The demographic death of Europe.

[Dead_Badger]

I would first like to address one of the misrepresentations in Steyn’s article, and hopefully thereby illustrate the sort of distortion that goes on in this tiresomely xenophobic debate. So, 60% of British Muslims want to live under Sharia – IN THE UK!!! Blimey. Sounds scary, doesn’t it; conjures up all sorts of images of hand chopping and the like. A shame, then, that the truth is far more prosaic. What, in fact, was the question asked? Well, if we go to the article for which said poll was commissioned, the horrible truth emerges:

@The Guardian

A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - “so long as the penalties did not contravene British law”.

Well, that’s just shocking, isn’t it. You’re telling me that British Muslims don’t in fact want to impose Sharia law on the UK? That they just want to use it to resolve certain civil disputes amongst consenting Muslims, when such use wouldn’t contravene existing law? Well, shucks. That’s a lot less exciting, isn’t it? But still, our Mark got his soundbite, and it sounds like those hegemonistic Muzzers are out to take over Good British Law.

@Rodgers01

But IF Europe decides that it is important to attract people from countries with a similar democratic and cultural (or linguistic or even religious) background, there is a LOT more it can do to open its doors to people from countries in the New World. I’m from the US, but it is EXTREMELY difficult for me to get a work permit in the EU. Earlier this year (er, last year) my visa application for the UK was turned down for various bureaucratic reasons, even though I’m a young, college-educated, healthy, reproductive tax-payer, who could have assimilated into the culture very easily and willingly. There are tons of other Americans, Canadians, and Australians (and Brazilians, and Argentinians, etc.) who would be glad to move to Olde Europe, but the way the laws are set up, Europe doesn’t seem particularly interested in having us.

While it looks like part of the same equation, this is really a different matter. Opening borders between comparably rich countries wouldn’t really affect net flow one way or the other, since (specialist industries aside) there’s no definitive motivation for emigrating. An American emigrating to the UK will experience roughly the same level of affluence he would at home, and vice versa. Thus, emigration would likely remain at near-equilibrium levels between two such countries, and therefore be irrelevant when talking about providing an alternative source of population growth. I agree that a lot of people would find it convenient if the UK and US bilaterally made emigration easier, but it’s not really got much to do with the sort of large-scale immigration from poorer countries that’s being considered here.

As far as Western Europe is concerned, of course, expansion of the EU has already resulted in an influx of workers from poorer nations in Eastern Europe. One would think, given the level of whinging about Islamicisation going on, that this would be a good thing: hurrah! some nice white immigrants! But no, apparently these are the wrong sort too, to listen to our Eurosceptic friends. It appears that the perfect immigrant (for the UK, for example) should have Received Pronunciation, drive a Volvo and vote Tory. Oh, and already have a job. As far as I can see, the only answer to this sort of determined blinkeredness is tomndebb’s; a determinedly data-driven response, pointing out the continuous complaints throughout modern history about immigration, and the singular lack of examples of said doomsaying actually coming true. It’s very dull that example upon example can be given of successfully assimilated immigrant populations, only for the naysayers to return with “but these ones are different, look! They’re not assimilated now!” But it seems to be the way of things.

[furt]

@tomndebb

However, you are supposing that the extremists who are now in their 20s and 30s will raise children, surrounded by European affluence, who will reject the surrounding culture to adhere to the extremism of their parents. I cannot say that they cannot, but historically I can point to the fact that similar phenomena have not happened elsewhere.

In the U.S., it is not M.E.N.A. Muslims, but Central American Hispanics that frighten people with their “refusal” to assimilate–all the while that the second generation is assimilating. They are not becoming nice little Protestant WASPs like their German and English predecessors, and they are having an effect that modifies American culture as they enter it, but they are very much becoming “Americans” in the way that Japanese (and now Korean) kids are becoming “Westernized.”

