplettes Leben zurücklässt«, und »genau solche Menschen suchen wir bei Mercedes und überall in unserem Land«.

At the peak of the welcome wave, it was sometimes publicly speculated that migrants' arrival across the Balkan route could act as a sort of assessment center for the physical and psychological resilience and entrepreneurship of the refugees - a social Darwinian Survival of the Fittest Theory of Personnel Selection , which is now more than ever present for employers. Thus the sociologist Stephan Lessenich explained "the refugee" as the "social ideal of the active, entrepreneurial subject" - similar to Zetsche one month before, according to which someone is "highly motivated" who "leaves his complete life behind" we at Mercedes and everywhere in our country are in search of such people. "

It turned out, that citizens were looking for some different people in parliament on Sept. 24.

Quomodo sedet sola civitas.

The refugees situation in the EU - UNHCR

Perhaps not as expected.

Via giannibugnosagace

nicolacava:

La situazione dei rifugiati in Europa
Fonte: Unhcr (2017), Global Trends 2016, Eurostat, database online.

The latest attack by a refugee in Germany, or "Immigration and Scapegoating"

The latest incident in Hamburg, one in a line of several others so far in Germany, should be of great concern. NOT because it was committed by, as is reported so far, a refugee claiming to be Palestinian born in the UAE, in addition supposed to be "mentally unstable", BUT because it "erodes public trust and feelings of social solidarity", as Alexander Douglas writes in an excellent post. It is titled

Immigration and Scapegoating

There is some evidence suggesting that high levels of immigration from foreign cultures erodes public trust and feelings of social solidarity. Some recent books by David Miller and Paul Collier cite this evidence in the course of arguing for controlled immigration.

Why should cultural diversity undermine public trust? Collier builds a model to explain it. The model is revealing — it shows up many of the assumptions that underlie opposition to multicultural immigration. But the facts can be explained in many ways. I propose to explain them in a different way to Collier. But first let me give his account.

Public cooperation depends on altruism. A cooperative society is governed by rules and norms of behaviour, prohibiting individuals from exploiting others. There is always a temptation for individuals to ignore these rules in pursuit of personal gain. Society can devise a system of punishments to discourage non-cooperation. But punishment is itself an altruistic act. The punisher pays costs — e.g., there is the risk of retaliation from the punished. The benefit — the maintenance of the cooperative system — accrues to society as a whole, while the costs are focussed exclusively on the punisher.

We can do what we can to spread the costs of punishment as evenly as we can across society. But, Collier insists, a functioning system of cooperation will always depend on “heroes” — those who go the extra mile to keep society safe.

Think of Batman: he spends his own money on military hardware and works frequent night-shifts to keep the streets of Gotham safe. He pays all the costs and he gets very little of the benefits. He probably makes himself less safe than he would have been had he left the policing to the police and not made himself a target for every villain in town. Very selfless of him. Not all heroes don’t wear capes.

The main threat to a cooperative system comes not from those that Collier calls “minor villains” — those who don’t cooperate — but rather from those he calls “supervillians” — the people who punish the heroes. Collier is not explicit here, but he seems to be thinking in terms of a positive feedback loop. A hero might be willing to altruistically pay a certain cost to keep the cooperative society going, but the presence of supervillains will keep upping the ante. Punishing one crime will lead to retaliatory crimes, punishing those crimes will lead to more, and so on until the hero has drained her moral capital.

The crucial ingredient in a cooperative system is therefore ‘villains’ who do not retaliate when they are punished.

But this, Collier argues, is culturally rare. Most cultures of the past, and many of the present, remain committed to the principle of the vendetta and the blood feud: attack one of ours, and we will attack one of yours. Punish the transgressor, and her allies will punish the punisher in retaliation. Collier notes:

Vendettas are a normal aspect of clan-based societies. Historically, clans have been the most common basis for social organization, and in so many poor countries they continue to be so. As Steven Pinker shows, vendettas are reinforced because wrongs are systematically exaggerated by victims and minimized by perpetrators, so that the retaliation regarded as justified by victims of the initial wrong creates a fresh wrong in the eyes of the new victims. Vendettas only end once the entire moral code of honor is abandoned.

The same claim appears in the work of René Girard. Girard’s pioneering anthropological study, Violence and the Sacred (1972), identified the phenomenon highlighted by Pinker. For Girard the crucial distinction is between private and public vengeance. ‘Primitive’ societies, as Girard called them, have only private vengeance: “an interminable, infinitely repetitive process”. Public vengeance, by contrast, “is the exclusive property of well-policed societies, and our society calls it the judicial system”.

Girard goes on: “Under the public system, an act of vengeance is no longer avenged; the process is terminated, the danger of escalation averted”. Again the crucial point: public vengeance is not avenged. This, to speak in Collier’s terms, keeps the cost of punishing (avenging) noncooperation within reasonable bounds. It allows ‘heroes’ to sustain a reasonably cooperative society with only a few minor transgressions.

So what is the problem with multicultural immigration, according to Collier? Put simply, it is that while Western societies have overcome the culture of the vendetta, allowing the formation of what Girard calls “public vengeance” — the judicial system, non-Western societies have not. “Migrants bring not only the human capital generated in their own societies; they also bring the moral codes of their own societies.” They import the vendetta and the blood feud, and these destroy the cooperative systems of their host societies.

