Trump and Hitler: are they the same?

Trump and Hitler: are they the same?

Two days ago, Louis C.K. added a lengthy postscript to a regular PR email regarding a new episode of his web series. “Please stop it with voting for Trump”, his essay began - so far so good. He then made a rather far-fetched claim about Trump: “this guy is Hitler”. Parallels certainly exist between the two, but how far does this similarity extend?

---

FYI: If you’re here solely to read about Trump, scroll through to the next divider; this little section is a [hopefully interesting] history lesson into how, and why, Hitler came to power.

Germany did not elect Hitler himself; that Hitler was democratically selected to be President of the Reich is one of the main misconceptions about the Second World War. Granted, in 1930 Hitler’s NSDAP, or Nazi Party, had indeed taken 18.25% of the popular vote in the federal election (equivalent to a Congressional election), making it the second largest party in the Reichstag at the time, but its 107 seats were far short of the 289 required for a majority - the Nazis had achieved relative success, but they were in no fit position to begin a revolutionary uprising.

No party won a majority in that election, so Brüning, the incumbent Chancellor, remained in power, despite a lack of popular support for his governance. In May 1932, increasing pressure from President Hindenburg (and Kurt von Schleicher, who will rear his ugly head later) led Brüning to resign from his post. His successor, von Papen, was in an appallingly weak position. With only 12% of Reichstag seats, von Papen lasted just three days and was then forced to dissolve the Reichstag and call elections in the hope of winning more seats. This would strengthen his position; if he failed then power would fall to the Nazis, the SPD (social democrats) or the KPD (Communists).

In this election (31st July 1932), von Papen’s allies, the Zentrum (‘centre’) Party gained 7 seats - von Papen could rejoin his old party to earn parliamentary support in a coalition agreement. However, Hitler’s Nazis won 123 seats; a swing of over 19%, establishing his party as the largest in the Reichstag, yet still not a majority. At this point, von Papen gave up all pretence of accountability; he demanded a decree - based on Article 48 of the constitution of the Weimar Republic, that gave emergency powers to the President without the consultation of the Reichstag - from Hindenburg, that dissolved the Reichstag and suspended elections. He was assured this task would be completed, and he arrived at the newly elected Reichstag ready to shut it down and start discussing how to keep a grip on the Chancellorship with his close advisors. To his surprise, the first item on the agenda was not his democracy paralysing decree, it was a vote of no-confidence from the Communists. This vote was passed by a margin of 512–42, despite von Papen’s demands to take the floor and pass his decree - Hermann Göring, the Nazi president of the Reichstag (equivalent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives) pretended not to see Papen’s protest, passing instead the vote of no-confidence with haste. Von Papen then announced new elections in a final bid to avoid resignation or deselection, to be held that November.

The Nazis were in decline - Hitler’s share of the vote fell by over 4%, but his party remained the largest in the Reichstag. Von Papen’s beloved Zentrum lost 5 seats, yet the DNVP, who had supported him as Chancellor, won 15 seats. Despite these gains, von Papen was greatly lacking in public support, so was superseded by his Defence Minister, Kurt von Schleicher - one of the men who had shoehorned von Papen into the role of Chancellor was now replacing him in the very same job.

But not for long - von Schleicher failed in negotiations with the Nazi Party, and von Papen approached Hitler with a proposition. He would form a government under Hindenburg’s watch, with Hitler at the head, and himself as vice-Chancellor. Hindenburg agreed; he assumed that with a cabinet full of non-Nazi members, Hitler would be muzzled and powerless. Almost immediately, he set to work altering the demographic of his cabinet. Centrists were out, Nazis were in: this began with the installation of Joseph Goebbels as Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

Hitler then used stunts such as the Reichstag Fire, the Enabling Act and the Night of the Long Knives to solidify his position: politically, by using the Reichstag Fire as an excuse to remove most of his Communist or centrist opposition; legally, through the declaration of the Enabling Act that effectively gave all power to him personally; and finally militarily, ensuring no armed opposition could overthrow him by crushing any potential resistors before they resisted. However, though these events concreted Hitler’s leadership over Germany, the foundation for his domination was built upon years of manipulation of government figures, relentless candidacy in a number of elections, and simply the ability and initiative to take advantage of a weak, unpopular and vulnerable government in the form of the Weimar Republic.

