The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — an intergovernmental body consisting of 57 states — has declared Europeans need Muslim mass migration to pay their pensions.
As well as describing “rising” migration from the Muslim world as a “win-win boon”, the organisation’s information and communications director Maha Akeel said that Europe is obliged to “rejuvenate itself” through opening its doors to the world’s poor, because the continent is named after “a Syrian mother”.
Writing in Euractiv, Akeel — whose organisation declares itself to be “the collective voice of the Muslim world” — proclaims opposition to mass migration from outside the continent to be “thoroughly foreign to Europe”.
She adds: “Immigration into and within Europe is older than the name Europe itself. In Greek mythology, the woman after whom the continent was named, Europa, was originally from Phoenicia, an ancient civilisation encompassing what is now modern-day Syria and Lebanon,” she said.
“The continent named after a Syrian mother can rejuvenate itself by accepting her descendants (and others) who are hungry for safety, security, and prosperity.”
Akeel goes on to accuse right-wing parties of “lying to their own populations” when they warn against mass migration from the third world, claiming “study after study across a range of countries” show the phenomenon to be a roaring success.
“Europe’s success in the latter half of the 20th century was made possible by immigrants, and the 21st century will be no different,” she argues, claiming that mass migration is “the only possible way” to “sustain [Europe’s] ageing native population”.
Highlighting democratic projections which show the continent ageing — a phenomena she says will lead to a “colossal drop in GDP” — Akeel writes that “the far-right’s ambition to erect a ‘Fortress Europe’ that shuts out migrants would doom continental economies to slow growth, stagnation, low productivity and low employment for decades to come”.
“Migrants could be a key asset in supporting the UK’s ageing population,” she said, citing International Longevity Centre claims about migration.
“Far from being a drain on the welfare state, between 2001 and 2011 migrants from the European Economic Area paid £22.1 billion more in taxes than they took from the British government.”
However, research indicates that when immigration from outside the EEA between 1995 and 2011 is taken into account as well, migrants are in fact a net drain to Britain — on the order of between £115 and £160 billion.
Akeel’s vision of mass migration as a “win-win boon” for Europe stands in stark contrast to an analysis of migrants’ potential to contribute by University College London psychology professor Dr. James Thompson in 2015.
Citing research on the educational attainment of first and second generation migrants compared to natives of a receiving country, Thompson slammed EU leaders for using the contributions of Jews in Europe as “appropriate exemplars of migrant competence and achievements”, when talking about the current influx of migrants from the world’s poorest countries.
“The analysis of scholastic attainments in first and second generation immigrants shows that the Gulf has gained from immigrants and Europe has lost,” he writes, explaining that “this is because those emigrating to the Gulf have higher abilities than the locals, those emigrating to Europe have lower ability than the locals”.
This is damaging for European societies, according to Thompson, because “lower ability leads to lower status, lower wages, and higher resentment at perceived differences”.
He warns that “if the West cannot bear to mention competence differences, then differences in outcome [will be] seen as being due solely to prejudice.”