Since Collier’s whole argument hangs on this crucial empirical claim, it is surprising how little evidence he offers for it. Instead, he offers anecdotes. I find them unconvincing.

For instance, in the 1960s a (white British) criminal shot dead three policemen; his criminal network refused to hide him because he had broken an unwritten code that neither criminals nor police carry guns in the UK. By contrast, when in 2011 Mark Duggan pulled a gun in a police car and was shot by the police (who pleaded self-defence), his community of peers rose up and rioted in retaliation.

Collier’s proposed analysis is as follows: Duggan was of Jamaican descent. In Jamaica there is no unwritten code against carrying guns, and Jamaicans had brought their own foreign morality to the UK. It is true that the police who shot Duggan had also given up on the unwritten rule against guns, but this was because Jamaican immigrants had already broken the covenant (Collier is not so explicit, but I can’t think what else he could mean). Given what Collier has said before, the implication is clearly that Jamaicans still operate on the principle of the vendetta, whereas ‘traditional’ Britons accept that retaliations against certain violations should not be avenged.

The argument is readily extended to defend harsh policies towards immigration from Arab countries (not from Muslim countries — nobody talks about Indonesia, the largest Muslim country of them all). The stereotypical Arab loves a blood feud; in Lawrence of Arabia a tribe is only saved from a spiral of vengeance by the intervention of a white infiltrator.

Suppose we grant all these premises, unfounded though many of them are. We then need to ask one crucial question. If the spirit of the blood feud is so common in most societies, how have Western societies overcome it? How come we can punish criminals without setting off an interminable spiral of vengeance?

Collier’s answers are highly unsatisfying; he makes vague gestures towards supposed cultural and intellectual ‘revolutions’ that changed ‘our’ attitudes, without going into any historical detail.

To find a better answer, I propose to first ask another question — the question with which Girard begins. If societies collapse so readily into blood feuds, how do they survive at all? If each attack must be avenged by another attack, how does this not escalate to the point of mutually assured destruction on all sides?

Girard’s answer is one word long: Scapegoating. The opposing parties of the vendetta, by some psychological magic, both transfer all blame onto a single third party — a scapegoated victim. Either the scapegoat is chosen on account of his or her social isolation or steps are taken to cut the bonds of solidarity with anyone who might avenge him or her. The victim can than be destroyed or banished. Everyone’s thirst for retribution is quenched in this final act of vengeance. And there is nobody to avenge it.

Have Western societies somehow got beyond scapegoating? At times Girard seems to think so (though this is tied up with his Christian faith). But if you have the stomach for it, have a look at the book Scapegoat, by Katherine Quarmby, which documents a series of horrific torture-murders of disabled persons. In every case, the victim is blamed for some arbitrary crime; in every case, the victim is, as disabled persons often are, socially isolated and cut off from anyone who might intervene (or seek vengeance).

Quarmby’s book is almost unbearable reading. Slightly less nightmarish is the recent history of immigration policy in the UK. Here is an excerpt from Michael Dummett’s Immigration and Refugees:

A system of ‘quota vouchers’ was inaugurated. Asian citizens of the UK and Colonies living in the East African countries could apply for such vouchers . . . . Those who came without a quota voucher were subjected to a cruel punishment: they were ‘shuttlecocked’. This meant that they were put back on the planes on which they had arrived, which then made the return journey to where they had embarked. This was done in the full knowledge that they would be refused entry to the country from which they had fled. Very often they had to stay on the plane for its further flight to Australia or other destination, and eventually all the way back to Britain. At that stage, they would then be again put back on the plane, to repeat the whole process: sometimes this happened three or more times. Finally, arrived yet once more in Britain, they would be placed in detention. Callahan was an enthusiastic shuttlecocker, who did not hesitate to apply this punishment to women with children.

Why was this done? In terms of security, the migrants could have just been detained upon first arrival. The policy was clearly punitive, but what was the crime? The migrants were people living in newly decolonised nations who had elected to retain British citizenship rather than taking on the citizenship of the new countries. They were eventually forced out of their home countries and, due to recent Home Office policy, unable to enter the only country for which they held a passport. This was the crime for which they deserved to spend days on end flying with small children.

I propose that the immigrants were not being punished for their own crimes. They were the convergence points, convenient outlets, for vendettas that did not begin with them. They were scapegoats.

Scapegoating, on Girard’s analysis, saves society in its way. It concentrates dangerous vendettas onto helpless victims who cannot retaliate. Otherwise the vendettas would run wild. This doesn’t justify scapegoating; it simply identifies its social function.

Immigrants make excellent scapegoats. Some people might try to protect them, but very few people will avenge them when they are victimised. Refugees are even better — almost by definition they are without the protection of anyone (only the relatively toothless UNHCR).

Thus I propose a different reading of the facts to Collier. Maybe societies do begin to function less cooperatively when they take a welcoming attitude towards culturally diverse migrants. But maybe this is because, in doing so, they stop victimising a convenient scapegoat. Also, the larger an immigrant community — a disapora — becomes, the harder it is to scapegoat the members of that community — there are too many potential avengers.

To explain why a more open immigration policy can harm a cooperative society, we don’t need to tell a triumphalist story of how the West went through a magnificent cultural enlightenment while the rest of the world remained in darkness. We don’t need to pretend that our societies alone have purged the ‘supervillains’, though millions of them are lurking over the border.