---

This leads me on to Trump. I personally dislike the man, and I don’t believe he deserves to be the next President of the US. I have a number of reasons for this: I believe the image he projects of being self-made is a lie, and perhaps most importantly, I believe that mass immigration, contrary to destroying America, or “killing us at the border”, as Trump refers to it, is actually beneficial for world development. Nevertheless, Donald Trump is not Hitler. Recent social experiments have shown that it is difficult, nay, impossible, to distinguish between the rhetoric of the pair, yet equating a self-styled businessman, who makes racist statements on a regular basis, to a dictator, who caused the deaths of around 60 million through war in Europe, is simply wrong, and borders on scaremongering.

Despite this, there are undeniable parallels between the two men - by no means are they equal, but they do share traits and experiences that are interesting to explore, because they reveal an awful lot about the voting habits of people who feel like they're getting a rotten deal from the political system. In other words, examining what made Hitler popular, and what made Donald Trump popular, as well as figures such as Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair (politicians who have engaged an entire nation in politics, for bad or good), may well be the key to a phenomena coined “youth disillusionment”. If certain methods can be used to effectively inspire a nation, surely they can also be used to awaken young voters from their decade-long slumber, and get under-25s to engage in democratic proceedings - this can only be a good thing.

Donald Trump, despite dipping his toe into the political water by considering running for President in 2012, is a newcomer to politics; that’s what makes him so appealing to voters. He represents an alternative to the Establishment; he threatens to rock the status quo of America, and this is what has earned him victory in 12 states so far. His appeal stems largely from his ability to shock and distract: his manipulation of mass media outlets is second to none. Trump is not afraid to say things that are controversial, and he is exceptionally good at managing scapegoats and manufacturing stereotypes - indeed, his popularity reached a new high following his promise to ban Muslims entry to the USA earlier in the campaign. Further, and perhaps most worryingly, Trump did declare that he wished to bring back water-boarding - and “worse” (although he later asserted that he would not order troops to commit war crimes, muddying the water somewhat).

Similarly, Adolf Hitler was viewed as a newcomer. Although he had campaigned for several years and was very tenacious as a political candidate, his ideas were original and captured the imagination of the German people. Secondly, whilst Hitler himself was not a master of media, he appointed one of the best in the business to be his Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Thirdly, Hitler was the master of scapegoating: through the manufacture of the Dolchstoßlegende (the myth that Germany had been forced to surrender in World War One by a coalition of Jews, Bolsheviks and Marxists) was one of the most successful campaigns of scapegoating in the 20th Century.

There remain two key differences between Hitler and Trump: these differences are absolutely vital. Firstly, Hitler killed people; Trump has not (although he has said that he would murder the families of terrorists). Hitler was a man who sent 11 million to die specifically because of their race. I believe that Donald, whilst not an incredibly charming bloke, would still struggle to send that amount of people to die, for no reason other than the race into which they were born.

Finally, and most importantly, there was one reason that I failed to mention above as a reason for Hitler’s popularity. He received votes disproportionately from women. Historians debate the reason for these, but the most watertight theory appears to be that Hitler was viewed as a sex symbol. This was what caused many women to vote for Hitler, and this represents a large reason for his success.

Thankfully, Donald Trump is not a sex symbol.

Yet.

---

NOTE 1: I do not believe that Hitler and Trump are equal, I merely believe that they share some intriguing qualities that can be useful for a study of populist politics, and may potentially be of merit when considering the best way to reconnect with currently disillusioned sectors of society.

NOTE 2: Well this is awkward.

Why is America feeling the Bern?

Bernie Sanders pulls off his signature vague hand gesture, whilst wearing a particularly fetching suit.

 Why is America feeling the Bern?

Bernie Sanders is America’s only self-described socialist Senator. He has been a representative since 1990 and has received almost no recognition outside of Vermont until recently. So, what has driven Sanders to relative success this year?

---

On November 6th 1990, 209,856 Vermont voters turned out to elect a little-known independent candidate, Bernie Sanders, to the House of Representatives; he received 56% of the vote. This prompted The Washington Post to declare him the “First Socialist Elected” – he was also the first independent candidate to become a representative for over 40 years. People sensed Bernie would upset the establishment – he was out of the ordinary – and that he did. Sanders estranged friends and foes alike by declaring that both political parties were mere puppets for corporate interests, and several of his early speeches to the floor in the House of Representatives focused on addressing the revolving door between corporate business and prominent public office.

