France

Is it easier to see something more clearly from the outside? As the French would say, Peut-être (perhaps).

Many developed countries face the same issue. How to diversify their labor market or bring in talented/educated labor as well as those willing to do the jobs that many are not willing to. The richer your country is, the fewer babies who are born. One, because having a child becomes too expensive but also as women become more free with their own education, jobs and money…they chose to have fewer children. Old people also are living longer and the pension or social security systems that they rely on require labor to survive. Too many countries want to accomplish this diversification of the labor market without compromising any of their stubborn set ways or what they consider their “values.” Typically these values are nothing more that veiled supremacy of the ruling power/race. So far, all countries who refuse to bend, have failed. How have they failed? Let me count the ways.

1. You can take the approach of Japan. Allow no to little immigration. Work your population to the bone. See little progress in any direction. Allow the situation to reach a crisis point.

The breakdown - No immigrants are good enough. Japan wants to maintain racial “purity.” Eventually the system will just fail.

2. You can take the Canadian approach. Allow immigration. See it cluster in specific places and avoid others entirely. Why is it avoiding those places? They are either too conservative to be appealing to jobs or they are too conservative to be appealing to humans.

Let’s start with the elephant in the room - Quebec. The desire to preserve the French language and some of the most toxic aspects of French culture, like racism and anti-religion, particularly Islamaphobia, means that many qualified immigrants who go to Quebec, leave for other parts of Canada - just as the jobs do. The prairie areas and Maritime provinces also provide too many conservative people and polcies to make it appealing to jobs or labor. The jobs concentrate in a very few places, driving up real estate prices to a point beyond reason.

3. You can take the French approach. Allow immigration, treat foreigners with disdain. Treat their French born children as outsiders. See many negative results of this approach. Double down. Make it harder for the immigrants and children rather than consider your approach creates more problems than it solves.

France is always flirting with their most toxic party “The National Front” now rebranded as “The National Rally.” Every election it appears to be even closer in the mirror. The leader of this party, a woman, who is more interested in gaining her fathers unavailable love and respect than actually guiding France to any positive outcome. One of the reasons this party doesn’t do better is that those who rely heavily on racism and xenophobia as a platform don’t actually make good leaders. No good person will work for them. We saw this with Trump.

The issues in France are so clear to any outsider and the label “toxic masculinity” is at the core. But the ingrained supremacy of men and whiteness is so determined that they can hardy find their way out of a paper bag.

If your culture is superior, it is not in danger. People will swarm to it. If your culture is hanging on by a thred because it only serves a very few then you will fight tooth and nail to persevere it. The problem for France is not the immigrants, it is the inability to reflect on its basest instincts. The call is coming from inside the house.

4. You can take the American approach. Have no real policy, change it slightly now and then but don’t provide cohesion. Let people fight tooth and nail over crumbs. Don’t actually do what needs to be done and instead bend to the fears of your least reasonable citizens. Also do what businesses want. But only haphazardly.