Unrestricted immigration is a disaster for Jews in the Diaspora.
Diaspora Jews should not deny their natural sympathies and, in some ways, their natural interests. But they must find the strength to face unpleasant facts about unrestricted immigration in the West.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay written by Benjamin Kerstein of “No Delusions, No Despair.”
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
It is an uncomfortable but undeniable fact that unrestricted immigration into the United States, Europe, and other Western countries has been a disaster for Diaspora Jews.
In particular, the mass movement of Muslims to Europe, Australia, and increasingly the U.S. has resulted in a massive spike in antisemitism and antisemitic violence that may ultimately make Jewish life in Europe and North America unlivable.
Sadly, many — perhaps the majority — of the world’s Muslims come from countries and societies in which, polls have consistently shown, antisemitism is systemic and endemic. When they immigrate to the West, they bring their racism with them and pass it down to their children.
The results are readily apparent, though few wish to face them: Europe has become a hunting ground for Jews. Muslims murder, assault, and rape Jews with near impunity. The authorities, which are terrified of both Muslim terrorism and the Muslim vote, do very little to stop it.
One of the latest atrocities, the rape of a 12-year-old French Jewish girl by a gang of Muslim teenagers, has prompted the usual condemnations, but it is all but unthinkable that effective action will be taken. After all, it has never been taken before. There is no compelling reason to think that history will not repeat itself.
This violence has led to a horrific reality: European Jews essentially live under siege. They go about concealing any sign of Jewish identity. Their synagogues and other institutions must operate under massive security precautions, sometimes including military forces. Many have already “made aliyah” (immigrated to Israel) and many more are considering it, even amid war.
Again, there is no indication that the authorities intend to do anything whatsoever to change this. There are, after all, few votes in doing so. Nor are the Jews likely to commit the inhuman atrocities that Muslim antisemites routinely commit. The authorities have nothing to fear from the Jews, but much to fear from Muslims. In such a situation, the authorities consider surrender preferable to doing the right thing.
American Jews have long labored under the illusion that they were immune to Jewish history. Since the October 7th massacre, this has been definitively proven untrue. A tidal wave of antisemitism has swept the United States, resulting in harassment, intimidation, assault, vandalism, and at least two murders. This campaign of racist terrorism, consciously undertaken, is driven by the Muslim American community — some 60 percent of whom approved of the October 7th massacre to at least some degree.
The conclusion is clear: The majority of American Muslims hate Jews and support killing them. They have acted accordingly.
Once again, we find that the authorities have been reluctant to take action. Generally speaking, Muslim antisemites who commit hate crimes are under-charged and under-sentenced. Collaborationist politicians parrot the antisemitic talking points of the Muslim-American political establishment and incite violence against Jews. Little or nothing was done to stop a campus pogrom, deliberately begun on Passover, that thankfully horrified much of the nation. The Biden Administration has bent over backward to appease the antisemitic wing of the Democratic Party.
There is no doubt that, if this downward slide is not arrested, Jewish life in the U.S. will soon become as unlivable as it is in Europe.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this demonic trend in both Europe and America has been the emergence of the Red-Green Alliance between progressive leftists and Muslim antisemites. This mutually debasing alliance has led to a perfect storm of antisemitism. Muslim antisemites engage in the crudest forms of Jew-hatred while the progressive Left grants them its inexplicable halo effect. This legitimizes antisemitism in the public discourse and fuels the progressive Left’s own darkest instincts.
All of this is horrifying stuff, no doubt. It is not surprising that even many American Jews — especially the cowardly American Jewish establishment — do not want to admit that it is actually happening. But even harder to admit is its underlying cause.
Like it or not, that cause is mass Muslim immigration to America and Europe. In some ways, the cause is mass immigration in general. Had this immigration not occurred, it is very unlikely that antisemitism would be the problem and the threat that it is today.
Mass immigration to the West, including from the Muslim world, occurred in a fit of absence of mind. Following World War Two, the European nations found themselves in need of cheap labor. Faced with their own working classes’ increasing political power and strident economic demands, it was clear they could not recruit such labor from their indigenous populations. As a result, mass immigration of workers was encouraged, first from former colonial possessions, and then from the world at large.
