We tend to assign labels to the flotsam the tide of our time deposits at our feet. Often these tags help us to put up with a stinking reality under a PC wrapper. Alternatively, they serve as an “only add water” condemnation or excuse of whatever might be distorted to fit the term. “Racism” and “Fascism,” also “solidarity” are some of the many magical words that supposedly classify marked items. In truth, these terms warp reality. This does not intend to insinuate that racism, xenophobia and destructive egoism do not exist. However, such terms should not be allowed to function as verbal clubs. Assuredly, labels should not override the facts. Therefore, they must not justify whatever is intolerable. Example: the fear of being branded a “racist” should not keep the cop from apprehending a lawbreaker because the impostor claims membership in a group that enjoys (protected) victim status.

It is proper for writers to put on the table their subject-related prejudices. Reacting to the Economist’s (November 22) piece “The Trouble With Migrants – Europe is fretting about too much immigration when it needs even more” raises issues that require personal revelations.

Taking up the theme had much to do with personal experience. Throughout his life, by design, the writer’s “family language” differed from the surrounding majority’s. Behind this there is a career that produced a “professional foreigner” meaning a “certified immigrant” in several locations. This is the background that provoked the commentary and furnished the paprika for stewing it.

Arguably, the Economist – said to be “conservative” – is the best of the weeklies. As such, its pronouncements carry weight. Right or wrong, such pieces become, due to their source, a “fact.” Therefore, a shortened version follows for your information.

The article begins with an intended shocker. Denmark gave a rising voting share to its “anti-immigration” party. 29% of the Swiss voted for the “xenophobic” People’s Party. An anti-foreigner party is the second-biggest in Norway and a fifth of the Flemish in Belgium support the “far-right” Vlaams Belang. “Aping Le Pen” got Sarkozy the Presidency. He now wants to “inculcate French values” and proposes quotas on immigration and DNA testing to limit family unification.

After a “Romanian migrant” slaughtered an Italian woman, Prodi’s left-of center government decreed to expel EU citizens that are a “threat to public security.” This “pandered to the prejudice” that Gypsies are “more criminal” than other aliens. Perhaps to prove that the persecution is limited or possibly intending to show that hardly anyone among the half-million Romanians is criminal, the piece admits that “only 177 people” were expelled and that “far fewer have gone.”

Why are the voters stirred up? In many European countries the rates of immigration and the stock of foreign-born residents is high. The figures: 24% of the Swiss, 12% of Belgium, 6% of France, 12% of Sweden and 11% in Ireland. Spain alone is untroubled by its 547,000 from Romania and Bulgaria as 43% there approve of them. 42% of the English consider their immigrants as good for the economy.

The magazine guesses that the reception of aliens might relate to the state of the hosting economy. It also feels that the “bad demographic outlook will make the continent increasingly reliant on foreign labour.” It concludes: “those calling most fiercely for foreigners to go home may come to regret what they wished for.”

Regardless of the Economist’s credentials, one could draw conclusions that the paper might reject. It could be that the PC-driven view of migration in its current (not only European) form is part of the problem. If a real solution and not its treatment by silence are desired, then it must be admitted that there is a problem. The difficulties are mostly not caused by the natives’ incorrect reaction to unusual physical appearances and life styles. Pretending that all people are created equal does not imply that they will remain equal or become compatible. Differences do exist. These need to be dealt with. Demanding tolerance is fine. However, tolerance obligates all parties to practice it. Tolerating the principally intolerant and habitually criminal amounts to spinelessness. At any rate, it is not a solution.

Regarding the economic component of the problem, the critical factor might not be entirely the health of the hosting economy. The reception of migrants is determined by the economy’s needs and the newcomers’ skills and willingness to work. The famous “Polish plumber” is no problem because he has a skill in demand. Being an openly economic migrant, his personal goals match an industrialized civilization’s demands. In this instance, contradicting racists and the more numerous “reverse racists”, not ethnicity and its tolerance but expertise is the determining component of the case. The “Polish plumber” – or, for that matter this writer – is not accepted because of his nationality but because of his societal contribution.

