Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
The Sailer [Immigrant Buyout] Scheme: Well—Why Not?
Now that the North and West African "youths" of France are back to burning their usual several score cars per night, instead of the 1,400 they torched during the peak of rioting, it's time to take another look at my November 6th suggestion of a push-pull program to bring about large-scale Muslim emigration from Europe.
The Sailer Scheme for Europe:
- Deport criminal immigrants, cut transfer-payment subsidies, and lengthen prison terms to push the destructive Muslims with legal residency out of Europe and back to their ancestral countries.
- Combine that with "buyout offers" paying $25,000 (or more, if necessary) to pull the Muslims out.
After all, nobody else has come up with any practical suggestions.
The conventional wisdom favors France's introducing racial quotas. But over the last 35 years, quotas haven't exactly turned the African-American underclass into solid citizens. Affirmative action may have greatly boosted the incomes of the black middle class—but they weren't the problem.
Nobody else has come up with any practical suggestions because no-one wants to admit the root of the predicament: the high quantity and low quality of the Muslim populations of Europe.
Everybody knows that is the underlying trouble. But they're afraid to say it in public because they fear that would make the Muslims really mad.
That's exactly how I thought in second grade when I used to get beat up by a bully: if I hit back hard, that might make him stop, but it might also make him really mad, and then he'd really whale on me.
Well, it was a stupid way to think, but then, I was seven years old. I didn't realize bullyboys aren't as tough as they want you to believe.
Of course, Europe is so far away from a rational policy to deal with its Muslim crisis at present that the first step must be, as always: Do no more harm. Stop immigration from Muslim countries now. Then implement the push-pull program.
In fact, during the economic downturn of 1973-1975, most European countries, unlike the U.S., did stop taking "economic immigrants" to "do the jobs Europeans just won't do." Just as well—try to imagine how dire the situation in Europe would be if they hadn't!
Unfortunately, Europe soon found itself nickeled-and-dimed by continued "immigration via loopholes"—family reunification, refugees, dubious asylum-seekers—and by outright illegal immigration. Muslim border-sneaks typically enter the Europe Union via a lackadaisically-administered but skeptical Mediterranean country such as Italy, and then hightail it for the welfare paradises of the gullible north.
Family reunification laws have proven a particular disaster for Europe since they both import and exacerbate one of the most medically and socially deleterious customs of the Muslim world: cousin marriage.
A recent BBC documentary revealed that 55 percent of married Pakistanis in Britain are wed to first cousins! That's even a little higher than the inbreeding rates seen in Pakistan—probably because Muslims in Europe use cousin marriage as an engine of immigration fraud.
Believing in true love, European countries allow their citizens to bring in their foreign spouses. But these Muslim-arranged cousin marriages seldom have anything to do with romance, and often everything to do with getting immigration visas for extended family members. A Pakistani father in, say, Liverpool will force his teenage daughter to marry his brother's son, her first cousin back home in Lahore, because that benefits the entire clan. The bride's happiness is of little concern.
Besides causing birth defects and lowering IQ and general health, cousin marriage goes hand in hand with abuse of women, which we in the West despise. The political impact is also profound. White Europeans are supposed to be beating themselves up with guilt right now over their failure to "integrate" Muslims. But arranged cousin marriages are the surest engine for maintaining Muslim ethnocentrism by keeping immigrant clans inwardly focused and closely tied to the old country.
The solution: If Muslim immigrants put such a high value on family reunification, they can move back to the Old Country.
One common reaction to my buyout plan: Wouldn't it cause a worker shortage in Europe?
For years the globalist overclass' media organs, such as the Wall Street Journal and The Economist, have been telling us that Europe desperately needs immigrant workers to do the jobs Europeans won't do and to bail out the pensions of its aging work force.
(But, now, they tell us that the Muslims are rioting because they are sitting around collecting unemployment. So which is it?)
Economists tend to be skeptical of sob stories about "shortages" because the market has ways of dealing with them: by (a) raising prices (i.e. wages,) thus calling forth more supply; (b) substitution, which in this case means mechanization—something the Japanese have been doing for years.
But even if Europe had a worker shortage, Europeans could simply work harder. Between 1970 and 2002, the average number of hours worked per year fell 24 percent in Germany and 17 percent in France, but rose 20 percent in the U.S. Americans have a standard 40 hour work week and typically get two weeks vacation per year, for a total of 2,000 hours worked annually (40 hours times 50 weeks). That's 22 percent more hours per year worked than the 1,645 hours worked under the French laws mandating a 35-hour workweek and five weeks of vacation.
French and German workers actually have slightly higher productivity per hour than Americans (which is maybe not surprising, considering how well rested they are!) So, the European economic predicament is hardly hopeless.
VDARE.COM's readers had a number of good suggestions for making the buyout program work.
Some pointed out that the buyout offer is much less unthinkable than I assumed. A number of European governments have shown already that they don't object to buyouts on principle. The problem has been that they haven't tried buy-outs on the financial scale necessary to make them work. The Dutch " Remigratiewet" program offered families 6,000 Euros to leave, but that's hardly enough to get them to give up the soft life in a European welfare state.
How much would it cost to get a significant fraction of poor Muslims to leave Europe? I don't know, but it could and should be studied through standard marketing research methods.
It's worth noting that VDARE.com contributor Randall Burns has calculated that, on the dowry market in India, the value of an H-1b visa to work in America is about $50,000. I suspect that that amount per person, or a quarter of a million dollars for a family of five, would prove adequate to encourage substantial emigration from Europe.
Even at $50 billion per million Muslim emigrants, the cost would be quite reasonable.
How could the system be made fraud-proof? A reader in Istanbul suggests:
"One reservation I have is, these suckers are so good at tricking the system, it could well cause an unmanageable influx. To frustrate them, the payment must both be constant and spread over a long enough time period so that it's both convincing (being chronic shysters, it's very difficult to make them trust others) and effective—once they see the results, multiple installments will eventually get them going."
To prevent fraud, the annual disbursal of funds would only be made in person at European consulates in the Muslim ancestral country.
And the recipient would have to show his passport to prove he hadn't gone back to the European country.
Bottom line: it's time for Europeans to gin up their courage and start discussing practical plans for saving their civilization.
Bullies aren't as scary as they seem.
And then, maybe, even Americans might be allowed to think about the unthinkable (a stateside Sailer Scheme?) too.