It was at first assumed that the immigrants would be temporary workers who would return home after making a sufficient amount of money. Unsurprisingly, this did not prove to be the case. Given the economic and political conditions in many of their home countries, the immigrants can hardly be blamed for staying.
In the United States, the process was slower, but nonetheless steady. In the 1960s, the restrictions on immigration to America were lifted and the U.S. essentially threw open its border to the world. Muslims did not represent the majority of the resulting wave of immigration, but they were a part of it and they began to establish themselves. No one at the time thought there was any problem with this, though the 1968 assassination of then-New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy by a Palestinian Arab immigrant should have been seen as something like writing on the wall.
From the beginning, there was strong opposition to mass immigration to Europe among the indigenous population. Native Europeans increasingly resented the demographic transformation of their cities and neighborhoods, which wiped out what was often centuries of communal history and culture. British politician Enoch Powell famously gave his anti-immigration “rivers of blood” speech as early as 1968. Almost immediately, however, both the governing authorities and the political left identified this opposition with Nazi-style racism and chose to both ignore and demonize it.
To be fair, opponents of immigration did themselves no favors in this regard. A great many of them were racist and openly said so. Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech used racist language such as: “In this country, in 15 or 20 years’ time, the Black man will have the whip hand over the White man.” Many immigrants and their children suffered hate crimes as a result of Powell’s incendiary language. This was indefensible and understandably aroused a great deal of public sympathy.
Moreover, in the wake of the Nazi atrocities, the authorities rightfully wanted no part of anything that so much as hinted at racism. Even if they had wanted to limit or end mass immigration, they felt that to do so would be to align themselves with deplorable ideologies. They were genuinely and sincerely repelled at the prospect.
At the same time, forces on both the Right and the Left saw immigration as something like a panacea. It was in the economic interests of the conservative business classes to keep importing cheap labor and, as globalization took hold, they came to see mass immigration as both a logical end of history and a necessity for a post-industrial economy.
At the same time, the Left saw the immigrants as a pool of potential new voters and believed that immigration in general was just compensation for centuries of imperial exploitation. Over time, the Left came to see the new minorities as sacred objects, a caste of the blessed oppressed. This caste was considered the key to the emergence of the diverse, multicultural, anti-racist society that was the Left’s great dream.
Because of all this, the debate over immigration was essentially frozen in place. Both sides were locked into their respective positions and saw their opponents as morally verboten. Mutual concessions, such as allowing immigration within reasonable limits, became impossible. Thus, existing policies continued by simple inertia and immigration went on essentially unabated.
In the United States, the controversy was slower to develop, for understandable reasons: The U.S. is a nation of immigrants and, while it has always seen controversies and even violence over mass immigration, this fact could not be elided. When the descendants of Irish, Italian, Jewish, and other immigrant groups saw the new arrivals, they saw themselves. They remembered the prejudice and hardships their ancestors had faced on their way to becoming Americans and believed America’s latest generation of immigrants and their families should be spared such indignities. To many Americans, to oppose immigration was to oppose the American idea itself.
Moreover, the same ideologies and interests were at work in the U.S. as in Europe and even Australia. The Right believed mass immigration was a net gain for the economy and a way to subvert and evade a demanding working class. The Left underwent the same process as its European counterpart, seeing the immigrants as a caste of suffering saints who had to be embraced and salved by native generosity.
As in Europe, opposition to immigration was — largely through the fault of opponents of immigration — identified with racism and all the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century. With good reason, no one wanted to be seen as an ally of the likes of David Duke or Pat Buchanan. Once again, reasonable debate became impossible.
In many ways, this still holds true today. It is telling that, while the debate over immigration has now taken center stage in US politics, it is almost entirely a debate over illegal immigration. For the most part, America’s southern border, not its immigration policies overall, has become the cause of the moment for the populist right, propelling Donald Trump to the presidency.
