The immigration dilemma appears to be the most significant phenomenon of the 21st century, and its social and political consequences threaten the foundations of Western society. However, in delving into the essence of this phenomenon, it is best to refer to Israel's unique situation separately.
Human society is characterized by inequality. In recent generations, well-established, developed states have been making a systematic effort to minimize inequality within the sovereign state, and are often willing to assist poor and failed states, mostly according to considerations anchored in foreign policy.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
But it was the establishment of the welfare state, the opportunities it offers and the vast resources it invests, and justly so, to assist the weaker socio-economic echelons in its midst, that have attracted numerous immigrants to it.
Some harnessed their talents and diligence in favor of the state, accepting the values upon which its residents' quality of life was predicated, and they were welcomed for it. Others, however, sought to exploit it and live at its residents' expense, contributing little, if anything, to its prosperity. These unwelcome elements brought with them the violent and failed culture that resulted in poverty and civil wars in their homelands, from which they fled to Europe or the US.
Many of these second- and third-generation immigrants significantly augmented the damages inflicted on the absorbing country, clinging to their unproductive, oppressive culture and thus becoming a burden on the state.
This problem is aggravated due to a simplistic and radical version of liberalism that has become prevalent in developed societies in recent years. It encourages – in the name of multiculturalism – the immigrants' promiscuous behavior. It also allows a population with essentially harmful characteristic to grow unsupervised, while granting its negative foundations immunity from criticism and a worthwhile reason to continue grousing.
This version of liberalism is guilt-ridden over the (real) sins of colonialism and lends a shallow interpretation to the need for a (vital) struggle against the fascist right and European nationalism. It also views moderate displays of national solidarity in the West as the beginning of a slippery slope that leads to Fascism. The just fear of bias, race-based cultural rating has rendered it unwilling to acknowledge the moral priority of an open, pluralistic culture over a culture that sanctifies women's oppression, social withdrawal, incitement, and violent behavior.
The most dangerous among the misrepresentations of this radical approach demands that Western countries relinquish their sovereignty, take in immigrants who infiltrated their borders and grant sanctuary to anyone subject to persecution and suffering in their own country.
Tens of millions of people living in failed, poor countries, where societies are oppressive and violent, aspire to immigrate to developed countries but most of them are unwilling to abandon the culture at the root of their calamity. Their growing numbers do not, in any case, enable their absorption without a cultural suicide of the absorbing societies.
This mandates calling for selective absorption of asylum seekers who are willing to embrace a constructive, pluralist culture. Such absorption, for its part, requires strict borders control that will reject most seekers.
The common theory of radical liberalism is collapsing before our very eyes. Europe is unwilling to be perceived as one that shutters is maritime and land borders in the face of unchecked immigration. It depends on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is extorting it with his threats to flood the continent with millions of immigrants.
Some 145 West nations are signatories to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which demands they provide sanctuary to those under oppression or facing mortal danger in their country. But it seems that open borders policy and legal undertakings have effectively denied Western countries from exercising the type of discretion that enables constructive immigration.
The erosion of border control, the cultural nature of many of the immigrants and the growing number of those seeking to immigrate have already evoked a profound counter-response among the public. We have seen a sharp veering to the Right, including its more radical elements and this has changed the face of Europe.
The final decision on this critical issue is not a matter for judges and lawyers, but that rather one for elected officials to deal with; leaders who the public trusts to strike the proper balance between the nation's needs and the complicated reality of the current era.
