It is a fact: Europe is changing dramatically because of immigration from Africa and the Middle East. Meanwhile, native Europeans are dying off. So what is the solution to this problem from the Washington Post? More government meddling in the lives of people around the world.
On December 13, 2006, the Washington Post published a collection of graphs and charts that depicted the fertility rates in Europe and Africa. The charts and graphs were compiled for the Post by Dita Smith, Mary Kate Cannistra and Laura Stanton, using information from such sources as the World Bank and the U.N. Human Development Report. Entitled, “Children: Too Many, Too Few,” this purported academic analysis was, in reality, an attempt to convince the reader that U.N.-supported ideas of population control were the “solution” to the perceived problem of too few Europeans and too many Africans.
According to the Washington Post, “In Europe, the number of children born does not make up for the number of people who die, in spite of longer life spans.” That sounds accurate so far. But rather than conclude that Europeans should have more children, the solution from the Post was that Europeans should, at least in the short term, roll out the red carpet for more immigrants. In the long term, the Post seemed to imply that the answer was cutting the flow of immigrants by reducing their numbers in their country of origin. The assumption in this regard is that international bureaucrats in the U.N. and elsewhere have the answers to the world’s “population problems.”
The fact is that a country’s population growth is based on a country’s fertility rate, or how many children each woman in that country bears. Every country’s fertility rate has a tremendous impact on the future of any nation. The replacement rate where a nation can sustain growth is 2.1 children per woman, but most European countries fall well below that number, and if this trend continues Europe will experience a tremendous labor shortage, and population decline.
But there is a problem in continuing to bring more immigrants into Europe. The Post says that immigrants to Europe “do not have sufficient training or education to fill available jobs.” For Europe, most of these immigrants will come from Africa. But according to the Post, African countries “cannot sustain the tide of young people, many of whom try to reach other countries in search of work. That immigration pressure—particularly on Europe—is likely to increase.”
Rather than suggest restrictions on immigration by Europe, or more policies of freedom and economic development in Africa, the paper urged population control, in order to reduce the number of Africans.
“In many sub-Saharan countries,” the Post explained, “women on average bear six or more children each? (because) family planning and female education has been slower than anticipated.” According to the Post, the problem in Africa is that “Many governments do not take a strong role in family planning programs.”
In other words, Africans are producing too many children, and the governments there must intervene to limit family size.
This also happens to be the U.N. agenda.
In Nathan Tabor’s new book, The Beast on the East River: The UN Threat to America’s Sovereignty and Security, he discusses how the U.N. policy on population control is based on the elimination of the unborn.
To achieve its goal of population control, Tabor notes that the U.N. has worked with the International Planned Parenthood Federation to promote abortion and sterilization, “particularly among the women of Third World Nations.” In fact, the U.N. limits aid to countries that have no form of government-sanctioned population control, while the World Bank now ties development loans to “family planning programs.”
In addition, Tabor notes that China’s one-child policy has been coordinated with International Planned Parenthood Foundation and UN Population Fund. And the U.N.‘s population control programs are supported by globalists like Bill Gates and Ted Turner. In fact, Tabor quotes Turner, who said the following about China’s forced abortions policy: “People who abhor the China one-child policy are dumb-dumbs.”
Don’t look for the Post to favorably review, or even review, Tabor’s book. His facts contradict the Post thesis—that Africa’s population must be dealt with through ruthless abortion and “birth control” policies.
Although the Post never explicitly discusses abortion in its report, it makes reference to birth-control methods. In Chad only two percent of married women ages 15 to 49 use modern birth control, five percent in Niger, and 6 percent in Mali. By comparison, 79% of married women between the ages of 15 to 49 use birth control in Britain, 78% in Finland, and 72% in Germany. In the U.S. it is 68% of women. This helps explain why Europe is dying off, and why America may follow.
Another factor, the report suggests, is when or if women get married. “The earlier women enter into their first marriage, the more children they tend to bear,” the paper says, and “Many Europeans delay marriage for careers, reducing the number of childbearing years.”
The report mentions the strong desire in Africa for large families but contends that women have little say in “how many children they will bear.” It is not clear how the paper knows this.
By contrast, in enlightened Europe, “More women are part of the workforce and generally decide when to have children—and how many.” This high percentage of women in the workforce has led to decreased fertility rates. But the Post does not regard this as a problem per se because more women in the workforce are supposed to constitute the essence of women exercising their “rights.” However, feminism means that Europe is dying.
It is better, from the liberal point of view, for women to have only one child, than to “burden” the world with two or more. That is the bias implicit in the Post report.
The problem is that, feminist ideology aside, Europe knows it is facing extinction. In Italy, only 14% of the population is under 15, while 25.1% is 60 or older. By comparison, in Niger, 48.6% of the population is under 15 and only 3.2% is 60 or older. As noted, however, many of the younger Africans are leaving for Europe, to fill the jobs and provide the tax revenue necessary to sustain Europe’s older population.
The inevitable result will be that European culture, language, and customs will change, and perhaps die off completely, and Africa will change as well, as young people leave and women there come under increasing international pressure, even government coercion, not to have as many children. So Africa may follow Europe down the road to oblivion.
This is the kind of “enlightened” thinking we get from the Post, concealed in a set of graphs and charts.
Some European governments, the paper notes, are trying to deal with the problem by offering “subsidies for each child, generous leave policies for parents and help with day care.” This sound great in theory, except that it means in socialist Europe that governments will grow bigger, assuming an even larger role in family life. The growth of government makes it more likely that women will have to continue working outside the home to help their families pay taxes, instead of having the larger families Europe needs to survive.
That, in the end, is where the Post’s graphs and charts inevitably lead. It means fiscal bankruptcy, on top of cultural destruction, for Europe, as well as the death of Africa.
This is what passes for modern liberal thinking at one of our nation’s most influential papers.