When we look globally at the reasonably long past of the political crisis in Europe, 1 of the most crucial sources of political crisis seems to have been 1 of them. It is the reaction of European societies to the phenomenon, scale and impact of immigration into Europe of people of different cultural and cultural origins.
The increasing pillars of support for populist and utmost right-wing parties are a image to illustrate the crisis of liberal democracy in the countries of Europe. However, the shocks on political scenes and the failure of stableness by systemic systems are the aftermath of a degrengolade that has sources in social processes. erstwhile we look globally at the reasonably long past of the political crisis in Europe, 1 of the most crucial sources of political crisis seems to have been 1 of them. It is the reaction of European societies to the phenomenon, scale and impact of immigration into Europe of people of different cultural and cultural origins. This is the most serious political problem in Europe, which, in addition, presently does not anticipate any rational solution.
Fear That Paralyzes
This is, in a sense, overly logical: the liberal strategy model is simply failing due to the fact that European societies are turning distant from 1 of the pillars of a liberal attitude towards the planet and people, which for respective centuries has decided on the form of our mentality and, in fact, the full civilization. Yes, we stay liberal erstwhile it comes to our own powers. Virtually no of the millions of utmost right-wing voters demands that he be personally restricted, freed or narrowed down. However, we are moving distant from the very essence of the task of a liberal society, which was and is thought to be a constantly expanding ellipse of very different people, which we embrace with feelings of empathy, mercy and pity, which means that we reject the usage of force or coercion against them, and we request appropriate political reforms to reflect this approach. In Europe, year after year, it evaporates. Until we ask that the political charlatans of the right edge, in the next electoral campaign, deepen our fears, strengthen our xenophobia and establish our hatred for another people whose only change is simply a different religion, a different outfit, a different colour of skin, but the same dream of a happy life for their children.
Moderate parties, ruled almost indivisibly by democratic Europe for more than half a century after 1945, are to blame for this. Firstly, the phenomenon of standardisation of xenophobia in Europe is the consequence of their omissions, errors and infirmities. Hurraoptimism, désintéressement and political correctness could not be another link to successful implementation of the process of adaptation of immigrants. With this approach, 1 could not hope to avoid the growth of xenophobia and racism, 1 could not prevent the awakening of fears. It was not possible to block ghettoisation processes in the beginning, to counteract the social exclusions of the second generation of migrants, to uncover the adequate severity of the state's apparatus in combating criminal phenomena. The integration processes of the last half century are today, in rule rightly, assessed as a complete disaster by the public of immigration states in Western Europe, and public opinions of our part of the continent treat these experiences as a informing and the only possible deterrent script for possible integration processes in countries specified as Poland.
The second shift of mainstream political forces in Europe is intellectual and common laziness, which has pushed them to focus on their own political interests in the short word of the forthcoming elections, alternatively than to mitigate social crises around immigration, which would cut off oxygen for extremists in the average word of 10-15 years. The utmost right with fear of cultural diversity is an old phenomenon. fresh are the politicians of its competitors, who, on the occasion of the electoral campaigns, feel obliged to build the image of anti-immigrant hardliners, in fact in this way acknowledging the political diagnosis of extremists in a key debate of modern times.
It can be deluded that twine will win in representing the current of liberal humanism, postulating a policy of throwing another man out of the ellipse of human empathy and enrolling in the choir of those who claim cultural differences to be invincible, that value protection requires isolation, that the future must consist in maintaining racial, ethnic, and spiritual homogeneity. due to the fact that you can ease the message, be utmost right light, emphasize that “you know me – I am not Le Pen / Salvini / Faragem / Weidel / Wilders / Mentzen”. It is even possible to rise fears of another kind in their constituents, to let go of their eyes and to say that this is the right thing to do, due to the fact that "otherwise, the others will come and then they will teardrop everything down." However, rejecting the foundations of liberal humanism is simply a substance of utmost importance. It undermines standards, eliminates values, shifts the limits of what is acceptable to us and imaginable, letting things in here that we would have turned our backs on very recently. Year after year we become the caricature of Europeans. People who forget fundamental lessons from history, pathetic characters getting hysterical due to reasonably insignificant discomforts or solving challenges.
Natural causes of migration
At the same time, we do much to increase the influx of immigrants. The same politicians, who effectively intimidated us with a different skin color, who otherwise praises God, are hot supporters of cutting off the continent from importing goods from countries from which these immigrants come to Europe. The old simple regulation is that there is simply a political choice between receiving goods from a given region of the planet and receiving migrants from there. Free trade besides allows mediocre countries to exploit their competitive advantages and gradually improve the economical situation. For residents of specified a country, abroad trade creates opportunities in the form of jobs and prospects for improving the quality of life in the country, which, of course, reduces the likelihood of a highly risky choice of emigration for these people.
