A Buyout Option For Europe`s Muslims?


Francis Fukuyama,
a

recovering neocon
, continues his attempt to distance
himself from neocon orthodoxy. Last week, in a Wall
Street Journal
essay

"A Year of Living Dangerously: Remember Theo van Gogh,
and shudder for the future"
(November 2), Fukuyama
heretically noted that immigration has proven a disaster
for the

Netherlands
and Britain.

Of course, Fukuyama was only talking about

Muslim immigration
,
not the good kind of immigration (i.e.,

everybody else in the world
), so he`s not wandering
too far off the neocon reservation.

Further, Fukuyama`s policy recommendations come straight
out of Neoconism for Dummies:

"[C]ountries
like

Holland
and

Britain
 need to…reformulate their definitions of
national identity to be more accepting of people from

non-Western backgrounds
[T]he much more
difficult problem remains of fashioning a national
identity that will connect citizens of all religions and
ethnicities in a common democratic culture, as the

American creed
has served to unite new immigrants to
the United States."

Been there—done that! As I wrote about Europe on
VDARE.com over a year ago in a piece meaningfully headed


"Four Failed Immigration Approaches"
:


"One European country
has already tried out just about the entire neocon bag
of assimilative tricks—with deeply mixed results… The
French have traditionally tried to do with their
immigrants almost exactly what the

neocons recommend
here: cultural assimilation,
education in civics theories, monolingualism,
meritocracy, separation of church and state, and all the
rest.”

And today we can see the result:

a week straight of immigrant rioting
in Paris of
such intensity that one French official likened it to a
"civil war."

Bad timing, Frank!

Which brings us to the unmentionable alternative
solution that

Peter Brimelow
has just pointed out in his

Why Not (Muslim) Emigration?
: A more practical
approach than "fashioning a national identity that
will connect”
etc. etc. would be

what we might call the “Sailer Scheme”:
have the
disaffected simply leave.

A
push-pull policy could be very effective in getting

Muslims
to go away. European countries should
combine the push of a crackdown on

welfare
and

crime
with the pull of a buy-out offer. Returning to
the Old Country with a sizable nest egg would be
alluring to many who haven`t assimilated into the
European middle class.

A
buy-out program, paying Muslims who are legal residents
of European countries to emigrate, could be a huge
bargain compared to more

rioting
,

terrorism
,

crime
, and

multiculturalism
.

Offer Muslim residents, say, $25,000 each to go away.
Permanently.

A family of five festering in the

slums of Paris
,

Rotterdam
, and

Birmingham
could live in North Algeria, Pakistan, or
Indonesia like  local gentry if they had $125,000
in the bank!

Of course, not all Muslims would accept the buy-out, but
those who stayed behind would tend to be the more
satisfied and less troublesome.

A
few technical caveats:

  • The program could
    only be open to legal residents in the country as of
    today, to discourage both a

    sudden influx
    and a

    baby boom.

  • To discourage
    illegal return immigration, the buyout would only be
    paid out over the course of, say, five years to
    ex-residents now actually living in Muslim
    countries.

  • An immigrant who
    accepts the buy-out but then wishes to return to the
    European country for a tourist visit would have to
    deposit the value of the buyout as a bond. Visa
    over-stayers would be imprisoned.

At $25,000 each, for every million Muslims who leave,
the one-time cost to the taxpayers would be $25 billion.

For the Dutch, who have about

one million Muslims resident
, the gross cost would
be just over 5% of one year`s GDP

($481 billion
in 2004). (To get the net cost, you`d
have to adjust for savings to the taxpayer like the cost
of e.g.

educating immigrant children.
It might well turn out
that this buy-out program is a fiscal boon).

Even if it took $50,000 each, that would still only be
one percent of the Netherland`s GDP per year for merely
a decade.

That`s a cheap price for solving the country`s worst
problem.

Although buy-outs are a win-win solution, they are
considered a

weird, radical
idea by the reigning multi-cultis,
whose

most-quoted philosopher
once asked "Can`t we all
just get along?"

But, in private life, where people care more about
effective problem-solving than competing in a
holier-than-thou sweepstakes, buy-outs are a common
practice.

When a business finds it hired the wrong people, it
often determines that paying them to go away is better
for all concerned that letting them hang around.


Europe
must now know that it brought in too many of
the

wrong kind of people.
It should act like a
responsible corporation and pay them to leave.

Not for the first time, the

Israelis
have the right idea. I`ve already noted
that they`ve

demonstrated
for us that

border fences work.
Now it turns out they`ve also
tried buy-outs.  Payments to leave have been used at
least twice in recent times: to pay off Israeli settlers
to exit the

Sinai
in the early 1980s in the wake of the Camp
David Accords; and to vacate the Gaza Strip earlier this
year, successfully averting civil war within Israel.

Of course, for a European democracy to start a program
of immigrant buy-outs would be a crushing rebuke to
Western governments`

decades-long
determination to

“elect a new people.”

That`s all the more reason to do it.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]