Bernie then fronted several high-profile movements; some were successes, others were total abject failures. In 1993, Bernie was part of a small minority who voted against the Brady Bill, which mandated background checks in order to purchase guns, but the law was passed anyway (it was signed into law by Bill Clinton that November), with over 202 million Brady background checks completed since its implementation. However, a marginally successful campaign was his opposition to the Patriot Act – a piece of legislation “to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools” in order to “deter and punish terrorist acts”. He voted against the original legislation; promoted later amendments that aimed to restrict the effects – many of these were passed – and drafted an amendment himself that was passed through the House of Representatives.

But Bernie’s political ideology had been formed long before he had even considered becoming a representative. As a young Jewish boy living in Brooklyn, New York, Sanders had stood as class president in high school on the premise of providing “scholarships to war orphans in Korea”. Unfortunately, he came in third (only time will tell if he faces a similar losing fate in the Democratic nominations), but this situation serves as an illustration of why a growing portion of the country are “feeling the Bern” – he has an ideology and he is prepared to fight for it, and, unlike his opponents, has been fighting for it unwaveringly since Day One.

Similar things have been said about Donald Trump – people embrace his no-nonsense way of speaking – but it is important to make a distinction between the two men. Bernie Sanders has spent his entire life devoted to promoting the ideology he believes in, whereas Donald Trump has spent a large portion of his making money. For many Americans, this is exactly what makes Trump so popular; his ability to make money and run a successful business. Nevertheless, there is a clear difference between the two candidates; they have travelled very different paths in life, and this affects how they go about their politics (i.e. Donald Trump is aggressive because it is an effective strategy in the board room, whereas Sanders is calm and measured – normally – because this is the best way to address the House of Representatives or the Senate).

Many political commentators have claimed that Bernie is a populist, and to some extent this is true; his political aims align closely with that of an awful lot of the population. However, it is important not to overuse the term ‘populist’. The fact that a politician represents the wants of the public is not populism, it is simply a symptom of a functional and healthy democracy, and it is a refreshing thing to see in today’s world of party politics. Whether termed populism or not, the key to Sanders’ popularity and relative success is the fact that his policies resonate with many American voters.

Another important point to make is that a similar phenomena has been occurring around the world in recent years: the election of Syriza, an anti-austerity “coalition of the radical left”, in Greece; a wave of support for Podemos in Spain; and perhaps most prominently, the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Labour Party leader in the UK following a nation-wide public vote. It seems as though the “Sanders phenomenon” is occuring across the world: a hopeful movement, pushing left-wing parties and candidates into the public eye. Whether you believe this is a good thing or not, one thing is for sure: it’s going to be interesting to see where we’re headed.

Corbyn: man of the [young] people?

Newcastle, August 2015: Jeremy Corbyn attends a young-ish political rally.

Corbyn: man of the [young] people?

Say what you will about his policies; Jeremy Corbyn appears to have done the impossible – make teenagers enthusiastic about something. However, is Corbynmania really sweeping through the UK’s young people?

---

The rise of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour Party went wholly unpredicted. Beginning as a rank outsider who was struggling for nominations, he slowly climbed the polls, eventually winning with an unprecedented mandate of 251,417 votes. One of his more vocal supporters, Owen Jones, columnist for the Guardian, proclaimed that “a movement is born… across the nation, in every village and town you can see this movement emerging.” Corbyn, in his victory speech, attributed his success to the enthusiasm of young people, who were written off by many as a “non-political generation”. In half a year, the number of full Labour members doubled to 370,658, whilst their average age fell by 11 years; this suggests that “Jezza”, as the youth refer to him, has indeed invigorated the under-25 untouchables. However, despite the heavy presence of the younger generation at his campaign rallies, and the swelling of young Labour membership, many critics, both inside the Party and out, were not convinced.

Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, speaking to the Financial Times, argued, “the new members tend to be younger, more educated urbanites, the kind of people who used to vote Green,” – in other words, Jeremy Corbyn has not, in fact, motivated non-voters to vote. Rather, he has simply adopted several Green voters. Bale backs up his argument with statistics; Hackney North, an increasingly gentrified and trendy area of London, saw membership rise from 981 to 2,963 full members, with an additional 1,734 paying the £3 fee to vote in the Labour Leadership elections. This is compared to an average of 68 new members per Scottish constituency – Corbyn’s message appears to be resonating best with a very selective group of young voters: hipsters living in London.