On the Left, pro-immigrant sentiment has become so extreme that the principle of sovereignty itself has been rejected. Anything other than “open borders” is now seen by the Left as little more than neo-Hitlerism. The idea of limiting legal immigration is so unthinkable as to go all but completely unmentioned. Again, reasonable debate died amid the outrage on both sides.
The problem with this was that there was a reasonable debate to be had. Immigration, like almost all other political issues, can be analyzed according to its benefits and drawbacks. But in the midst of the moral outrage, no one stepped back and asked the simple question of whether mass immigration was, objectively considered, a good thing.
It could have been asked: Do the benefits of cheap labor, a diverse society, and a post-racial ethos outweigh other considerations?
Certainly, in a sense, cheap labor was not a bad thing for the economy. It helped European nations rebuild their infrastructure after a devastating war and thus return to economic health. It also provided for a rise in affluence and leisure for the middle classes and financed European nations’ expensive social services.
Moreover, a diverse society is not by definition either a good or a bad thing, but it can be enriching and sometimes creates a more vibrant and creative society than a monocultural one. A post-racial ethos was certainly desirable after the horrors of Nazism and made many societies more tolerant and open to difference than they had been in the past. These advantages held true in the United States as well as Europe.
Nonetheless, the downsides were also obvious. Outbid by the pool of immigrants willing to work for wages that would have been unacceptable to indigenous workers, the working class lost most of the political and economic power it had struggled mightily to achieve. Many of the immigrants proved to be enemies of liberal values and harbored deeply troubling ideologies like Islamic radicalism, support for terrorism, misogyny, hatred of LGBTQ+ people, and of course antisemitism.
Crime became an increasingly troubling problem as immigrants and their descendants, alienated from their host societies, began to prey on the more affluent indigenous populations. Race riots began almost as soon as the wave of immigrants arrived and have continued to this day.
Terrorism had been a problem in Europe for well over a century, but it began to take on an international dimension it never had before, connected to virulently anti-democratic and, indeed, anti-multicultural ideologies — especially Islamic radicalism.
Recently, non-indigenous Europeans have begun to attack European society itself, attacking statues of revered cultural heroes like Winston Churchill and demonizing Europe as an evil, rapacious, and genocidal civilization. Again, much of this has held true in the U.S. and even Australia and South Africa as well.
Perhaps most dangerous, however, is a scenario that has yet to fully emerge but may be taking shape: the formation of a sectarian society. A Lebanonization of Europe and possibly the United States. Many neighborhoods of major European cities currently enjoy de facto autonomy and the authorities exercise little power over them.
Often, they are essentially run by criminal gangs or extremist religious sects. While governments have denied the existence of these “no-go zones,” for obvious reasons, their existence is not questioned by indigenous populations who live near them.
Sectarian politics have also been imposed through violence, such as the murder of cultural and political figures who criticize Islam. The prohibition on depictions of Muhammad in Muslim law has been, in effect, imposed on Europe via outright terrorism.
This is a very troubling development because sectarian politics is a zero-sum game. Should it take hold, then as the immigrants grow in number and democracy grants them more political power, the indigenous populations will, by definition, lose political power. This invites the nightmare scenario: As in classic settler-colonial situations, the indigenous population might at some point become a minority and, in effect, lose their own country and society.
That this scenario has led to racist conspiracy theories like the “Great Replacement” is unquestionable. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists’ claims, there has been no deliberate plan undertaken by mysterious and nefarious actors to engineer a “replacement” of anybody.
Nonetheless, one cannot dismiss the implications of a major demographic shift away from the indigenous population. It is difficult to think of a moment in history when a majority has consented to become a minority without a fight. In other words, the emergence of sectarian politics threatens outright civil war. Thousands if not millions could die. It is very unlikely that even the most hardcore anti-racist would welcome such an eventuality.
It would seem, then, that Europe and potentially Australia, South Africa, parts of South America, and the U.S. face five possible outcomes of their current immigration policies:
Multicultural Paradise: The great dream could come true. Through policies that encourage diversity and education for tolerance, along with reasonable accommodations between the indigenous and immigrant populations, a modus vivendi could be reached that allows all communities to live together in something like harmony. A new, diverse civilization could be formed that would be, in fact, a vast improvement on the past of communal contention and violence. Certainly, this is not impossible.