We’re all supervillains. We’re all prone to falling into cycles of endless retaliation. We can stay safe from each other if we agree to collectively beat up on someone who can’t hit back. But a kinder immigration policy cuts off one convenient source of scapegoats. To that extent, it is dangerous. But that sounds like a moral reason to change ourselves, not the policy.

Seeking Refuge in Refugees

Originally published at Seeking Refuge in Refugees; cross posted from Naked Capitalism

Glimpses of life in a Greek refugee camp through the diary of a young volunteer

Day One: Excitement

Today I arrived at a refugee camp near Thessaloniki, excited but also fearful.

More than 150 families (mostly Syrian and some Iraqi) live in this converted factory. In spite of the number of inhabitants, the place feels soulless. I haven’t talked to the ‘residents’ yet, but I have randomly run into some children playing.

I arrived at the camp with three other people from Croatia, former Yugoslavia and the US. Today was mainly an introduction for us new volunteers.

A large part of the introduction was about trauma and managing trauma. The children, especially, are traumatized. Sudden crying, aggression, mood swings; you may never know what the trigger is. For some, it could be a picture or piece of news. It doesn’t have to be something “negative” in the typical sense; it can be as random as the smell of grilled meat. We were also warned about trauma transmitting to us.

The camp is in quite good shape and seems to be run well by volunteers; it’s soulless though. I was looking for a sense of “emergency.” But wait…. Why would I underestimate the struggle of these people just because they don’t live in tents? Why has it become the default to see tents? Because they’re refugees?

Day Two: Madness

All the volunteers at this point in time are white people who have gone out of their way to come help and spend time here at their own expense. They do not speak Arabic. I do not understand how they are supposed to run a camp for 150 families if they do not speak their language?

The anti-orientalist part of me is mad at these white-skinned hard-working kind-hearted volunteers. Who do they think they are to assume how these refugees want their lives to be run? Why do they think that a “fitness class” followed by dancing is such a brilliant idea? I despise them, pity their helplessness, but also admire their attempts.

Some women show up to class, but I cannot help but feel bad for them. How desperate do you need to be in order to show up to a “fitness class” given by a European when your family is either dead, in another country or waiting to be reunited?

But why am I, in turn, assuming and judging? Why am I so mad at these kind gestures? Maybe because I feel they are attempts to “civilize” or rather “westernize” the inhabitants of the camp? Turns out, I am sensitive about cultural invasion.

Some of the children were speaking to each other in English. They seem to have very quickly picked up the language. Smart kids they are. But speaking to one another in a language other than their own was scary. I am mad.

I am mad at the way the place is being run, but I know the volunteers are doing their best. I am mad at the very ugly reality. I am mad at every Arabic-speaking person who has not even thought of coming here to help.

Day Three: Startled

Today I briefly met Abo Abdu, who was very excited that I speak Arabic. The water has been cutting off for five days and he, like everyone else, is frustrated.

“Do you want the kids in schools to think that Syrian kids stink? We’re not like that, sister! We had everything in Syria and we lived like kings. We had homes, water, food and cars. We were something. We only fled our country because of the war.”

A juggler came to entertain the kids. They were very happy, laughing at his games and tricks. He was funny and patient, trying his best to speak Arabic. I thought he was French/Moroccan maybe.

During the show one girl asked “what’s in this bottle?” The juggler said “water, soap and a special powder from Israel” – (silence and moments of awkwardness).

But the silence and awkwardness only happened in my mind. All the children wanted was to play, they didn’t pay much attention to what he’d said. But I did and I wondered, “how dare he come to cheer Syrian kids up? Why was a juggler from Israel brought in?”

Wait, I am from Egypt. I come from a fascist, racist and oppressive state. He was born in Israel, like I was born in Egypt. None of us asked for it. It’s not where he comes from that matters, but what he chooses to do, and he chose to volunteer his time and energy to entertain these children. He’s Israeli like I’m Egyptian and that’s it.

Day Four: Dignity

One of the volunteers from the US, who’s been here for nine months now, pulled me out of the middle of a conversation: “Hey, I want you to come translate something for me. The women are mad and I must have a talk with them.”

They are mad at everything in the camp. The water has been cut. No hot water. They’re not happy with the food distribution – quality, quantity, everything.

The volunteer was furious too. Stuck in the middle – being yelled at and a target of anger – most of the time with little to do to make their lives better. I was quite scared and stressed. They were mad and yelling at both of us. They didn’t like the meat, the quality of the vegetables and wanted more “boharat” (spices) to cook with.

My first thoughts, which I kept to myself, were: “wait, what? Boharat? Are you people aware of the situation you’re in? Are you in denial? You guys live in an abandoned factory in the middle of nowhere… and you’re yelling because of the food quality and some spices missing!? I’m here volunteering and I don’t care about what I eat, because I’m aware of the situation I’m in. I don’t care about the quality or quantity, as long as it keeps me going.”

But wait! I’m judging them with my very narrow mind and shallow emotions. How dare I think that way! I’m here by choice, they’re not. I don’t care about what I eat because it gives me self-worth. To me this is temporary. For the refugees, not eating well means less self-worth. It reminds them of how abandoned by the world they are. The few who haven’t abandoned them are the volunteers on site. This is them being mad at the war, death, loss, and their unknown destinies.

