European migration ‘compassion fatigue’

By Joe Guzzardi
Syndicated columnist 

An article published in The Spectator, a British weekly and the world’s oldest magazine, should raise eyebrows in the U.S., especially among voters who consider the Southwest border disaster a national security threat. The story, “In Europe, opposing mass migration can be a crime,” summarizes a bleak demographic future for the EU. “Europeans will vote for politicians who want to stop the migration, and they may even come into office, but the situation will not change,” adds the subhead.

All across Europe, citizens are ringing alarm bells to convey their apprehension about mass immigration. This summer, long-serving Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte resigned after the government coalition he led disagreed on how to stem the refugee flow into the Netherlands. Rutte’s departure is the latest example of migration politics as an increasingly challenging predicament for European officials, with conservative parties using their rising influence to promote reduced immigration in campaign platforms.

For Europeans, the stakes are high. Over centuries, national identities have been formed with commonality in heritage, language, religion, custom and history. Immigration threatens to destabilize or destroy those commonalities. With one coalition already toppled in the Netherlands, experts say similar issues face leaders in Germany, Italy and perhaps France and Spain. 

A Pew Research report found that majorities or pluralities in most EU nations want less immigration into their countries. Many that Pew polled believe that immigrants remain distinct from the broader culture, and they further worry that immigration increases terrorism risks.

Much like the immigration crisis that began when President Biden assumed office in 2021, five years ago more than 1 million people crossed into Europe, mostly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The migrants took huge risks, embarking on dangerous journeys in search of better lives. All said that they had no future in their native countries. But some died along the way; others once they arrived at their destination could not find meaningful employment.

Receiving countries, however, adopted then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s "Wir schaffen das" or “We can manage” philosophy. With significant grassroots volunteer assistance, the countries did indeed get by, at least in the beginning. But as the numbers of incoming migrants grew, so did compassion fatigue. Merkel eventually dropped her slogan. In the end, asylum requests far outnumbered approvals at about a 4-1 ratio, meaning that only a small percentage of migrants had valid claims to remain in countries they hoped would embrace them.

As with opposition that grew in the EU, resistance to Biden’s open borders has grown in the U.S. In areas where migrant overflow has most severely affected communities, the backlash is significant, although not yet a crime as The Spectator story inferred it might one day be. New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Boston and Denver have pled for federal assistance, a plea consistently ignored by the administration.

Time will tell whether President Biden’s open border agenda will topple his 2024 re-election bid. The three recent debates with GOP candidates skirted immigration, and the expansionist faction stifles meaningful discussion. Any suggestion that poorly managed and too much immigration contributes to unsustainable population growth and overcrowding, placing an estimated $20 billion financial burden on taxpayers, is shouted down with allegations of racism and xenophobia. This sophomoric, but too-often successful tactic, often sways crucial, independent voters.

The question that The Spectator raised – “Will the situation [immigration] change?” – is the crux of the matter. Whatever the eventual presidential nominees may have said on the stump, the elected president is only part of the immigration equation. Although Biden has ignored virtually every enforcement-related immigration law, marching down his own unconstitutional path, Congress has the sole responsibility to lead the way.

A year from now, voters will need to focus on electing congressional candidates who genuinely want an immigration policy that’s designed to help America, a huge challenge. Today, Congress is mostly split on immigration along party lines, although the House GOP has several representatives who bow to the donor class that wants more cheap labor delivered via immigration.

Overcoming five decades of lax enforcement is a steep mountain to climb, as is voiding legislation designed to attract more immigration, such as the spate of employment-based visas that President George H.W. Bush signed into law with the Immigration Act of 1990.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, the 2024 election could be America’s last chance to retain its sovereignty. Maintaining the status quo means that, assuming the current migrant entry rate, by the 2028 election between 15 and 20 million unvetted illegal immigrants would be residing in the U.S., a treasonous act.

Joe Guzzardi is an Institute for Sound Public Policy analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years.