Politicians who argue free trade, who support customs barriers (in 2025 they take control of the world) and another barriers to trade (including in Europe, in particular, the subsidization of agricultural production under the Common Agricultural Policy, commonly known as "farmers' subsidies") proceed to be considered heroes in their countries, protecting home production. For example, the opposition of the full scope of politicians against the EU trade agreement with Mercosur countries has late been met with large knowing and applause. Meanwhile, these politicians must be shown to the public as guilty of immigration. They want to pose as “saves of the nation”, both erstwhile they block trade and erstwhile they fight immigration. We request to exposure this fraud and put them against the wall of criticism.
Europe as a full is depopulating, but the central Europe as shortly as possible. UN forecasts talk of a decrease in the number of Poles, Czechs and Hungarians by respective percent in the next 25 years. At the same time the countries of the region (maybe outside Hungary) will become richer and richer – they have already reached a very advanced standard of living. So there will be a vacuum at an attractive place in the world, while there will inactive be overcrowding, a low standard of surviving in another regions of the world, and additional migratory pressures will intensify war, humanitarian, political and climate crises. The lesson of past says that the nature of specified a vacuum cannot bear. The movement of people will proceed and increase, that's for sure. The question mark stands erstwhile asking about the reaction of the political authorities and societies of our region.
Europe Fortress
If a referendum were to be held on this issue at the moment, possibly in all countries of Europe the option of turning Europe into a fortress, let us call it "Festung Europe". The policy of refusing to let migrants from countries outside the Western civilization (perhaps the Ukrainians or Georgians would be treated somewhat differently) is most likely a democratic choice for today. The experience of Western European countries is so overwhelming, and the negative aspects of immigration so well visible on the occasion of Poles' journey to the large cities of Europe, that no another arguments would have a chance to change the verdict. Including economical arguments, related to the deficiency of hands to work in many sectors in the Polish economy, which led to (unofficially, not to say wrongly) a change in the attitude of the politicians of the Law and Justices towards immigration for a short period of time erstwhile they ruled, and the large investments of Orlen were not to be built.
Festung Europa, as civilised, is an information run in the countries of origin of immigrants to inform them that we do not want and will not accept them. It is simply a small more harsh erstwhile you take the form of refusing to accept an asylum application, being imprisoned in a closed facility, separating parents from children or passing immigrants through the countries of Europe. The most drastic form of Festung Europa is the construction of “camps for refugees”, which is simply a modern and powdered word for something that was erstwhile called “concentration camps”. In perfect terms, from the utmost right and its supporters, specified camps can be created outside their country and the EU, specified as Italy in Albania (for Poland Ukraine seems to be a natural ‘partner’). This allows you to dilute the legal work for the destiny of imprisoned people in a different way, but as for a certain logic akin to American investments in Guantanamo or Old Kiejkuts. Of course, the people in the camps are to be deported. In view of the difficulty of readmission to most countries where immigrants come from, Europe may identify and establish (payable) cooperation with 3rd countries in Africa that will agree to receive the deportees. And possibly any of the immigrants will make their lives in camps.
Today, it seems that 1 way or another the word “camps” and deportation or becoming a “resident” of a “camp” for the natural end of life is the darkest form Festung Europa can take. But the past of our continent teaches that the peoples of Europe (especially one, but not without support from any others) were able to scope for more meaningful measures to change the population statistic in Europe. It remains to be hoped that what was possible in 1942, and is impossible in 2025, will stay equally impossible in 2040 and always in our full future.
Rational immigration policy
An alternate to Festung Europe is simply a rational policy of receiving/not accepting immigrants, which can be formulated on the basis of rich learning material from past mistakes. Its component may be to not welcome immigrants, it is not a mistake. Especially now, erstwhile the USA Trump is re-entering humanitarian and improvement aid through the eradication of the USAID, Europe has the chance to take over the baton and through an active, well-targeted and, let's not hide, decently funded policies to support people in developing countries, to supply them with an acceptable standard of surviving on the spot, in the country of fathers. Let us remember that: 1) the vast majority of people like to live to their days in their home parts; 2) the possible of crossing to Europe as an illegal immigrant is filled with dangers, so 3) the conditions of surviving in their homeland must be radically worse than the prospects of surviving in Europe, due to the fact that if they are worse only to any extent, taking risks is no longer profitable. It is worth investing money in a migration impulse simplification policy, alternatively of spending even more money on camps, readmission planes or agreements with possible "black holes" in the Rwanda style. This is not only better in a purely human sense, but besides for economical reasons.
The reception of migrants should be better prepared. A qualification-based point system, numerical amounts linked to circumstantial skills, temporary residence programmes for e.g. 2-5 years, with the anticipation of re-entering the programme on condition of return after completion of the erstwhile – different tools for obtaining legal immigrant position before leaving home may be utilized to discourage illegal pathways. At the same time, these programmes would be correlated with the real handicaps of European economies. The public will see the regulated immigration differently erstwhile it first feels e.g. the deficiency of the anticipation of obtaining a construction service, the increase in taxi prices respective times, long waiting times for a variety of services or a scratched road investment which is not to be completed.