The food, spices and water are possibly the only channels through which they can transmit their feelings without being told “it’s alright. It’s because you’ve been traumatized.” It is the only thing they can openly complain about. I admire how relatively picky they were. It told me they’re not entirely dead from the inside and that they preserved their self-worth and still had the strength to demand better.

Day Five: Shame

Two volunteers were chatting with three Syrian ladies in sign language. One of the ladies felt a bit ill, so they called me to ask her whether it was serious or not. The lady, Om Batoul, had a neck and back-ache. The volunteer, a yoga instructor, gave the lady a massage, assuming it must be stress. She then requested I ask Om Batoul whether something had been stressing her lately. I laughed. I truly laughed, like it was a joke! “Are you sure you want me to ask her that?” The volunteer then asked me “do you think it’s too personal to ask her?” Me: “not personal, but a lot must be stressing her, not only recently, but over the last six years! The volunteer said that she wanted her to open up.

So I translated the question and Om Batoul confirmed that nothing was upsetting her now. But the question did bring about the stories of all three ladies.

They all lost their husbands during the war. Two of the women came across the Mediterranean alone with their children. The third, started the journey with her parents and children, but lost both her parents and one of her children to the sea.

“One death is a tragedy. A thousand deaths are a statistic”, I thought to myself.

At this moment, one of the volunteers was in tears, crying uncontrollably. The three ladies had tears flowing down their cheeks, but their voices steady. I am guessing that they have become accustomed to crying in silence.

Day Six: Hope

The children go from being energetic and happy to grumpy and moody. Their parents’ diminishing role in their nurturing and upbringing is noticeable. Demotivation, depression and feelings of uselessness – what is it they can provide? Warmth and love? No. Where’s the warmth in a deserted factory? Guidance and advice? No. How could they, when they’re in a country where they don’t speak the language and don’t understand the culture! Living and bread-winning? No. They wait for food distribution every day.

Men in particular seem miserable. The women have daily routines; cooking for their children and providing day-to-day care. So what are the men left with? Their role is marginalized. They’ve moved from being their own house heads to now being less useful than their own kids (who have picked up a foreign language quickly; have increased access to the new community, and more energy to learn new things).

They wait for the government (be it Greek or other) to decide the fate of their families. They wait for “some” organisation to carry out food distribution. This situation has made it very difficult to carry out their parenting role, as providers. The family dynamic is distorted. Children obtaining maximum exposure to this new society and parents stuck in the past.

Day Seven: Purification

Abo Abdu is leaving! Two families have just received news from the migration authority. They will go to Athens and from there they will be informed about the country that will receive them. Both family heads are called Abo Abdu.

Abo Abdu, from my previous entry, was very happy. He came to the shop to share the news with me. The shop is where we display donated clothes for residents to shop from through a point system; they get points at the beginning of each month to cover some of their needs. We agreed on a time for him to bring his family to pick an outfit for each member.

In three days they leave. So he told me “tomorrow we’re baking cake and konafa for everyone, and the next day is the big party. You must come.”

The next day, Om Abdu spent hours looking for something new to wear for herself. She was looking for a new dress, but couldn’t find anything. Although there are some new items, there are too few to choose from and not always appropriate and suitable to how she would dress. In the end, she only took clothing for her children.

The place is different, smells warm. The ovens are full of cakes and konafa made by the two families for the entire camp. This sweet warm scent can transform a place (of course only partially!). Plates of sweet warm konafa were being passed around to everyone.

Everyone was waiting for the big party. The music was heard from the warehouse and what I saw was thrilling. Everyone was either dancing or clapping. Abo Abdu took the lead in the dabka with a chain of men after him. The last man held his wife’s hand and then a chain of women and girls ensued. It was the Kurdish dabka, as one of the families is Kurdish.

The scene was holy. Seeing them truly happy for the first time since I arrived was incredibly moving. The Abo Abdu(s) were keen on making everyone happy before they left – to give them hope. They invested an incredible amount of effort, time and emotional energy during their last few days to leave the camp on a positive note and see everyone hopeful. They really did a great job.

Some of the volunteers wanted to say goodbye to Om Abdu. I was standing next to her. They hugged and kissed. I translated their best wishes of a bright future to Om Abdu. Om Abdu received their wishes thankfully, but then said: “I hope they forgive us if we’ve done anything unkind.”

I was shocked. The whole world should kneel in front of these people and beg for their forgiveness. And you, Om Abdu, are asking for forgiveness because you may have lost your temper at some point in time?! If only you knew how much your request makes me want to cry and ask for your forgiveness!

Last Day
On my last day, we decided to have tea together in one of the rooms. Sett-Awneya was at the shop. I told her I was leaving today. She looked at me and said: “Do you really have to leave today? Are you missing anything? What do you need? […] We are at the beginning of the month; I have all my points. Pick anything!”

I smiled and said I’m all set and only would like to have tea with her. She looked at my feet, investigated my worn-out sneakers and said: “You can’t leave with these shoes. I’m going to get you new ones. They have a good collection here, pick a pair.” It took few minutes of reassurance “wallah… wallah” to convince her that I truly have another good pair at home and that I’m flying with a completely stuffed backpack. She finally gave up and came upstairs with me.

