The new 'Völkerwanderung'

... it is s about time countries in Europe and the EU 

decide to address immigration as a top agenda issue

 and not leave it up to chaos and improvisation. 

these are human beings, not leftovers of some 3rd class world.

Silvia

A new 'Völkerwanderung' is under way  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period . While globalisation did not yet and will not produce the tangible benefits it once was expected to, at least anyone around the world can now imagine how great life in the OECD countries is,  at least compared to their own misery in the so called 2nd or 3rd world.

Is is just plain logic, that people from countries left behind, without job, without hope, risk their lives travelling to rich Europe.  Even living here a a social outcast and beggar is more attractive than the misery they have for granted at home. 

There is no simple, singular answer to be provided under such circumstances. Too varied are the situations in the different countries of origin, just compare the Balkans, Palestine or Sub-Saharan Africa. However, a few facts may shed a light on possible threats as well as at  directions where solutions may be found. 

The is a current an manifest upsurge of violence against migrants in Europe. From Denmark to Italy, from France via Germany to Hungary local indigenous populations feel overwhelmed by the tasks to integrate more foreigners and vote for stricter regulation, barriers and discouraging of migration. These feelings may be nurtured from politicians hoping to bolster their carrier on this wave of xenophobia.

20 years of neo-liberal economic dogma created and intensified a societal competition for jobs and resources. Foreigners, willing to work for even lower wages and with larger families eligible for higher social benefits are perceived as a personal threat on the job market - at least from lesser qualified locals - and an additional drain on already stressed social security systems. 

Any affirmative action before this background (like Mare Nostrum) is easily labelled from right wing and populist politicians as an encouragement to migrate.  The alternative 'Sunday speeches' given from moderate OECD politicians about the need to address migration in the countries of origin by stimulating economic growth and good governance there, indicate that the understanding of what would constitute good governance (cf. the premature applause to the Arab Spring) and meaningful economic incentives is severely lacking (cf. EU agricultural policy strangulating smallholders and in developing countries with subsidised exports). 

Just the recently failed Addis accord, where developing countries were denied support to develop an supranational tax advisory board illustrates this: supposedly more than 900 million of taxes are evaded annually in developing countries by multinational corporation, more than all development aid flows together.

Corporate profits of OECD based corporations are valued much higher than peoples livelihoods and it comes consequently as no surprise, that people from these countries just try to follow the money into the OECD countries. The OECD countries by the way over decades never lived up to the commitment to spend 0.7% of the GDP on development cooperation. 

In addition to these economic conundrum there are also anthropological issues.  While foreigners in small numbers are seen as cultural enrichment (multi-cultural-society) their showing up in larger groups instigates insecurity and rejection as they are perceived as threat to cultural identity. Strangely (or looking at it dialectically not strangely at all - but that would be material for another post) the promotion of globalisation went hand in hand with an upsurge of nationalism and chauvinism.

Looking again at the current economic and societal developments within the OECD countries on can only be shocked about the extremely skewed criteria employed to provide financial support to supposedly disadvantaged parts of societies:  very conservatively estimated far more than 100  billion € have been and will be mobilised to keep Greece afloat, to prevent a humanitarian disaster of 8 million Greek people, to make up for their government's manifest inability for a sound and effective governance. One needs to put this number in perspective, as these transfers amount to far more than 13.000 € for every Greek person, whether rich or poor.   Compare that to the development cooperation flows of about 1 billion € ...

As a provisional conclusion one can only write that people in need shall be helped "Give a man a fish and his family will have one dinner, teach him to fish and he can support his family."  Concentration camps for migrants and economic deterrents are not sustainable option as long as the livelihoods of potential migrants are miserable beyond our imagination in their home countries. 

While avoiding humanitarian disasters is a must, this holds of course true for the Balkans, i.e. Kosovo and Sub-Saharan Africa. OECD countries can't morally afford to provide much needed assistance in such a skewed way as they do today.  Otherwise the time will come, when OECD countries will just be overrun and all the Melilla and Ceuta fences would not protect our wealth, except maybe raging an outright war against the poor. Will we become this in-human?  

Only sharing our wealth appears to be a viable and conceivable option.