However, this argument fails to take into account the huge rises that Corbyn has seen across other areas of the country: the South West, for example Bath, where 682 members have joined since May, or Camborne and Redruth, which saw a 750 member growth; the South East, where constituencies like Colchester have quintupled their membership; and the Midlands – since January 2015, membership doubled in the constituency of Coventry North West. In addition, the so-called “northern powerhouse” has seen a vast rise in membership; Liverpudlian constituencies, in particular, saw quadrupled memberships. Further, this argument does not address similar left-wing springs across the globe: the election of Syriza in Greece; Podemos’ success in the Spanish elections; Bernie Sanders’ performance in the Iowa caucus.

Among Iowa Democrats aged between 17–29, 84% opted for Sanders; he still held a 21% lead over Clinton amongst those aged 30–44. Owen Jones, seemingly the sole spokesperson for left-wing young people, suggests that the resurgence of left-wing politics “is a story of young people facing a present and future defined by economic security, often apparently doomed to a worse lot in life than their parents.” He acknowledges that a “generation” is a sweeping generalisation, but maintains that it is the support of the young people – in particular the impact of social media campaigning – that has led to the rise of Syriza, Podemos, Sanders and Corbyn.

The breadth of this shift in opinion has led many journalists and political commentators to believe that something deeper is occurring. It seems that Jones was correct in his claims – Corbyn represents a movement that is growing; a movement of hopeful people, who believe in change and are willing to campaign, canvas and protest for what they believe in. The teenagers have woken up – at long last – and they’re not happy.

Has children's TV got worse?

Shows such as Arthur play a huge role in forming the moral code of millions of children.

 Has children’s TV got worse?

We all have fond recollections of our childhoods: places we visited on holiday, friends we knew at school, and, of course, the television programmes that narrated our adolescence. But are the children of today faring worse when it comes to digital entertainment?

---

Most parents will tell you that the quality of TV that their child watches has waned since their own childhoods, with more than 20% of parents of 3–15 year olds reporting they were disturbed by something their child saw pre-watershed in 2013 alone. Parents often feel that contemporary television is poisoning and corrupting the innocent minds of their children. Are these parent’s trepidations justified, and has modern children’s television deteriorated to a dangerous and damaging degree of inadequacy; or is nostalgia playing a part in their perceptions of modern TV?

Ever since the first demonstration of a colour television, by John Logie Baird on 3rd July 1928, suspicions and doubts have surrounded television, and, in particular, the effect it has on the development of prone children below the age of 5. The 55,000 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a report into the impact of television on children; they concluded that those under 2 years should watch no television whatsoever, and older children should be strictly constrained to no more than 2 hours each day, as any higher can cause developmental problems such as ADHD. This report was well-publicised, with many parents shocked at the apparent harm that television can cause. Since then, with the advent of shows such as Arthur and Sesame Street, which do ample to promote good values, numerous parents have rethought their opinions, and recognized television as a supportive, educational medium; which, like most things in today’s society, should be enjoyed as part of a balanced lifestyle. However, do modern shows sufficiently promote these key values which we wish to intrinsically inspire in our children?

Some critics would argue that shows such as Rugrats, which aired between 1991 and 2004, demonstrate that television programmes endorsing unscrupulous principles existed prior to the turn of the century. Opponents of the show will tell you that, featuring child neglect, binge eating and theft, Rugrats unmistakably implanted dishonest morals and standards in the children that watched it. However, Rugrats noticeably observed these issues ironically, plainly questioning the benefits of its character’s poor behaviour; mocking the very same actions that faultfinders of the show accuse it of promoting. Characters are almost always punished for their errors; thieves would always give back what they stole, apologise, and then pay back their debt in alternate ways. At a glimpse, Rugrats may have appeared to be a show focused on trivialising misbehaviour, but any regular viewer of the show, no matter how young, can plainly see that it aims to teach children to question behaviour; not only that of others, but also of themselves, in order to use this information to make better decisions become better people. Whilst wicked or evil characters may have enjoyed momentary snatches of joy and elation, the moral characters would persevere and eventually find longer-lasting happiness. As a result, Rugrats came to be a fun, entertaining and amusing way for children to develop their understanding of the world. The programme lasted over a decade; engraining itself irreversibly in the hearts of many viewers of the show.