Sitting on the ground in a circle, we laughed and cried. It started with chatter, but at a certain point it became very intense. They do realize that the label ‘refugee’ which they recently acquired is loaded with negative connotations. All of a sudden, people assume they’re ignorant and as if they never had a previous life. It assumes they’re desperate and that they should accept anything that’s been given to them. It assumes they’re a load no one wants; the world is too small to accommodate them. They do realize they’ve suddenly transformed from humans with full agency to a collective ‘thing’ – a burden that people and countries avoid.

Some of them have just got news that Germany (the top receiving country for the population of this camp) has reduced its quota from 500 entrants per month to only 70. It means more time here, waiting in uncertainty hoping to get admitted.

This piece of news made them very tense. Some of them haven’t seen their husbands or children for three years. As the conversation got heated everyone released a bit of frustration. After some of the women shared their horror stories of crossing borders and seas, quite a few were in tears. Moments of silence ensued, and the toughest silence! I couldn’t think of a way to break it.

Shortly after one of the ladies resumed: “My children often wake up in the middle of the night screaming because of nightmares. They wake me up horrified, and we all end up scared in a sleepless night.”

Fatima interrupted: “We often wake up to horrific news from our towns and are left wondering whether our families and loved ones are alive or dead. We wake up to news about children being massacred… We have left our towns, but our hearts are still there. Our memories are there. We can’t just forget and pretend nothing is happening, because we chose to leave.”

In my mind, I heard the completion of her sentence. “…just like the world has left us!”

It hit me. I realised what conflict she, and probably everyone else in her shoes, is going through. She sees how the world pretends this tragedy is not happening, and how everyone goes about their daily lives normally. It’s demeaning and frustrating.

Fatima cannot forget. She doesn’t want to. After all, she doesn’t have the luxury to even if she wanted to. She’s trapped with her fate being decided for her…

Culture matters

Golem XIV has an interesting post about culture, refugees and the culture they experience in their country of refuge and which often collide. Globalism and economic differences also come into play.

Culture Matters

Over the last few months the Brexit debate brought to a head long running arguments about immigration, racism and multiculturalism. It has not been uplifting. People accused each other of being racists, haters, ignorant and lost, as simmering discontents and prejudices all came to the boil. Is it possible to address any of the issues from a different starting place, one that might be less polarised and poisoned? Here is my attempt.

Culture Matters.
When refugees and immigrants arrive on some foreign shore they are more than just an economic burden or benefit and they come with more than the clothes they stand in. You cannot see it in the photos or videos but they bring with them their culture.  It is, apart from those whose hands they are holding on to, their most precious possession. And yet this word ‘culture’ has been too often missing from our debate.

The culture that refugees and immigrants bring with them forms a significant part of who they feel themselves to be, not just individually but collectively. It binds them together and gives them a shared identity. It is the end result of the long and rich history which they all recognise as theirs. Their culture is the storehouse of their history and of their shared assumptions and values. It matters to them.

By exactly the same token, wherever immigrants arrive, they are not arriving in a blank ‘territory’, or ‘place on a map’ where there is work to be had. They are arriving in a culture. A culture which is the result of another long and rich history. A history that has made the shared assumptions and cultural values of those who already live there.  And the people who live in that place hold that culture very dear. Their culture matters to them.

This is my starting place. Culture matters. It is a simple statement, but one from which, if you accept it, a great deal unfolds.

...

...

He concludes

Culture Matters – A conclusion

For a moment let’s return to that beach where we started. There are the people coming ashore, hoping for something better, for themselves and their children, than the war or poverty they left behind. They have little but what they do have, what they cling to, is the culture which connects them to their home, their past and to each other. Facing them what do they see? Another culture? Yes, but one that seems confused about itself, wracked with self doubt and attacked from without and within.

They find a culture which makes great efforts to welcome and respect other cultures but which pours scorn on expressions of its own culture. They find a culture where multiculturalism is talked about but where the engine of economic and legal change seems to be deeply antagonistic towards the indigenous culture and to culture in general.

I suggest immigrants who arrive here with a strong and energetic culture quickly see that what faces them is a culture under relentless attack from without by an economic ideology which has no place for culture, and that at the same time has been infected within, by a kind of cultural auto-immune disease of self loathing. The first comes from the politics of the Right the second from the Left.

If I am in any way right and this is the crisis we are in, then can anyone blame an immigrant for not wanting to join us? Their choice are simple, keep to the culture you brought with you, or join an infected culture which is destroying itself.

It is my belief that people have the right to say no to aspects of other cultures they do not like, but much more importantly they have the right to say no to the idea of no culture. Immigrants are already saying no to the ideology of No Culture. I believe they are right and we must join them. Only if we say no to ‘no culture’ and re-affirm our own, will immigrants be attracted by the culture they find here and tempted to it.

It is my belief that people are able to welcome strangers and other cultures when they feel confident in themselves and their own culture. I believe what has been fuelling concerns about immigration is not a rise in racism but a creeping feeling that English culture is being crushed between globalism from without and self-loathing from within. I do not loath English culture. I am proud of it. Like all cultures it has things of which it should be ashamed, but it also has things of which it can be proud.

