 Daniel Pipes speaking at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Nov. 12, 2022. |
After the Russian invasion on February 24, there was a stream of Ukrainians going to Europe. By now, some 8 million, a substantial portion of Ukraine's population. And when they arrived, they were delighted. "We have everything, really everything, even too much stuff. The people here are amazing, so generous. We didn't expect so much sympathy." "It is unbelievable how much they help. They gave us everything they have."
Now, this is wonderful. The fact that the European Union decided to give them a new status, something called a temporary protection mechanism, that they could live up to three years in the 27 member states of Europe, is wonderful. They got healthcare and housing and education. They got cash, they got — they got everything. It's great. I think it's great. We [Americans] also contributed. We contributed more money than we did to any refugee crisis since 1939-45, since World War II.
But there's a danger here. Advocates of multiculturalism and open borders have widely seized on the Ukrainian example to argue that any less generous response to migrants from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, constitutes racism, xenophobia and so-called Islamophobia. While little noticed at this moment, the intense focus on Ukrainians after the current crisis ends will likely lead to a reasoning that will certainly prominently emerge and become a force. I think now is the time to recognize this and to fight it.
To begin with, non-Western migrants watched the refugees coming to Europe primarily but also the United States and complained. Said one Afghan in Germany: "The Ukrainians are first-class refugees and we're only second-class." Said an Afghan translator: "Ukraine's people can go freely to European countries, but where do we flee?" Said a Nigerian: "The Ukrainians get all these benefits and we're not even offered a glass of water."
Confronted with this challenge, politicians and journalists in Europe and the United States offered awkward and embarrassing explanations. For example, Ukraine's former deputy chief prosecutor said that "The situation in Ukraine is very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed every day." The Bulgarian prime minister said "The Ukrainians are Europeans. These are people who are intelligent, they're educated. This is not the refugee wave we have seen before, people who are not sure about their identity, people with unclear paths, people who could be terrorists. In other words, there is not a single European country which is now afraid of the current wave of refugees, so in other words, there's a kind of racial quality, educational quality and the like."
These inept explanations led to a barrage of fury, talking about bias, bigotry, discrimination and orientalism. The Washington Post led the way with no less than eight articles in two months on the subject, once a week. Here's one from the Washington Post: "While Europe is relatively united in its desire to help Ukrainians, some have questioned why similarly temporary protection was not offered to fleeing Afghans or to assist other asylum seekers reaching Europe's shores." Or another one: "Countries in Europe that just a few years ago rose up and protested against the arrival of immigrants fleeing wars and extremism in the Middle East and North Africa are suddenly welcoming hundreds of thousands of refugees. A Nigerian in Athens said: I hear people say all lives matter, but no, they don't really all matter. Black lives matter less."
Such criticisms, I would argue to you, have a purpose: To make Westerners feel guilty, and thereby to turn the Ukrainian experience into the template for the whole world. All migrants, without exception, legal or illegal, from wherever they might come, must be welcomed as those from Ukraine.
Qatar's foreign minister thundered about Ukrainians faring better than Syrians, Palestinians, Libyans, Iraqis and Afghans. He then demanded that the Ukraine crisis serve as "a wake-up call" for Middle Eastern issues to be handled with the same level of commitment. President Emmanuel Macron of France wasn't quite so explicit, but he said that "This crisis reminds some around the table who showed less solidarity when the migratory pressure came from other borders other than Europe's borders, that it is good Europe that is totally supportive and responsible neighbor." A Human Rights Watch leader said that "The tremendous empathy and solidarity for Ukrainians should stretch to everyone in need." Now, note the wording: everyone in need. That defines a potentially limitless group of people. Everyone in need means refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and so forth.
Now, there are obviously enormous differences between the Ukrainian refugees and the illegal migrants coming from around the world. I've documented some 13 differences. I won't go through them here, but I'll just note that the Ukrainians are true refugees. They tend to be the elderly, females and children. The men are not there. The young men are fighting. Whereas when it was Syrians in 2015-16, it was primarily young men. Second difference is the viable skills that the Ukrainians have brought with them. They immediately got employed, versus the unemployability of so many illegal migrants from the outside world. Good citizenship versus criminality. Cultural similarity versus differences. And limited versus unlimited numbers; there are only so many Ukrainians; if you look at the outside world, it's unlimited.
In sum, the contrast is sharp and stark. On the one hand stand the Ukrainians, a neighboring people of limited size and similar culture, language, religion and skills, fleeing an external genocidal assault. On the other side, peoples of alien cultures, alien languages, often historically rival religion, harboring various forms of hostility, arriving in huge numbers without permission for their personal economic self-betterment.
So this analysis leads to three conclusions. First is that it is unsurprising that the Western response to Ukrainian and to non-Western migrants vary as widely as they do. The two groups themselves are very different. This should not lead to embarrassment. Rather than flagellate themselves for welcoming Ukrainians, Europeans and Americans ought to take pride in this munificence.
Secondly, the reception given to Ukrainian refugees cannot become the template for all migrants from all places and all circumstances at all times, as multiculturalists and open-border types would argue. Distinctions must continue to be made. To succumb to pressures that return Europe to its lawless immigration of 2015-16, when anyone from anywhere could enter, is to invite chaos and, ultimately, to the collapse of Western civilization.
And finally, the Ukraine crisis points to the need for thinking in terms of cultural zones. This is a point I've been making for years that essentially nobody has paid attention to. I believe that each region of the world, each cultural region, broadly speaking — Latin America, Africa, Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia and so forth — should contain its own refugees, its own migrants. So Middle Easterners should go to the Middle East and Africans to Africa and Europeans to Europe. What could be more natural? The surge in Ukrainian refugees has revealed, as no other event since World War II, that the West is the natural refuge for its own peoples and not the natural refuge for the entire world.