In the case of some migrants, the gap between the real motive and the official pretext for settling indicate the problems they cause. One is of a legal nature. We have an economically driven migration to countries that do not seek immigrants. The resulting barriers are easily overcome by the entrants’ claim of persecution. In this case the entry rests on a declaration that might be not only a lie but also, from the point of view of the host picked, lawless. Related is a further conflict with the law. To claim political harassment, one must come from an “unsafe country.” This makes it necessary to assume a fake identity, falsify papers or, more conveniently, to pretend to lack identification. Once discovery threatens, going underground is the next step. It is not a difficult one. Open societies make it easy to function in their midst regardless of the rules regulating residency.

Staying rightfully – but under a false pretext – or largely illegally, brings further problems. Some economic migrants do not seek personal success through integration in the way of life and the economic processes offered to them. One barrier here is an imported value system that is often underpinned by religion. Historically, successful migrants left their home because they realized that their system has failed them. Consequently, they were attracted to the receiving society‘s system and viewed it as superior to the one they had escaped. Today this is not always the case. The values imported often echo anti-modernist, anti-Western and pre-industrialized prejudices. By these standards, not the tradition-mired old system has failed. Much rather the success of the host is presumed to have been achieved either by “good luck” or by the exploitation of the newcomer’s country of origin.

Such myths have consequences. Due to them the mechanisms that produce successful societies and their achieving individuals, is not only not understood but also misunderstood. Additionally, by assuming that the host’s success is due to “theft”, the chance is reduced for implementing rational success-strategies within the framework found. Additionally, the inclination is weakened to gratefully appreciate the opportunities extended by the hosting society. Here a complicating element emerges. A significant current within the new migration differs in a further aspect from the classical migration that contributed to the rise of immigrant nations. There is an element among the migrants that is not drawn by the chance of betterment as it is rather lured by the social support services it finds.

Our “social net” was created to save the unfortunate from falling into a pauper class. In time, such services can become an instrument that create the underclass it was destined to prevent. Modern welfare agencies have been set up to restore, through temporary succor, the status of their clients. Even in the case of the indigenous, the provisional aid provided came to err on the high side. Welfare, instead of being a temporary condition has, even in the industrialized world, become a way of life for a minority. It is of no surprise that the guaranteed support level confuses some of those who enter the system from a sub-poverty background. For the expat, the “good life” is easily substituted with the comparative opulence of what might be locally considered to be a subsistence level existence. Those who fall into this trap do not enter successful societies to participate in their process of wealth creation. The goal of this element is to partake in the process that distributes the wealth created prior to its entry. Some of the social skills learned at home might reinforce the temptation to seek subsistence with the least contribution possible. Wealth at home was not the product of individual striving but “handed out.” Those regarded as affluent did not earn it but enjoyed the good life as an inherited privilege, as a perk of political power.

Turning criminally or politically against those harboring one has more causes than can be elaborated here. One to be mentioned is largely in the area of criminal behavior and it follows from the above. If wealth is achieved by receiving it then, taking it from those whose claim is questioned and who are judged to have too much of it, becomes a logical act. The inclination to take rather than to make finds reinforcement.

The gap between the leading and laggard societies is growing. Correspondingly, the skills of those that come from underdeveloped systems are likely not to match the demands found after immigration (Note: this problem is unrelated to “laziness”). Add to this the inclination of some migrants to associate old-country ways with their identity. Doing so puts cultural pride and personal honor in the way of constructive adjustment and the corresponding exploitation of opportunities for advancement.