But my understanding is that the exact opposite is the case, at least with European Muslims. The kids, not the parents, are the ones embracing radicalism. http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html#11

As my link suggests, a lot of the reason for that is economic, and in fact more jobs will be availible as the ethnic Europeans die off, so that seems to work out. But I don’t think the anology to the US holds. For one thing, the US, as an immigrant nation, has more experience and is better at assimilating people into the borg, both culturally and economically. More crucially, it’s the* level* of immigration we’re talking about. Even if the current immigration patterns were to hold up, it would be a generations before those of central/south american descent were an absolute majority; in Europe, we’re talking about a couple of decades.

[gum]

Could I please just make one thing clear here?

Once again: The muslims in our country aren’t ‘colored’.

And: I don’t CARE what COLOR the people who are going to replace us are.
So, matt_mcl, I’d be careful with that tiny violin. And Maastricht, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop using the term ‘colored’ as well.
You know, just as well as I do, that our muslims don’t look any different than Spaniards, Greek or Italian - or a lot of the Dutch.

What is more: I believe that the people of the Netherlands are still very much welcoming people of all colors, all gender preferences and all religions.

Except for that frigging Islam, that got us nothing but heartache.
Tomndeb The extremists ARE the second generation immigrants. Do you think it’s likely they’ll raise their kids to become Western?

There’s a school in Amsterdam called ‘Het Mozaïek’ that has children of those second generation muslims in it. The first thing they learn to spell is:
“Fuck Nederland”.

Er komt nog wel een forse stijging van het aantal etnische minderheden in de stad. In 25 jaar tijd zal hun aantal met bijna 100.000 personen toenemen. Vooral het aantal volwassenen van de tweede generatie gaat sterk groeien. Aangezien het aantal Nederlanders gaat dalen is de stijging van het aantal etnische min-derheden groter dan de totale bevolkingsgroei.Bij de etnische minderheden treedt eveneens veroudering op. Deze is veel sterker dan bij de totale bevolking. Bij de oudere leeftijdsgroepen was het aandeel etnische minderheden tot voor kort vrij gering, maar dit zal de komende 25 jaar fors gaan stijgen. Tegelijkertijd neemt het bijzon-der hoge aandeel bij de jongeren af. Dit is het gevolg van de definities die gehanteerd worden. Een steeds groter deel van de kinderen gaat tot de derde generatie behoren en wordt niet meer tot etnische minderheden gerekend, maar tot autochtone Amsterdammers.Aandeel etnische minderheden van de totale bevolking in Amsterdam naar leeftijd, 2005 en 2030 (procenten)Auteurs:Lukas Wintershoven (DRO)Marcel Janssen (O+S)

I’m once again in a hurry, but I’m sure Maastricht will be happy to translate.

NB: The last sentence says that the very high population among young muslims will decrease.
Why?
Because there are other definitions being held. Children of the second generation of muslims will not be called etnic minorities, but native Dutch.

So we’re going to have a hard time finding percentages anywhere.

[astorian]

Predictably, people on the Left tend to scoff at Steyn’s notions, and people on the Right tend to (cautiously) embrace them.

But really, it’s the Left that should be most concerned.

Ask yourself how long the libertarian utopia of the Netherlands will last once Muslims are the majority (and they will be, soon)? If you believe in gay marriage, in legalized drugs and prostitution, how long do you think a government dominated by Muslims would let those things continue?

You think Muslims who emigrate to Europe will eventually give up their old values and embrace European ones? Perhaps they will. But how sure are you?

[tomndebb]

@gum

Tomndeb The extremists ARE the second generation immigrants. Do you think it’s likely they’ll raise their kids to become Western?

Well, until I see evidence that the extremists are the majority (and not just the loudest most violent members of a larger community), then I am going to look at historical parallels and figure that the extremists will probably be swallowed up (kicking and screaming) by their assimilated brethren.

In fact, it would be interesting to see whether anyone has determined whether the extremists are extreme because so many of their peers are assimilating and they are reacting to the loss of their culture similar to the way you are fearing the loss of yours.