For me multiculturalism risks becoming the cultural arm of the economic forces which make every place the same. I prefer a world of differences. A world of different languages not one vast sprawl of english. A world of different cultures, not a spreading multicultural one.

Allow people to have a strong sense of self worth and pride in their own culture. Allow them to say ‘this is my home’ and then they will be able to say ‘welcome’ to strangers at the door. Tell them they have no right to claim this place as theirs or say that ‘this is the culture of this place’, and they will become afraid and prey to the peddler’s of hate.

Celebrating your own culture is not the same as hating others nor does it lead to it. Culture Matters. History Matters. Place Matters. Deny these at your peril.

Full post here

Welcome to stay? The question of integration in Germany.

I am cross-posting this from the Open Democracy website because it is a very good article about the failed integration of foreigners/refugees/migrants in Germany.


Welcome to stay? The question of integration in Germany
Lucile Gemähling 24 October 2016

Germany's integration policies ignore crucial obstacles preventing refugees from reclaiming self-sufficiency and dignity.

In the summer of 2015, at the high-point of the ‘summer of migration’, even ‘progressive’ media outlets that had just spent months criticising Germany’s treatment of Syriza seemed to lose all sense of critique when reporting on Germany's attitude towards those refugees arriving via the Balkan route. Hoping to shame other national authorities into letting more people in, articles cast Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, as the face of European values – as the face of humanity and solidarity. Ever since then, the struggles of refugees already living in Germany, Germany's role in shaping the Common European Asylum Policy, and the actual spirit of political debate and proposed legislation in Germany remain seldom discussed.
Germany passed numerous laws on migration and asylum in the months preceding and following the ‘summer of migration’. These have, amongst other things, increased the likelihood of administrative detention for people caught by the Dublin III agreement; increased status differences between refugees based on their country of origin; paved the way for quicker deportations to so-called ‘safe countries’, even those with long records of human rights violations; and generally further criminalised migration.

The real question being asked is clear: can Muslims integrate?

In late spring 2016, the German governmental coalition presented a law proposal on the much discussed topic of ‘integration’. This passed with great fanfare into law on 7 July. As with many recently passed laws, the so-called ‘integration law’ was heavily criticised during the drafting process by civil society organisations, who expected it to have counterproductive effects. Indeed, the Germany-based refugee organisation ProAsyl re-named it the ‘disintegration law’. Furthermore, these laws are in many ways troublingly complaisant with the least progressive aspects of the public discussion on 'integration' in Germany and disconnected from the daily challenges faced by recently and not-so-recently settled refugees.

Integrating into a hostile environment

A (supposedly) Muslim woman wearing the national flag of a European country as her headscarf, next to a question mark: yet another occurrence of this racist trope, this time on the front page of die Zeit, a respected, centre-liberal German newspaper, on 12 May. The headline asks: “how can integration be successful?” Inside, the paper stages a conversation between (amongst others), an atheist Syrian refugee; a local Bosniac imam; a woman police officer; a woman in charge of integration classes; and a German man whose father migrated from Turkey. Given the cast of characters, the ‘real’ question being asked is clear: can Muslims integrate?

Only towards the end of the five pages of transcript does the topic turn to something else, namely the isolation felt by the young Syrian and the stigma he endures as a refugee: "Pity is not friendship", he notes, talking about the wave of support coming from the German population, and adds that the racist public discourse after the sexual assaults and thefts in Köln last new year's eve also affected his morale. But the German woman who helped him find a flat and a part-time job quickly shut him down: according to her, he has been very lucky so far and has no real grounds for complaints. He is being too sensitive.

Implicit in her words is the idea that newcomers don’t so much face problems but are, themselves, the problem.

Her reaction and the underlying incomprehension may be symptomatic for the integration discussion, which has two main currents. One is the social aspect of 'integration', which is primarily associated with culture clashes, narrowed down to Islam and gender equality. As the integration teacher in die Zeit’s contrived discussion says, in response to the interviewer’s question on the main gaps between migrants and locals: "clearly it is on the topic of gender equality". Implicit in her words is the idea that newcomers don’t so much face problems but are, themselves, the problem.

The other stream of the discussion revolves around housing, welfare, labour and economics: carving out a space for refugees in the midst of liberal economic rationality and austerity. Amidst all this, the human, moral, and identity-wrenching aspects of surviving and re-building a life in a foreign place after fleeing regional armed conflict, political persecutions, and/or economic collapse go unaddressed. And despite the persistence of Germany’s right-wing movement PEGIDA; the electoral successes of the upstart right-wing party Alternative für Deutschland; and more than 1000 recorded crimes against refugee shelters in 2015 and over 300 in the first trimester of 2016 alone, racism is barely regarded as an issue in relation to integration.

At the merging point of the two polarising discourses, the integration law is based on two openly displayed assumptions: that refugees are often uncooperative to their own integration, and that the German labour market needs protection from refugees.

The carrots and sticks of ‘integration’

Amongst all possible definitions, the integration law treats the concept as more or less synonymous with a language level sufficient to access low- to middle-skilled jobs, and financial self-sufficiency. People displaying exemplary 'integration' will be able to apply for a permanent residency two years earlier than those who do not. On top of that, the integration law also introduces the vaguely defined concept of ‘integration refusal’ and financial sanctions for those found ‘guilty’ of uncooperative behaviours – namely lowering their already insufficient allowance of €361 a month (accommodation excluded).