Submission: The demographic shift will take place and the indigenous population will make peace with it. They will accommodate themselves to becoming a minority and make the best of it, perhaps ultimately resulting in the first scenario of a genuinely multicultural civilization.
Voluntary Repatriation: Referred to by the far-Right as “remigration,” this envisions the voluntary return of the majority or perhaps the entirety of the non-indigenous population back to their countries of ancestry. The far-Right advocates engineering this through financial and other incentives or, failing that, violent coercion. Even putting moral considerations aside, this scenario appears vanishingly unlikely.
Civil War: As mentioned above, this is a nightmare scenario, but by no means unthinkable. The “no-go” neighborhoods in major European cities could become bases for a continent-wide insurgency, forcing the authorities to either submit to the insurgents’ demands or engage in direct military action that would cause potentially enormous casualties. The insurgents would inevitably lose, but the bloodshed would be considerable.
Genocide and/or Ethnic Cleansing: This is the ultimate nightmare scenario. At the moment, it is unthinkable. But in the context of Western and especially European history, it shouldn’t be. Europe has a long tradition of wiping out minorities and peoples and/or expelling them en masse. This tradition dates from Greek and Roman times and continued through the Albigensian Crusade, the Holocaust, and the wars in the former Yugoslavia. In this scenario as well, the indigenous populations would almost certainly come out on top, but the human cost would obviously be horrendous and the stain on Western history would be eternal.
This is not a pretty picture. The first two scenarios may be desirable, but they are unlikely. The latter three scenarios are terrible to contemplate. The question, then, is whether any of it has to happen.
There may be measures that can be taken to contain the detrimental effects of mass immigration and especially Muslim immigration. For the sake of pure pragmatism, at least some of them probably ought to be enacted. Europe (as well as the U.S. and other Western countries) should face the fact that whatever the benefits of immigration may be — and there are many — the issue is causing serious rifts and political upheaval in Western societies, from the emergence of the MAGA movement and Brexit to the rise of the far-Right.
As such, the downside of immigration must be dealt with, if only for the sake of domestic realpolitik.
These measures are aggressive and will be uncomfortable for many liberal societies. Nonetheless, if those societies wish to remain liberal and head off the nightmare scenarios mentioned above, they may well be necessary:
A Moratorium: Western nations could place a blanket but temporary immigration ban. It could be limited to something like 10 years, with the results to be examined at the end of the term and a decision taken on whether to continue the moratorium. This would tamp down existing social tensions and give Western societies the breathing space to consider the issue with some measure of objectivity. It would also enhance the possibility of effective assimilation of already existing immigrant communities.
Investigation: A government inquiry could be launched into criminal and especially terrorist activities within immigrant communities. This inquiry should be bipartisan with clearly defined limits. However, it should also have powers of indictment and, especially, deportation.
Expulsion of Criminal and Terrorist Elements: All of those indicted who are not citizens of the nations in question should be summarily deported to the countries of which they are citizens. In the case of citizens, the issue is more fraught and complicated, but the possibility of revocation of citizenship and deportation to third countries should be seriously considered.
A Permanent Ban on Immigration From Specific Nations: That is, immigration should be blocked from nations in which more than 50 percent of the population supports terrorism, racial or religious supremacism, antisemitism, or theocratic politics. This is a draconian measure, but Western nations have a quite sufficient number of such ideologues already and do not need to import more of them.
None of these measures can command a political consensus and will no doubt be wildly controversial. The already-existing immigrant communities will probably violently oppose them. So will the leftists who see immigration as key to their utopian multicultural vision. The business community will warn of the possible economic consequences and may do so in a very strident manner. At the same time, such policies will be popular among some rather disreputable people, especially the racist wing of the far-Right.
Nonetheless, all parties involved should remember something that goes beyond ideological, political, or economic considerations: The Western world is under no obligation to allow immigration of any kind. There is no inherent right to immigrate. Nor has it ever been considered essential to liberal democracy until very recently.
