Europe is struggling to stay above a sub-replacement population; for example, by 2050, 1 out of every 3 Germans will be over the age of 60. To fix the problem, Europe's leaders want to promote mass immigration. Their plan is to fill Europe with working-age migrants from Africa and the developing world, where the fertility rate is off the charts.
So what would this look like? The Population Division of the United Nations Secretariat's Department of Economic and Social Affairs estimates that Europe will need 135 million immigrants by the year 2030 to maintain a "healthy" worker-to-pensioner ratio at 5:1. The United Nations' study on replacement migration in Europe suggests that Europe would have to absorb 159 million immigrants if it wants to maintain a traditional youth-to-adult population ratio. Even with this forecast, Germany's population, already composed of a 17% foreign or immigrant-born demographic, would shrink from 82 million to between 69 and 74 million by 2050. The figure depends on the immigration rate: 100,000 immigrants per year would leave Germany with just 69 million inhabitants by mid-century, whereas 200,000 immigrants per year would keep the population around 74 million.
Based on these prospects, one might conclude that aging Europe has no choice but to hand itself over to an immigration tidal wave and hope for the best. But that is not the case. Russia is also facing a population crisis, and estimates show that Russia's population could drop to 1/3 of its current size in the coming decades. Yet, unlike Germany, Russia is trying to increase its population without resorting to demographic felo de se. Since 2007, Russian families are being awarded approximately $9,000 (two years' income) for having a second child. Moreover, if a Russian mother gives birth to any child on June 12, Russian Independence Day, the family is rewarded prizes like a new car or television; counting back exactly nine months, September 12 is now "family contact day, a day when Russians are to stay home and make babies, regardless as to how large one's family already is.
Meanwhile, in Germany, radio personality Eva Herman was just dismissed from the German public broadcasting circuit after she criticized the sixties generation for, in her view, destroying family values and the positive portrayal of motherhood. Another controversy erupted after Joachim Meisner, a Roman Catholic cardinal, dared to say the word "degenerate" to describe "negative cultural developments" that depart from traditional family values. "Conservative" Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician Lothar Theodor Lemper criticized the cardinal for his choice of words, insisting that the word "degenerate" should be taboo.
Of course, there is a context to keep in mind here: Lemper opposes the term "degenerate" because the Nazis used it repeatedly to discourage that which they did not like; there is no record that he would actually oppose a "family contact day." Similarly, the family-promotion program that Eva Herman drew reference to was introduced during the Nazi era, and praise for anything from that era almost always creates a scandal in Germany. So, these factors have to be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, those with power and influence in German society have done little to promote motherhood and family on their own accord; Germany's modern leaders have not sprinkled in new incentives for couples to have children, nor have they used their influence to convey a positive message about having families. Instead, they have concentrated on making Germany one of the most "legally and socially tolerant" countries in the world. That includes encouraging open attitudes towards alternative lifestyles like homosexuality, but homosexuality does not create children. Moreover, the system media continues to pump out a message promoting absorption in a material culture based on individuality, careerism and consumerism. All of this may be making someone money, but it certainly is not making any children.
Taking the above into consideration, it is no coincidence that multiculturalism and immigration are portrayed in Germany as the only way to fix the demographic imbalance. But if a leader is inclined to sacrifice his or her own people to promote a set of ideals, how can this leader be considered a representative of the people or the people's interests? Further, if a leader is so indifferent as to what people they will represent, what are these "leaders" doing leading anyway, especially if the only path they will allow is that which will force their people to be replaced in their own lands?