On a statistical level, it is clear that the quality of programming has degenerated. It is impossible to claim that children’s television is anything better than inexcusable when a child, who watches just 2 hours of cartoons per day, will have been exposed to over 10,000 violent incidents in only a year. The Parent’s Television Council issued a report containing statistics about the excess of violence, innuendo and verbal abuse. The findings of this work revealed that violent activity is far more common than the unassuming parent would expect. This research found that children are exposed to over 7.86 violent incidents per hour on television specifically produced for them. An example of this would be The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers. A study by the National Coalition on Television Violence, which has operated since 1980, found that Power Rangers was the most violent TV program they had ever reviewed, with over 200 acts of violence per hour; higher than all the adult shows they had reviewed at the time. Surely our children deserve better?

Johnny Ball, famed for popularizing maths and science amongst the children of the 70s and 80s with shows such as Think of a Number and Playschool, certainly believes children’s television can, and must, do better; he considers modern children’s television to have been “dumbed down”. His presenting always focused on making education entertaining, and in an interview with performing arts magazine, The Stage, he expressed the view that current presenters fail to mix education and entertainment, and rather focus on entertainment, leaving the education to ‘experts’ who they then scorn. Ultimately, his views, coupled with psychological research, point to the fact that current TV does nothing at all to promote positive brain development amongst children. Studies have shown that the damage of television is the exchange of interaction with parents and friends in return for simulated interaction with television characters. As a result of this, children’s presenters are encouraged to interact with the camera often. Conversely, according to Johnny Ball, current presenters “in shows like Blue Peter… talk to each other as though the kids are not there so it feels like you are looking in through the window at someone else’s party”. Described as “trivial”, and accused of failing to provide “enough mental stimulation”, contemporary children’s television certainly appears to be less beneficial than the programming provided by Ball; enthusiastically viewed by children throughout the 80s. TV today is simply not good enough.

The idea of bringing back old, well-loved TV shows has long been controversial, with many viewers of the originals both eager for their children to experience their nostalgia and sentimentality, whilst also apprehensive that the shows are brought back to the same standard as the originals to do them justice. Many remakes attempt to modernise themselves, using CGI to pique the interest of young children; parents often oppose this, finding CGI versions of Thomas the Tank Engine, Bob the Builder, The Wombles and The Teletubbies to be tacky and poor quality. Often CGI versions are rushed, not featuring the well-written, moral reinforcing episodes of the originals. Recently, a remake of classic children’s television favourite, The Clangers, aired on Cbeebies, a subsidiary brand of the BBC targeted specifically towards younger children. The announcement of this remake was met with approval from parents, excited that their children could experience a program from a bygone era. However, when it came to air, reviewers from the Telegraph criticised it as lacking “that slightly sad pungency” of the original. “It’s another example of how children’s TV has become sanitised, just like so much else in children’s lives”, they continued, evaluating the failings of current television.

Parents have come to expect that television will be empty, soulless and emotionless; it does not have to be this way. What is required from parents is a strong united movement, encouraging today’s broadcasting companies to change the way they produce television for the vulnerable children of today. Children’s television should promote positive development in the children who watch it. Clearly, modern programming is an abysmal attempt at this; children’s presenting in general is inadequate to encourage social and emotional expansion in children. It is clear that television is currently failing our youngest, most vulnerable generation, and only with the whole-hearted support of parents can this issue be addressed.

Donald Trump is not an option.

Really, America?

Donald Trump is not an option.

With his Peter Andre-esque spray-on orange hue, and his wispy toupée; his image is almost as fake as his ‘self-made man’ philosophy. Donald Trump shouldn’t even be considered for the presidency.

---

Donald Trump is often judged for his stance on immigration and the like; his recent comments about Muslims take Islamophobia to a whole new level. However, as much as his bigoted outlook on life disgusts many, polls have unequivocally shown him at the head of the GOP candidacy race. The main reason his supporters cite for this is his appeal to the average American: even if his views are a little extreme, his $4.5 billion net worth is testament to his immense commercial expertise, and it is this that attracts voters to him. But where does this assumption of business acumen come from?

In a 2012, Brian Millar and Mike Lapham, researchers at United for a Fair Economy, wrote a book entitled “The Self-Made Myth”. In this book they explored how key figures, such as Donald Trump, who at that point was talked up as a potential presidential candidate (in the end he decided not to run, opting instead to host another series of The Apprentice), who claimed to be ‘self-made’, had, in fact, benefitted from the very things they later wished to scrap and destroy, such as public education, research grants and government-regulated banks.