The Netherlands may be unique; I certainly cannot claim to have inside information on the topic. However, as already noted, the rioting “Muslims” in France, Belgium, and Germany in the last three months are third generation kids with no serious belief in Allah or the Five Pillars who are mostly opposed by their ethnic peer communities in which they live. Are they are serious social problem? Absolutely. Are they a sign that Islam is about to overwhelm France? Absolutely not.

[Dead_Badger]

@Dead Badger

…this tiresomely xenophobic debate.

Sorry to reply to myself; just wanted to clarify that this isn’t supposed to be a slam directed at the OP.

@furt

But my understanding is that the exact opposite is the case, at least with European Muslims. The kids, not the parents, are the ones embracing radicalism.

As you acknowledge, it is economic (and policy) reasons that are causing this; it is not something intrinsic to Islam. Weren’t the cries loud enough that banning the headscarf in French schools would lead to a backlash? Weren’t the lessons learnt from the Projects in the US? Obviously not, but for people like Steyn to now turn round and say that these failures exhibit a characteristic tendency of Islam against assimilation is not merely facile, it is wrong. And he does need to contend that for his argument to hold water. His further assumption, that immigration will continue unabated and that it will continue to be (or even is now) primarily observant Muslims is unsound. At various points in history, we could have proved that Scotland would become entirely Italian, the UK entirely Sikh, the US entirely Chinese and so forth, by the simple expedient of (as Sam Stone pointed out right at the start) assuming a steady state of immigration. Again resorting to the dull yet worthy data-driven approach, we can see that none of these things has happened, so why should we assume that Muslims will continue to immigrate at the same rate indefinitely, and never assimilate?

@astorian

Ask yourself how long the libertarian utopia of the Netherlands will last once Muslims are the majority (and they will be, soon)? If you believe in gay marriage, in legalized drugs and prostitution, how long do you think a government dominated by Muslims would let those things continue?

Charitably ignoring the fact that you beg the question by blindly assuming that Steyn is right in assuming that Muslim immigration will continue unabated indefinitely, I pause to wonder how the (still) majority Christian population came to let such laws pass in the first place? Mystery. And I wonder, given that the Muslims must obviously be seeking to drag down such laws, they emigrated to the Netherlands in the first place? Perhaps “the Left”, that famous monolithic hive mind, feels that the alleged problems of majoritarian rule should be addressed when they arise, rather than assuming that they will based on faulty assumptions and cheap stereotypes.

@astorian

You think Muslims who emigrate to Europe will eventually give up their old values and embrace European ones? Perhaps they will. But how sure are you?

Very (assuming we don’t continue to make positive efforts to marginalise them á la France), because this has been the case with every observed immigrant population in recent history. Yours is the extraordinary claim, that “Muslims” (which, let us not forget, encompasses people from everywhere from Albania to Zaire) are somehow so special, so uniquely resistant to adapting, that they will achieve something no immigrant population has achieved, and take over an entire populated continent. It’s going to take more than “well what do you think the Muslims will do?”, nod nod wink wink.

[MindWanderer]

@Dead Badger

Very (assuming we don’t continue to make positive efforts to marginalise them á la France), because this has been the case with every observed immigrant population in recent history. Yours is the extraordinary claim, that “Muslims” (which, let us not forget, encompasses people from everywhere from Albania to Zaire) are somehow so special, so uniquely resistant to adapting, that they will achieve something no immigrant population has achieved, and take over an entire populated continent.

I think religious immigration is far more powerful and enduring demographically then your arguments which are about ethnic immigration in the US, it seems.

And also, if immigration happens on an immense scae, there may be no time for the second generation to assimilate, and what will they assimilate into, if Europe culture becomes a small collection of old folk appealing to an earlier time and demanding pensions paid from the work of these immigrants.

Unless citizenship happens in mass among the immigrants they will also be locked out of the political process, which isn’t likely to promote political stability.

Even if things do eventually level out, I think there will be a period of great unrest before that can happen. I do think Western Culture will never be the same, but we may have a new culture that is still worthwhile.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

@gum

What is more: I believe that the people of the Netherlands are still very much welcoming people of all colors, all gender preferences and all religions.

