Difficult but crucial: Discussing high immigration and demographic changes

Political correctness should not prevent us from discussing them

Free societies do themselves no credit by outlawing the free expression of genuine human concerns, insisting on politically correct narratives, pejoratively mislabelling those who disagree with the “liberal consensus,” or treating designated “minorities” as deserving of higher respect and protection than anyone else. Sooner or later, you will not be able to prevent the dam of resentment caused by such suppression from breaking through, sometimes in violent forms. We saw this recently in the United Kingdom, where white mobs attacked the police after a gruesome incident involving the knifing and killing of young girls in Southport, northern England, who were attending a Taylor Swift-themed event. The delay in identifying the perpetrator added fuel to the fire, as many suspected the police were protecting an immigrant with an Islamist background.

Two major concerns across many European countries are illegal immigration and rapid demographic changes, thanks partly to their own falling birth rates. In countries as liberal as Sweden and Denmark, large parts of central and eastern Europe, and even in bigger countries such as France, Germany or Italy, anti-immigration sentiment is delivering huge vote increases to “Right-wing” parties. The tragedy is that instead of addressing the concerns of ordinary citizens, parties belonging to the mainstream consensus have deliberately chosen to mislabel anti-immigration sentiment as “Far Right” rhetoric. The crimes perpetrated by these (mostly non-white) groups are attributed to some generic category such as “African”, “Asian” or “South Asian”, as we saw in the United Kingdom over the last decade when largely Pakistani “grooming” gangs were lumped together under the label “South Asian”. Police officers were reluctant to call out crimes against teenage girls for fear of being labelled racist. To call rape or molestation “grooming” is itself another piece of politically correct nonsense, as if these girls were being “groomed” for good manners or dressing well.

Many public intellectuals have called out this kind of mollycoddling of criminals among immigrant communities. It is called “two-tier” policing, where the iron fist of the law is applied to crimes by the (largely Caucasian) majority, while similar crimes by “minorities” are treated with kid gloves.

The two big questions this article wants to raise are these: Why are we so afraid to deal with the immigration question, and why is fear of rapid demographic change not a fit topic for serious discussion? Why are people who raise these issues silenced by being called racists or bigots? Once we start discussing these issues in public, better solutions can be found to the problems vexing ordinary citizens.

Liberals will point out that immigrants bring diversity and new ideas to host nations. Moreover, they often are willing to work longer hours and for lower wages than what locals are willing to do.

We don’t have to dispute the benefits that immigrants bring, but we should not dismiss concerns about the harm they may bring too. Extreme diversity is not an unmixed blessing, given the cultural schisms that emerge. Immigrant communities are often associated with high crime rates. Also, in high-tax Nordic societies, which have very generous welfare programmes, immigrants are making taxpayers increasingly unwilling to pay high taxes if much of it will not benefit “people like us,” but “those people.”

The real question to address is how much of immigration is good for any society. What also matters is the pace at which immigration happens, and also how quickly the newcomers integrate with the culture of the host society. If the pace of entry is too fast, and integration is too slow, we are essentially saying it is okay for immigrants to create their own ghettoes where the host nation’s laws will not apply, except with the occasional consent of the minority concerned. This is one reason why Denmark — yes, ultra-liberal Denmark — is breaking up large immigrant clusters and forcing children from a very young age to learn Danish culture and language. Children are separated from their families for up to 25 hours a week to receive these instructions so that they integrate better with the larger society when they grow up. The intention is to avoid the creation of parallel societies. Sweden went from limited immigration to very high immigration, where, in less than a decade, immigrants made up over 20 per cent of the population. Which society will not be destabilised by such huge infusions of culturally alien populations?

Two ideas that the world must embrace in some form are stricter rules for citizenship and integration. When large numbers enter a country due to persecution or economic necessity, it should not automatically follow that all of them must receive citizenship by birth or naturalisation without deeper cultural integration. Some minimum standards of acculturation need to be internalised by immigrant communities before they are granted citizenship.

What is currently being discussed in Europe is equally relevant to India, where discussing the plight of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh — who are clearly under attack — is often considered “communal.” If a massive fall in Hindu demography from around 22 per cent in 1951 to less than 8 per cent now is off-limits even for a serious conversation, how can we call ourselves a democracy? Demography is changing rapidly in several Indian states due to immigration, religious conversion, and the fertility gap between majority and minority communities. We need to talk about these difficult topics if we are to prevent a rapid deterioration in the public mood, where frustrated groups will opt for vigilante justice and violence.

It is odd that most Indian politicians of the pre-Independence era could speak their minds openly on contentious issues under colonial rule. But we now hesitate to call a spade a spade when it is most obviously so. For instance, one should read the letters Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to his chief ministers on quotas and bigotry in states, or B R Ambedkar’s views on Islam and the idea of Pakistan to understand this point. Had anyone other than Ambedkar written those words, they would likely be called an Islamophobe today.

A democracy must be able to openly discuss people’s concerns without resorting to “cancel culture” or silencing those with uncomfortable opinions on contentious issues. A free society cannot afford to brush such matters under the carpet of political correctness and electoral expediency.

The writer is a senior journalist