In their book, Trump’s early life is examined. He was born in New York City in 1946 to Fred Trump, a wealthy real estate tycoon. His father’s wealth afforded him a comfortable childhood, and he was educated privately. This wealth was then passed down to him upon his father’s death; an estimated $40 to $200 million. Whilst this seems paltry compared to his current $4.5 billion net worth, it is important to remember how his father got this money.

In 1934, Fred Trump was struggling greatly. The Great Depression of ’29 had hit the property market hard, and Fred was faced with a real and severe risk of bankruptcy. However, the state recognised the imminent collapse of the housing market, and moved quickly to prevent it. As Millar and Lapham write, “financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast”. So there it is; Donald Trump’s inherited wealth was brought to him through state intervention in the markets – the very thing he now stands to oppose.

However, proponents of Trump say that, whilst he inherited a successful business, he still managed to transform that small time Brooklyn-based property enterprise into a nationwide, cross-market empire. And, in part, this is true – Donald Trump became the president of his father’s organisation in 1974, and immediately began expanding into golf courses, hotels and casinos. By 1980, his personal empire was so large that he established the Trump Organization to oversee his business operations.

10 years later, Trump landed himself in serious trouble. Due to excessive leveraging, the Trump Organization found itself in over $5 billion of debt, $1 billion of which was personally attributed to Trump himself. It seemed as through bankruptcy was inevitable. A group of 70 banks offered Trump a lifeline, allowing him to take out 2nd and 3rd mortgages on most of his properties, and deferring nearly $1 billion of debt attributed to his organisation. If it were not for the banks generosity (and a little state coercion) in 1990, Trump’s business would have failed and all because of a series of immature and amateurish risk-taking decisions. Is this really the sort of man Americans want at the head of their country?

It is clear that the persona Trump conveys to the public is not true. He claims to be self-made, and regularly speaks out against government intervention in business affairs, but were it not for that very same intervention, his wealth would be non-existent. Donald Trump is not a self-made man; he is a hypocrite who cannot recognise how much state intervention has supported his success.

Immigration, huh: what is it good for?

Anti-immigration protestors in New York, USA – a country built from immigrants.

 Immigration, huh: what is it good for?

Economically and socially speaking, in fact, really quite a lot.

---

The most common argument against open borders and free migration is one of xenophobia. People are scared of things they don’t understand; hence the belief that all Muslims are terrorists; and all Eastern Europeans are here to scrounge benefits and take from the economy.

The former belief, surrounding Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants, which is based largely on ignorance and inaccuracy (although fueled in part by the ever-reliable tabloid press), is easily debunked by simple statistics: 6% of American terror attacks are carried out by Muslims; this number drops to 2% in Europe. Terrorists make up less than 0.00009% of the global Muslim population, and 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been Muslims.

But what of the argument surrounding economic migrants: those who travel to this country to work, allegedly stealing jobs and benefits – and driving down wages – from the already squeezed British public. An ITV News poll showed that 46% of the British public felt that Eastern European migrants receive more in public services and welfare than they contribute in taxes. Only 14% expressed the opposite opinion that, in fact, hard-working migrants are a positive influence on this country.

Prof. Chris Dustmann, a leading expert in the field of immigration economics and a professor at University College London, believes these 14% are correct – immigration is economically beneficial, and he has the research to prove it. His analysis from 2007 to 2011 found that there was a huge disparity between the amount that natives and immigrants contribute to society. Developing on work from three years prior, his 2013 paper concluded that the average native person lost the state a net total of £1,900 per year. Conversely, immigrants were found to contribute a net average of £2,610 per year. Clearly, the urban myth that Eastern European workers are lazy is just that; a myth.

Michael Clemens, head of the Migration and Development initiative at the Centre for Global Development, offers an international perspective on the benefits of migration. Economically, he explains, there are two labour markets that are affected by any instance of mass migration: the country receiving workers, referred to as the host country, and the country being left behind, referred to as the country of origin. In the host country, more workers arrive. Due to the basic laws of supply and demand, an influx of workers ought to cause a sharp drop in wages – theoretically, the host country should lose out because of immigration – but this is not what economists and analysts are observing.