Except for that frigging Islam, that got us nothing but heartache.

There’s the crux of the matter right there – for Gum and for Steyn, apparently. It’s the yellow peril argument all over again. You extrapolate from the actions of a tiny fringe element to condemn an entire religion – one that one in five people on the planet adhere to.

I have to point out that Islam is a European religion, and has been since nearly the beginning. The idea that Europe can suddenly impose a wall between itself and Islam is absurd. Europe will have to deal – just as it always has.

And not to be snarky, but Gum, Rune – how many kids have you got yourselves?

[Dead_Badger]

@MindWanderer

I think religious immigration is far more powerful and enduring demographically then your arguments which are about ethnic immigration in the US, it seems.

They’re about examples of immigration from across the world; in no way are they limited to the US. Why would you think they are? And you illustrate perfectly the point I made, which you quote:

@Dead Badger

that “Muslims” (which, let us not forget, encompasses people from everywhere from Albania to Zaire) are somehow so special…

I contend that it is fallacious to simply lump “Muslims” from such incredibly diverse places together in one homogenous lump, for the purpose of declaring it something new. What common purpose does an Albanian Muslim have with a Somali Muslim? About as much as you do with a Russian Mennonite. You say that “religious immigration” is what is different here, but present no argument in favour of the idea that the immigration we are seeing is anything other than plain old economic immigration. Yes, most of the immigrants have a religion, but the leap to say that this is somehow the motivation behind the immigration is frankly immense, and deserves some justification. Simply saying “well they’re all Muslims, so it’s religious” is just not sufficient. The vast, vast majority of immigrants come to their new countries in search of a better economic life. That opportunity is afforded them by the liberal secular societies they move to; why, then, are we so eager to assume that these people who made such an effort to come here want to turn their adopted home straight into the place from whence they came? It makes no rational sense, yet seems to be accepted as an article of faith (ha) amongst anti-immigrationists.

And also, if immigration happens on an immense scae, there may be no time for the second generation to assimilate…

And if my grandmother had balls, she’d be my grandfather. It hasn’t remotely been demonstrated that “Muslim” immigration is proceeding at anything like the pace required for what you describe to happen, let alone been shown that if it is, it will inevitably continue thus. Muslims at present constitute considerably less than 5% of the population of Europe, factoring out those countries whose populations were already predominantly Muslim (such as Albania). And people are already complaining of being overrun. To claim that we could somehow get from here to a near-majority Muslim population by 2035 as Mark Steyn does requires assumptions of such astonishing dubiousness (constant native birth rates, unchanged welfare systems etc., not to mention an unlimited supply of trained Muslims to fill all these jobs he’s so convinced we’re dying out of) as to render his argument absurd on its face.

Unless citizenship happens in mass among the immigrants they will also be locked out of the political process, which isn’t likely to promote political stability.

I agree that inclusion is the key to successful assimilation. I don’t see why this represents a problem, however; one would hope that the point had been so forcefully illustrated in France of late as to be unanswerable. Inclusion is necessary? So include them.

[Dead_Badger]

Here’s a slightly saner and more balanced (not to mention less religion-fixated) look at the real problems caused by an ageing population, focusing with rather dull pragmatism on the implications for pension and welfare policies, as opposed to assuming that we’ll continue gleefully paying said pensions while establishing a new Caliph in the EU. Less exciting, obviously, but rather more sensible.

(Adair Turner, the author, is the Chairman of the UK’s Pensions Commission.)

[even_sven]

We have a model for what happens when you institute a religious breeding war.

Every year in India some Muslim cleric declares that birth control is a bad thing. Every year a Hindu leader follows up with a similar statement. Discussions of how “the Muslims are breeding out of control” are common, and usually end with a cry for Hindus to breed out of control as well. And so in a country of one billion people, people are still rushing to have as many kids as possible. That place is packed. Outside of Mumbai you can go see muddy fields of hundreds of shoddy high-rises with sagging balconies, each with a cast of thousands, stretching to the horizon. Labor is so cheap there that forklifts go unused on construction sights- people are cheaper than gasoline. Women’s rights have made a few inroads, but there is only so far it’s possible to go when women are expected to marry young and have at least a half-dozen kids.