To live in a country of which one is not a citizen and to eventually become a citizen of it is a privilege. A society may decide to extend that privilege in a very liberal manner. It is well within its rights to do so. But it is also well within its rights to rescind it or to place strict criteria on who is permitted to immigrate and under what circumstances. Such criteria would seem to be, given the exigencies of the moment, essential — if only because of domestic political considerations.
For Diaspora Jews, however, they are more than essential. It must be repeated that mass Muslim immigration to Western countries has been disastrous for Diaspora Jews. It has resulted in a massive rise in antisemitism and antisemitic violence. It has forged an alliance between antisemites and domestic political movements of considerable power and influence. This alliance has conquered academia and made substantial inroads into politics and culture. It now exists in sufficient numbers to engage in riot, mayhem, and hate crimes with what amounts to total impunity.
While the Left and the Right have their own antisemitic traditions, the engine of antisemitism and especially antisemitic violence in the West today is European and American Muslims. This is a terribly unpleasant fact but, like all unpleasant facts, it must be faced.
Unquestionably, there are Muslims in the West who are not antisemitic. Some have been outspoken in opposition to the hate in their own communities. There is comfort to be taken in the fact that, while 60 percent of American Muslims believe the October 7th atrocities were justified, this means that 40 percent do not.
Nonetheless, it is clear that this 40 percent is largely powerless. Certainly, they lack the influence necessary to effectively fight the 60 percent. Those who are truly committed to the fight against antisemitism are, at best, fighting a rear-guard action. Given that their antisemitic brethren are protected and even encouraged by non-Muslims who ought to know better, it is difficult to see how the Muslim anti-antisemites can win. The situation in Europe is almost certainly the same if not worse.
Faced with this, Jews in the West are, in many ways, prisoners of their own history. All Jews outside of Israel are immigrants of some kind or have immigrant ancestry. As such, their instincts are naturally towards sympathy with other immigrant groups and the political factions that claim to support tolerance and multiculturalism. Diaspora Jews fear that should they take the anti-immigration side — which itself includes many Right-wing antisemites — they will at best undermine their own interests and at worst destroy themselves.
This is a real dilemma and cannot be summarily dismissed as naiveté. Nonetheless, it does lead to a certain deliberate blindness. Diaspora Jews should not deny their natural sympathies and, in some ways, their natural interests. But they must find the strength to face unpleasant facts as well.
Anti-immigration sentiment may threaten them, but it is obvious that mass, unrestricted immigration — especially Muslim immigration — does so as well. If mass immigration goes on and Muslim communities continue to grow, then Diaspora Jewish communities will be destroyed as surely as they would be by far-Right racists. If these Jewish communities are to be saved, some kind of restriction on immigration is essential.
Jews have every right to be sympathetic towards others, but this is not a suicide pact. Jews must also be sympathetic towards themselves. They should not apologize for acting in their own interests, as every other group in a liberal society is permitted to do. This means that Diaspora Jews now face some very difficult choices, but they are choices that must be made.
Anyone who thinks Jews shouldn't have a nation should be sent to Gaza for a month.
It is an irony of history that, no sooner had Europe finally exerted itself to remove antisemitism from the public sphere in the decades after the Holocaust, it was reintroduced from Islamic countries. The "No one is illegal" photo illustrating the article is a reminder that the proponents of this view have no problem declaring the Jewish state illegal and, implicitly, those who support it.
From where I am (UK), I am pessimistic. it is true that Jews have a right to act in their own interests, but far too many diaspora Jews feel that only Jews have no right to do this, that Jews must always be acting in the interests of "the oppressed in general" and not "the Jewish oppressed in particular." The existence of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace are only the most extreme manifestations of this worldview; the "Judaism as tikkun olam" worldview of most non-Orthodox diaspora Jews (and some Orthodox Jews) are more typical. To many Jews, siding with conservatives on this issue (on any issue, but particularly this one) is unthinkable even if remaining with their heads in the sand until they are cut off is the only alternative.