A negligible decline in wages is seen amongst low-skilled workers, but other areas of the labour market are unaffected, and wages sometimes appear to increase. Reasons given for this vary: some argue that the education gap between immigrants and natives mean that immigrants do not challenge natives for jobs and rather unlock new markets; others believe that immigrants can drive certain areas of the economy into a boom, and this provides new jobs for native workers. For example, mass migration from Albania to Spain in 1991, following the collapse of the communist regime in Albania, led to the expansion of the construction industry in Spain. Indeed, this revolution of contruction gave rise to a popular Spanish urban legend that the word for builder, ‘albañil’, stems from the word for an Albanian, ‘albanés’ (linguists believe it actually stems from the Arabic, بَنَّاء , meaning ‘bricklayer’).

Unlike the almost unnoticeable effect on the labour market in the host country, the country of origin sees a huge change in wages. The labour force shrinks greatly following a mass migration exodus, meaning that demand for workers rises and wages go up. The government then receives higher tax revenues from these well paid workers; this money is usually spent on infrastructure projects and public service expansions. Overall, therefore, those who stay in the country of origin receive higher wages and experience a higher quality of life than before the mass migration event.

In conclusion, immigration is beneficial both socially and economically. Socially, it challenges prejudices; antisemitism was common in Britain until the aftermath of the Holocaust forced the British to accept Jews into their society as refugees, at which point antisemitism seemed to disappear. A similar experience of acceptance and a down-beating of prejudice could hopefully occur with immigrants today. Economic consensus today rests around the shrine of the free markets, yet for some strange reason, governmental policy does not allow free movement; this is a direct contradiction. Further, allowing mass migration appears (from numerous studies) to be beneficial to all – in an interview with ITV News, Professor Chris Dustmann states that “when you take recent immigrants as a group, the country is better, not worse off”. Immigration, huh, what is it good for? Well, as it turns out, really quite a lot.

Refugees are not terrorists.

Refugees are not terrorists.

Refugee – noun; a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

Terrorism – noun; the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

---

According to the UN High Councillor for Refugees, there are currently 59.5 million displaced people in the world; every single day, 42,500 people are forced out of their homes due to conflict or persecution. Last year, 51% of all refugees were under the age of 18. It is vital that we welcome them with compassion and care – any hostility will surely lead to susceptibility for extremist recruitment.

Several leading members of the press in the United Kingdom and the USA have been eager to highlight an alleged intrinsic link between refugees, who are fleeing for their lives, and hideous terrorist atrocities. Sporting bogus statistics and ridiculously far-fetched narratives, a perfect example of this fear-mongering comes from the 55p tabloid, The Daily Express. It claimed last year that ISIS has helped to smuggle over 4,000 militant “gunmen” into western nations, “hidden amongst innocent refugees”.

According to recent Europol statements, this simply isn’t true. Speaking at the launch of a new European-wide anti-terrorism scheme today, Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol, concluded that there is “no concrete evidence” linking refugees and terror attacks. Further, investigating into the November 13th Paris attacks, Europol analysts and crime experts found nothing whatsoever to support the idea “that terrorist travellers systematically use the flow of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed”. This myth has been generated as a sophisticated ploy to sell newspapers, and it is wholly disgusting.

However, the Europol investigation revealed three main things that have to change if we are to stand any chance of preventing radicalisation and stopping further terror attacks from happening.

Firstly, Europe needs to pay close attention to relocating and clearing refugees from so-called bottlenecks in Greece and Turkey – and fast. Europol found that refugee holding camps were quickly becoming hotbeds for radicalisation, and vulnerable scared refugees were frequently targeted by ISIS recruiters operating in these camps; their research suggests that it is in these refugee camps, not in the refugees’ home countries, where radicalisation is occurring.

Secondly, Europol uncovered a lack of information exchange between European countries. As a result, the European Counter-Terrorism Centre was set up on Monday. Rob Wainwright, Europol director, explains, “Our ambition is for the European Counter-Terrorism Centre to become a central information hub in the fight against terrorism in the EU, providing analysis for ongoing investigations and contributing to a coordinated reaction in the event of major terrorist attacks”.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Europol called for a change to our culture. It lamented the rise of subtle xenophobia and concluded that a major contributing factor to radicalisation is a feeling of isolation. As long as the tabloid press smears refugees and immigrants are murderers and rapists, it will be impossible for those groups to integrate fully with. society. And, if integration does not occur, large proportions of our population are left vulnerable to radicalisation.

It is absolutely vital that we stop viewing refugees as terrorists – this is categorically untrue. Doing so merely detracts and distracts from the sensible discussion surrounding the best methods of counter-terrorism. Europol’s suggestion are clear and effective and seem to be the best. option in an increasingly muddled debate.