These are applicable aspects, but cultural "processing" of the migration process will be crucial. In science, there are 4 different models of immigrant life in host society, and the last 70 years of Western Europe's past show that no of them have been taken consciously, due to the fact that in different regions, different social layers, different agglomerations and in different decades, examples of each of them can be found.
Europe should choose a single model and consistently and firmly enforce it. possible immigrants would besides be informed of which of his customs, behaviour or attitudes would be possible after the move, and in what way, and of what behaviour he would gotta quit and consider it a cost of surviving in prosperity.
Two utmost models are suitable for rejection. The first assumes the anticipation for immigrant communities to make closed and isolated social zones, in rule governed by their own rights and only in the essential situations in contact with host society or state institutions. It is simply a model that naturally leads straight to ghettoization and brings with it all the dangers that have become fuel for the populism and extremism of Europeans.
The second utmost model assumes the assimilation of immigrants, which is the thought that Sudanese or Vietnamese coming to Poland become Poles, Catholics, baptize their children, paint eggs for Easter and participate in the dispute over the best mayonnaise. This model would solve any migration problems if it were not impossible and did not even origin aggression from the second generation of immigrants, including, of course, their cultural-religious radicalisation.
Two intermediate models should be discussed. The most intensive model in Europe is the integration model, which assumes a two-way impact on the host community and immigrants in a cultural sense, among others. While maintaining the constitutional order of liberal democracy and strict compliance with the law (which is repeatedly guarding the leading culture of a given country), number and immigrant communities can contribute their content to a common social life. The perfect here is the integration and acceptance of the multiculturalism of society, although subjecting immigrants to the values and principles of the host country's culture, but with the anticipation of cultivating their own traditions and customs in their homes, as well as leaving them within a certain scope to public life and, as a result, modifying it by their presence, albeit insignificant. This model was preferred in Europe by most countries by the majority of mainstream political forces and undoubtedly revealed many drawbacks, although if applied consistently, the social crisis related to immigration would most likely not have been as dramatic as it is.
However, Europe should change the model to the alleged forks. As its name suggests, it implies the application of different sets of standards of social coexistence depending on which sphere of life we are talking about. powerfully simplifying, it assumes elements of a model of assimilation in the public, state, social life institutions specified as schools, urban cultural centres, wellness institutions, universities, all state offices. This means that an immigrant – erstwhile moving in the public sphere as a citizen – would behave in a way that was not fundamentally different from that of the host society. This would at the same time warrant the maintenance of a liberal constitutional and legal order, which would be exempt from any kind of negotiation with the expectations of immigrant groups, which is present in the integration model.
However, in the sphere of individual life, household life, spiritual community or privately appointed associations and akin initiatives, the standards of the fork model are broadly aligned with the integration model. In accordance with the fundamental liberal values of all man, including of course immigrants, individual freedom, words, beliefs, beliefs, spiritual beliefs, assemblies and lifestyles are guaranteed. The key to effective improvement of admission processes in Europe would be the firm enforcement of the principles of this model, i.e. both the protection of individual freedom and cultural diversity in the private sphere of life, and the abuse of insistent cultural differences in the public sphere.
A fork model in countries specified as Poland could be utilized from the very beginning of its experience with immigration, due to the fact that as a country we are in fact inactive standing at the threshold of this fresh inevitable era in our history. The consequence of its application, manifested by the enforcement of the standards of inter-human coexistence, which are accepted in Poland, besides in the influx of immigrants from another cultural circles, would be able to disarm the fears of many average Poles and Poles who say "no" to strangers today, not due to any chauvinisms, but due to sincere concerns about the future of their children, country, city.
The Future and We
Of course, there will stay a group of unconvincable, sometimes average racists who will simply not be able to accept that the planet is changing and that in 50 years Poland will actually be a country inhabited by people of different races, different religions and different cultural traditions. It is worth addressing them with a extremist thought, even if it offends them. It is not crucial whether Poland will be white, Catholic and read in Mickiewicz in 50 years. It is crucial that she is free, sovereign, rich, strong, democratic and liberal. That he would be 1 of the best places to live on Earth, a dream of many people driven by crises worldwide.
An alternate to this script is the fresh form of savagery, regression in civilisational development, both for Poland and for Europe as a whole. It is simply a reality in which we abandon our values of humanism and the teachings of Christianity, allowing them to be obscured by selfishness and envy. It is simply a reality in which we lose all our nature and spirit of the West, negate our legacy, from the beauty of our culture and literature, making an extortion. We are building Festung Europa, so alien to ourselves. We separate ourselves from the needy. Finally, we wake up in a impoverished museum, which, at most, is sometimes visited by Chinese tourists.