The law permits state authorities to force refugees to live in certain areas as well as to forbid them from settling in other areas, based on their evaluation of the social vulnerability of that territory. While legislators claim this measure will help avoid creating ‘social burning points’, ProAsyl points out that communities hostile to refugees now have a ready-made way to keep them at bay.

Furthermore, forced relocation in the name of social cohesion, ‘fairness’, and protecting ‘German’ jobs negatively impacts refugees’ chances of finding employment – and possibly, housing – when it separates them from their contacts at their destination. In doing so, it actively hinders their integration into the labour market, according to an interview in die Zeit with Herbert Brücker, an economist specialising in integration issues. Social networks are crucial for new arrivals, and relatives and friends are the most reliable point of entry in the job market for migrants, including refugees.

The integration law shows little concern for physical and mental health, social connections, or educational prospects, all arguably as important to ‘integration’ as economic autonomy.

In addition to the above, the law amends articles in the work law to open restricted parts of the labour market to refugees. The German work law commonly demands that a person hiring a non-EU foreigner verifies that no German or EU-citizen could be hired for that position. For refugees, this rule applied for the first 15 months of their life in Germany. The integration law allows for this period to be reduced to three months in regions with a lower percentage of unemployment, as well as for temporary jobs.

These restrictions exist ostensibly to protect the prospects of the already existing labour force. However, Brücker argued in die Zeit that in reality there is little to fear on that score, for two reasons. First, few refugees will immediately be able to fill important employment gaps. The German job market is in need of people with a medium level of qualifications; while most newly settled people are either too qualified or not qualified enough for such positions. Furthermore, in Germany, as elsewhere, jobs in the service, care work, and agricultural industries are largely filled by foreign workers. Competition for such work, which is as crucial to the country as it is for the local population, poses little threat to the ‘native’ workforce. “Refugees [on the job market] are put in competition primarily with other foreigners, not so much with German workers”, he said.

When the deck is stacked against you

The integration law shows little concern for physical and mental health, social connections and milieu, or educational prospects (apart from vocational training), all arguably as important to ‘integration’ as economic autonomy. It also doesn’t include measures aimed at adapting the existing society to the new arrivals, or for measuring, monitoring, and tackling structural discrimination and racism.

The violence of the discussion and of the resulting law, however, is only fully visible in the light of the concrete situation and struggles of refugees on the ground. The viewpoint of a new arrival throws the shortcomings of the German infrastructure and administration into sharp relief. Against that background, the existence of a law that assumes bad faith on the part of the refugees is nothing less than insulting.

The state office for health and social services – Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales, or simply LaGeSo – is the central place in Berlin for registering asylum seekers as well as claims for housing and other social welfare rights. Most famous amongst refugees for its queues and administrative mind-twists, LaGeSo became a disaster scene in the summer of 2015. People queued day and night, even camping out to maintain their place in line, and medical emergencies were only faced with the help of volunteer doctors and nurses. Improvements on immediate, humanitarian needs were slow. Even after months of time to prepare for the onset of the frigid Berlin winter, hundreds of people were forced to wait out the night in heated buses or were hosted by volunteers. Spontaneous protests were staged there, as people struggled with chronic homelessness due to stamps for their hotel rooms running out every couple of weeks. As everywhere along the Balkan route, humanitarian needs were (and still are) dealt with by volunteers organisations, NGOs, and the refugees themselves.

The existence of a law that assumes bad faith on the part of the refugees is nothing less than insulting.

LaGeSo, however spectacular, stands not as an exception, but a symbol for the structural failing of the German state to meet the needs of the situation. The administrative departments charged with immediate relief and bureaucratic processing are obviously severely understaffed and underfunded. Asylum offices are overwhelmed as well, and this bears severe, Kafka-esque consequences. For example, many recent posts to the Facebook group 'Moabit Hilft' concern refugees receiving interview appointments that were set for only a few days after they were postmarked. In some cases shelters failed to hand out letters in time, while in other cases letters were clearly issued too late for a timely delivery. Either way, and through no fault of their own, people missed their oral interviews and were forced instead to support their asylum cases with written statements.

In the fall of 2015, when people started to be accommodated in sport halls, Germany's federal government extended the time asylum seekers must legally remain in state-provided shelters from three to six months, and no special measures were taken to facilitate their entry into the regular housing market upon departure. As refugees move out of state-provided shelters and into the regular housing market, or go underground, or return to where they came from, money – not concerns about integration – determine how vacant shelter spaces are re-allocated: people are moved from hotel rooms to sport halls, from sport halls to mass shelters, from one side of a metropole to another – sometimes even from one state to another. Entry into the local housing markets is virtually impossible without sufficient resources and personalised, volunteer support given mutually and/or by locals.

The language barrier is the most obvious of the many obstacles standing in the way of autonomy, housing, education, and employment. Asylum seekers from Iran, Syria and Iraq, as well as people with certain types of residency permit, are entitled – read, required – to take part in so-called integration courses. There they receive language tuition until they attain lower intermediate proficiency, or until they have used up their language class allowance – whichever comes first. However, all students must have their right to attend this course confirmed by the Ministry of Migration, and approval currently takes several months to process – much longer than it takes EU-citizens, who are also entitled to take the classes. Apart from the wait, schools and integration courses are lacking spaces: people must usually expend considerable effort and approach several schools until they find one with an opening at the appropriate level.

