Should immigrants actually support the 'far right'?

Reuters
Another day, another terrorist attack in France.

This time, a policeman was killed stopping a terrorist named Abu-Yusuf al-Baljik. Two others were reportedly injured in the attack.

With the French presidential election just days away, the contest is shaping up to be a duel between those who are tired of open borders, and those who believe that liberal ideas or jobs can dissuade migrants from becoming terrorists, so open borders are not a problem.

If you are a French nationalist or a believer in the lib-left globalist agenda, there is little doubt as to which side you will take. But what if you are an apolitical migrant?

It may seem counter-intuitive for a migrant to support those who oppose migrants. But if you are a law-abiding migrant and now a citizen of France, the best decision may not be the one you think it is.

Suppose that 1 in every 1000 migrants is a terrorist or is likely to become a terrorist. The difference between a country that has taken in one million migrants and one that has taken in six million migrants may be five thousand extra reports of terrorist acts, and increasingly more resentment towards people such as you. Factor in the possiblity that you yourself could also be a victim of the next terrorist attack in France - as part of the new, expected frequency of attacks - and there is clearly more to consider than what meets the eye here.

On average, 200 of every 1000 migrants fail to find employment within the first twelve months of stay; 440 of every 1000 migrants fail to find long-term employment. In these instances, the difference between a population of one million migrants and six million migrants potentially involves the impact of either 200,000 or 1.2 million short-term unemployed, and 440,000 or 2.64 million long-term unemployed, respectively. As a successful and well-integrated migrant, there can be no doubt as to which scenario is the thumb on the scale in creating disgust towards those with whom you might be associated.

The third point to consider is the job market. When there are fewer people competing for a position, there is a greater chance you will actually find the one you want. With French unemployment rate around 10%, your chance to obtain a job from a pool of one million individuals is better than your chance to obtain a job from a pool of six million individuals. Once again, you, the migrant, benefit from the presence of fewer migrants.

Next, with just one million migrants instead of six million migrants, the native population's contact with people such as yourself diminishes, and so do the chances that the impression people have of you will be colored by their interactions with anyone other than yourself. You essentially become your own diplomat, and inherit the power to influence the initial impression everyone has of people such as yourself.

Similarly, with fewer migrants, there are fewer people reaching out their hands for support from the state. This could mean more resources for people such as yourself, but it could also lighten your tax burden as well.

Finally, with just one million migrants instead of six million migrants, you are not part of a swell that validates concerns about demographic change and its political, social and cultural consequences in the immediate future. The native population is more likely to view you as somebody from afar than part of a intrusive scourge.

Clearly, the issue is not nearly as black and white as some might think.

Comments