So yeah, the Hindu population is going strong. But at what cost?

[eponymous]

@Rune

Not necessarily. But highly likely. How did you go from “not necessarily” to “total bullshit”? A socio-cultural construct, as you call it, cannot exist in limbo. Cultures take a long time to form, and they need a population to sustain them and carry on. It is naïve to assume a virtual replacement population within a generation will have time to integrate and adopt the host country’s culture.

While cultures take a long time to form, they don’t necessarily cease to exist in a relatively short period of time. It’s true they require a population to sustain it over time, but I haven’t seen any evidence that what Steyn is claiming that there will be a wholesale loss of that culture in a genration’s time.

He is naturally referring to the higher birth-rates of religious societies vers. a-religious societies. Replacement level is usually set at 2.1-2.2 for western societies.

I’m well aware of what replacement level is - but I don’t see the relevance of tying the term religious societies with birth rates. 100 years ago, the United States had fertility rates 2 to 3 times what they are today. Yet, by most accounts, the United States is one of the most religious socieities of the Developed World. Likewise, Iran has fertility rates that are below replacement level - it, too, by many accounts, would be considered to be a religious society.

Fertility rates are not solely the function of cultural factors - economic factors are much more likely to contribute to high fertility rates.

The relevance is naturally the continuous decline of western influence and validity.

Continous decline of western influence and validity in context of what? Vis-a-vis the rest of Europe? the World? Are we talking about cultural influence or economic?

Even if Europe were to somehow maintain its current population by achieving replacement rate levels, it would still be in decline (with respect to western influence and validity - if you base it on population totals only) relative to the rest of the world as the bulk of the people being added to world population is in the Underdeveloped World.

But that hardly means that just because there are today more non-Europeans that Europeans that this necessarily means a continuous decline of western influence and validity. Decline in economic clout? Possibly. Decline in political clout? Also possible. Decline in cultural relevance and influence? Not even close - the world that exists today is largely the result of Western civilization and the by-products of that civilization (both the good and bad - but largely good). Even in those countries that do not have a Western Civ heritage, the influence of Western Civ. on those societies is still substantial.

That’s what most European countries are trying. With mixed results.

Why is this? Again, if “too many Muslims” is such a problem, then it’s a simple matter of restricting immigration. But, obviously, there is a reason for why Muslims have been able (and want) to immigrate to Europe.

Not for lack of trying. Immense sums have been spent and squandered on integration projects all over Europe – with very little success. Perhaps much of European culture just doesn’t make for easy assimilation. Also I believe, if blame is to be put, the onerous of assimilation lies on the immigrants shoulder.

While it’s true that the bulk of the onus is on the immigrants to assimilate, there are reasons for why immigrants feel the need not to.

[MindWanderer]

@Dead Badger

They’re about examples of immigration from across the world; in no way are they limited to the US.

What I really meant to say by religious immigration is that, compared to other cultural practices, religious affiliation is much less affected by assimilation. That may be debatable, and I can give examples if needed, but I think it is a solid assumption.

I think European secularism is the biggest thing in danger. Yes, economic factors did and will continue to cause these people to come to Europe, but those economic factors are not random or without cause.

Since so few Europeans go to church, even if they label themselves Christian, while the Islamic religion mandates prayer five times a day, the religion will have a disproportionate political and cultural effect beyond its population. When you have a group of people who reaffirm their religion five times a day, and are united in religious identity, that is a powerful political block. Now obviously I’m exagerating their power a bit, because there are seperate Shia and Sunni religions, but I think regardless of where they came from, their places of worship in Europe will help unify them into a powerful political force. The ideology of their leaders will have an important effect on how that political block votes, either for respecting western culture and politics or for supplanting it.