A reaction comes about once success is not achieved in the “new country” while sticking proudly to out-of-place old ways. It is not the product of an analysis of what led to failure. It rather takes the form of blaming the system (which one had asked to join) for its prejudiced lack of generosity. This process can produce a complementing assertion. It is that ethically ones home culture is superior to the one by which the host society lives. The latter’s advantage is only granted in the quantitative - material area. Ethically, morally, however, the ways of the birth-culture are made to represent a higher level of development. Consequently its destiny – conforming to history’s logic or God’s will – is manifest. Consequently its victory is only a question of time. This confers rights upon its adherents who live by and carry the force that is chosen to save mankind. If accepted, the idea supports the assertion that it is the host culture that must adjust to the ways of its harbored guests.

Besides the positive perspective of a rags-to-riches career, it is the fear of failure that can spur one to a high-level of activity. If, however, the “dream” is missing, the protection from failure might come from enclosing oneself in an ideological bubble. The resulting subculture can be criminal if it combines Robin Hood and Socialism. The “gang” confirms comportment by telling that “taking it back” from those who have more than they “need” is a virtue. The widespread fashionable reflexes of the majority reinforce this tendency to practice compensatory do-it-yourself justice. These range from wishing to atone for colonialism to the blame-the-victim mantra that “society” is responsible for the anti-social behavior of those that reject its values.

Close to the error of approving of deviance by not condemning it, we discover another, related, mistake. It is one that helps to criminalize some immigrants and creates in the majority the sense of being beleaguered. Crime, or at least welfare abuse, is a way of life that correlates with certain backgrounds. However, PC decrees that, admitting to any negative correlation between national, racial or religious backgrounds and misdeeds is racism. (To allege that folks with green dots are better looking, wiser, more decent, than “we are” is OK.) The problem with tolerating and therefore encouraging misbehavior is that such conduct will stubbornly continue to correlate with collective traits. Regardless of what common people might think, by bowing to PC, influential groups insinuate that there can be no problem. Furthermore, this elite is committed to prevent effective action against whatever concerns the average person once its assumed causes are clearly stated.

As a result, a “rebellion” is unfolding. It is driven by the spreading feeling of helplessness in the face of perceived threats. Many feel their freedoms restricted by their experiences and by the common knowledge that there are now hours at which you are insane to go to certain places. The ranks swell as sanctions against offenders are softened due to the background of these. However, as long as the price of intolerable behavior is discounted, such actions will spread. If combating criminality is constrained in the name of the tolerance due to “special backgrounds,” the thereby immunized are encouraged to persist. Therefore, the resentment of the reluctant “hosts” will grow.

Certainly, racists are not tolerant. On the other hand, tolerating anti-social behavior is not a sign of tolerance but of cowardice or confusion. This is true even when those mainly affected happen to be members of an identifiable minority. Those contradicting this are misusing the fear of racist labels by demanding not tolerance but submission.

By their entry, immigrants become subject to common sense obligations. The more so as, in exchange for the privilege of refuge and its opportunities, they have voluntarily accepted these. This might sound obvious, however, given the attitude of some immigrant groups and their apologists, the matter is apparently not self evident to all.

Some aliens that gain admission to economically advanced and politically democratic societies nurture resentments. They are directed against the way of life and even the existence of their host country. Bluntly put, intolerantly they do not accept the identity of the citizens of the state and its order that is harboring them. Concurrently, they demand for themselves what they deny their benefactor. Of the traditions they find and that they are, having chosen it, honor bound to respect, they uphold only one. It is that, regardless of their actions and advocated cause, their right to preach the hate of their host community is to be protected to an extent that nears extraterritoriality.

This leads to odd positions. Take a group that insists that everything from honor killings to female circumcision through the segregation of sexes and bathing only while fully dressed be tolerated, allowed and enforced. It would be easy to find countries where the mores and the laws already in place concur with such demands. Those, in whose case, for instance, something like the Sharia is a non-negotiable demand, should choose one of the conforming countries. To move into a community with a divergent tradition and then to insist that it must conform to rigidly advocated alien ways, contradicts reason, fairness and threatens the rights of the hosts. No claim pretending to rely on warped principles must to be allowed to stand in order to justify such capitulation at the expense of sovereignty.