Asylum seekers from other countries – Afghanistan, the African continent in its totality, and the Balkans – are explicitly excluded from attending free language courses while their claims are being processed. They must either wait until their procedure has reached a positive conclusion to learn the language, or pay for classes themselves. Many refugees from countries on the pre-approved list also end up paying for the first language class as well, due to the time it takes to receive the ministry's confirmation. In the meantime, many English or German-speaking refugees offer volunteer translation to support those without the necessary language skills – including German administrative staff.

The long wait for reunification

Many people who fled war zones have relatives and close friends who remained behind, or who are stuck in a country that does not offer sufficient protection, or who are trapped in Greece. The obstacles thrown in the path of family reunification are such that only married, heterosexual couples and their under-aged children stand a chance of ending back up together. In April, ProAsyl reported that the waiting time to access a German embassy for a family reunification visa in any of Syria’s neighbouring countries exceeded a year. For those in Greece, the timeframe of a potential reunion is entirely dependant on Greece's (critically insufficient) asylum claims processing capacity. A great number of people are still waiting to access the procedure, which once initiated may still take up to or exceeding a year. In both cases, isolated minors are amongst people waiting for a reunion.

Last, but not least, a two-year waiting period for people under subsidiary protection was recently introduced before they can access the procedure to gather their family in Germany. Shortly afterwards, many Syrians, who as a group were formerly almost always granted refugee status, started to be granted 'only' subsidiary protection status. Besides delaying the reunification of close families in safety, the status does not automatically come with travel documents and makes it harder or impossible to visit family members or friends settled in other countries. Very young adults, and yes, even minors, will be left in challenging life situations without family support and close contacts for years; parents will grow older and sicker far away from their grown-up kids. Already damaged communities are broken further apart, and the work of making sense of human and social traumas lies almost completely with the refugees, individually and as communities.

The will to admit that a problem of reception exists rather than a problem of integration is almost entirely missing.

I met T., a young man fluent in English, at a conference where he was working as a volunteer interpreter. A few months later, T. moved out of his shelter after seven months of living there. The paperwork alone took days to sort out, most of it standing in a queue and without external support. Everything else remained outside of his direct control for months, including approval for an integration course and the completion of his asylum procedure. Getting an education in his field of choice and experience comes after all that. Much like the Syrian refugee who had his suffering criticised in the conversation published in die Zeit, T. reported facing a brand of isolation that he had neither experienced nor expected. The source of these feelings, he mused, was directly connected to being perceived and treated as 'a refugee' – not just by the administration, but in many well-intentioned social and leisure contexts, too. As the discussion in the introduction of this article demonstrated, the will to admit that particular problem – the problem of reception, not of integration – and to tackle it is almost entirely missing.

Almost entirely. Voices challenging the status quo are marginalised, but they are organised, strategic and combative. One thing many of them share is their finding that the struggle and burden that comes with being in Germany – the emotional, material and intellectual work of coping with a new and challenging situation – is invisible, intangible, and picked up by refugees themselves. Hell, they wouldn't have made it here if it wasn't for their resources, strength, and self-organisation.

On that topic, readers of this piece may choose to next read the keynote speech to the Berlin 'Interventionen' Conference, held in June 2016. Given by Sinthujan Varatharajah, a doctoral student, writer, and member of 'Flüchtlinge Willkommen' (refugees welcome), the speech is titled: "Self-organisation – what’s up with that?" Here it is in its English version.

. . . . .

SINTHUJAN VARATHARAJAH

Sinthujan Varatharajah was born in a refugee camp in Coburg, Germany in 1985. His parents fled Sri Lanka in the early 1980s, and, through a chance meeting with a German couple in the Jaffna hotel where his father worked, chose Germany as their destination. The youngest of three brothers, Sinthujan was the only member of his family born outside of Sri Lanka. He recalls the impact this had on his feelings of belonging and his sense of home, leaving him as a ‘vagabond….always leaving but never arriving…or feeling the comfort of home.’ The idyllic scenes of the Bavarian village he grew up in provided him with little of the comfort he was searching for; racism and exclusion lurked in every nook and cranny of his formative years. Despite the challenges, he and his brothers excelled at school with the support and encouragement of his mother and father. They also became adept at negotiating between his home life and German society, at first rejecting anything that could be interpreted as distinctively Tamil – including Tamil food and the strict culture of learning – and seeking new spaces of expression in Japanese manga, African American music, civil rights struggles and finally, for Sinthujan in particular, a growing consciousness of Tamil politics and the war in Sri Lanka. His route into activism was in some ways charted by his mother, a poet and proponent of the Tamil cause. He moved to London at the age of 18. ‘I think my drive to leave Germany was larger than anything else, right. And it was almost like irrespective of where I was going, I just wanted to leave.’ In London, he earned a Masters from the London School of Economics while immersing himself in the Tamil political scene, working with campaigning organisations seeking a solution to the war in Sri Lanka. When asked about the future, he hopes to pursue a career in academia and to find peace for his parents: ‘...Maybe find some place within this world I think that would give them the comfort,’ and Sri Lanka: ‘There’s always some hope that drives you, you know, that maybe someday it will be better.’