I think one of the reasons fundamentalist Christians have so much power in America compared to their numbers is precisely because of this effect of consistent worship and listening to clergical leaders.

[Maeglin]

Here is a more encouraging look at prosperous state’s demographic shrinkage.

People love to worry—maybe it’s a symptom of ageing populations—but the gloom surrounding population declines misses the main point. The new demographics that are causing populations to age and to shrink are something to celebrate. Humanity was once caught in the trap of high fertility and high mortality. Now it has escaped into the freedom of low fertility and low mortality. Women’s control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good—as is the average person’s enjoyment, in rich countries, of ten more years of life than they had in 1960. Politicians may fear the decline of their nations’ economic prowess, but people should celebrate the new demographics as heralding a golden age.

[furt]

@Maeglin

Here is a more encouraging look at prosperous state’s demographic shrinkage.

I’m sorry but that looks utterly facile to me. Of course reproductive choice and longer lives are in and of themselves good things. Nobody would claim otherwise. But it does not address the central reality of low birth rates combined with the generous pension plans the European welfare model grants: fewer and fewer workers supporting a larger and larger number of non-workers. Unless I am woefully misinformed, ISTM that blithely stating that “Anyway, retirement ages can be lifted to increase the supply of labour even when the population is declining” represents a profound ignorance of the political reality in Europe.

While I’m not sure I agree with everything in **Dead Badger’s **link, at least it says what I’d think to be obvious: a stable population is most desirable.
And while it’s all well and good to point out that the trend – which has already been in place for a couple of decades – might well change, I’d like to hear some arguments as to why. I’m never very impressed by people that respond to global-warming concerns by saying that it’s no big deal since we’re bound to develop fusion power before long; to me, just assuming that the European birthrate will go up sooner or later seems to fit in the same category.

[ITR_champion]

Let us look at the problem from an economic perspective.

1. In any society, there is basic manual labor that must be done. Toilets must be cleaned. Trucks must be driven. Crops must be picked on farms. Cash registers must be operated. Dishes must be washed.

2. Persons doing this manual labor are gnerally the “unskilled” people. They must do the manual labor; they have no other options. Consequently they’re not in much of a bargaining position. The people doing the manual labor will always be lower class.

3. Due to this bad bargaining position, living conditions for manual laborers will always be pushed downward, relative to the rest of society, unless we have government intervention. In any country that’s dedicated to having a market economy, the upper class business owners will always try to pay the manual laborers less and less money. This will eventually make living conditions so bad for the laborers that the native-born population won’t be willing to do that manual labor. Instead, immigrants will have to do that manual labor if the business owners are to continue paying wages that are basically a joke.

In both Europe and the United States, that’s what has happened and is continuing to happen. Employers pay the manual labor less and less, and the native-born population grows less and less willing to accept the joke wages. Thus the number of immigrants grows and grows to meet the cheap labor needs.

The trend can be stopped easily enough, without a single border security guard. Simply pass laws requiring that companies pay manual laborers a decent salary and provide decent working conditions. Enforce those laws. Then the native born population will be willing to do the work, and hte immigrants won’t be needed.

[Der_Trihs]

@ITR champion

The trend can be stopped easily enough, without a single border security guard. Simply pass laws requiring that companies pay manual laborers a decent salary and provide decent working conditions. Enforce those laws. Then the native born population will be willing to do the work, and hte immigrants won’t be needed.

But…but that would be socialism !!

< gasps in horror >

[GorillaMan]

@ITR champion

The trend can be stopped easily enough, without a single border security guard. Simply pass laws requiring that companies pay manual laborers a decent salary and provide decent working conditions. Enforce those laws. Then the native born population will be willing to do the work, and hte immigrants won’t be needed.

My bolding - how are you going to do that?

[GorillaMan]

My inept bolding tags, but you get the idea!

[Der_Trihs]

@GorillaMan

My bolding - how are you going to do that?

The IRS ? It worked on Al Capone IIRC.