Mass-breeding vs. hyper-immigration: ideological clashes in the midst of Europe's fertility crisis


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 overcrowded Africa and the developing world to restore the population balance in Europe.

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 sustainable demographics to support its elders. 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 give Germany 69 million inhabitants, 200,000 would mean a population drop to 74 million.

Based on these prospects, one might conclude that aging Europe has no choice but to hand itself over to a tidal wave of immigration. But that is not the case. Russia is also facing a population crisis. 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. 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 where 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. Lemper made no indication 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 over German society to portray a positive message about family life. Instead, the political elite in modern Germany have done a great deal to encourage open attitudes towards alternative lifestyles - including homosexuality which, incidentally, does not create children.

It goes without saying that Germany is one of the most "legally and socially tolerant" countries in the world. Moreover, its media continues to pump out a message promoting absorption in material culture based on individuality, which may be making someone money, but 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 so indifferent to the sort of people he or she will represent in the future, how can this leader be seen as a representative of the people? And what are these "leaders" doing leading the people in the first place?