UN migration propaganda is theory with no root in reality

The UN Migration Agency IOM posted a piece of migration propaganda on Twitter this week, proclaiming that, with 240 million (!) people on the move worldwide we should embrace migration, calling it “inevitable, necessary, and desirable”. When challenged by Twitter users, IOM produced only one report – with little data – to support their message. This confirms that the UN favors mass migration for its own agenda, ignoring the negative effects it has on the destination countries and the countries migrants are leaving behind.

One Dutch Twitter user pointed out that in The Netherlands 93.8% of migrants from Eritrea and Syria rely on welfare, contrary to the suggestion in IOM’s video that migrants are “skilled, ambitious and succesful”.

The IOM then rather arrogantly replied by simply saying we should get our facts elsewhere. Because apparently only the sources (well, source) IOM uses are reliable.

Dutch mathematics and demographics expert Dr Jan van de Beek also replied to IOM’s original post, and received the same haughty response.

So what is the UN’s by-proxy stance on mass migration based on, if it is this one article, Global migration’s impact and opportunity by McKinsey Global Institute? A couple of excerpts:

Refugees might be the face of migration in the media, but 90 percent of the world’s 247 million migrants have moved across borders voluntarily, usually for economic reasons. Voluntary migration flows are typically gradual, placing less stress on logistics and on the social fabric of destination countries than refugee flows. Most voluntary migrants are working-age adults, a characteristic that helps raise the share of the population that is economically active in destination countries.

We have seen similar figures before. According to UN data, only 3% of migrants who reached Itay in 2016 were considered refugees.

Voluntary migration flows are typically gradual“. That may typically be the case, but every since Angela Merkel opened the flood gates with her “Wir schaffen das” speech in August 2015 the voluntary migration flows Europe is dealing with are all but gradual. Even Germany has has basically said “Wir schaffen das not anymore“, only to find that other member states were barely willing to take back any refugees at all, because problems are rapidly escalating everywhere. Here, McKinsey’s report is applying a theory that is light years removed from our reality.

We have seen, repeatedly, that most migrants are working-age adults. And I would say: males. One might also call it “fighting age”, another aspect which we have sadly been confronted with in the parts of our reality that did not make it into McKinsey’s research area. This supposedly “helps the share of the population that is economically active in destination countries“, but again that only works in theory. As mentioned in the tweet quoted above, over 90% of migrants from Syria and Eritrea are on government benefits. Without non-Western immigrants, the number of people on welfare in The Netherlands would have declined since the beginning of this year, but instead, that number is still growing. Germany is seeing similar trends, more than doubling its spending on benefits for immigrants since 2015. Migrants could be economically active in their destination countries, but all too often, they are not.

While some migrants travel long distances from their origin countries, most migration still involves people moving to neighboring countries or to countries in the same part of the world (exhibit). About half of all migrants globally have moved from developing to developed countries—indeed, this is the fastest-growing type of movement.

The fastest-growing type of movement is from developing countries to the West. Which has a destructive effect on both. People who should be working and building up an economy in their home countries are leaving in droves where almost none of them can find work because they are either uneducated, their education is worthless in the West, or because they’re not even trying. The only ones benefitting are the human traffickers, making around half a million per shipload of migrants, which often ends up in the hands of terror organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Realizing the benefits of immigration hinges on how well new arrivals are integrated into their destination country’s labor market and into society.

At least McKinsey mentions integration as a factor in the possible success of their theories. Unfortunately, they seem to have missed the formation of ghettos across Europe with high percentages of immigrants and unfathomable social and economical problems, high crime rates and even breeding grounds for terrorists. Look at Molenbeek. Look at Calais. Look at the banlieus of Paris. Look at employment stats. Look at crime stats. Talk to ex-Muslims about the wonderful effects of importing the Middle Ages into our midst. Talk to the Christian and gay asylum seekers who are still being persecuted by Muslims in Europe, because organizations like Doctors Without Borders cannot tell the difference between the persecuted and the persecutor, but they ferry everyone to the coast of Europe anyway.

The aforementioned Dr Jan van de Beek has some additional data that McKinsey forgot to factor in (click to read the full 10-part tweet thread).



Dutch right-leaning blog Geenstijl posted a screenshot from the Mackinsey report mentioned above, which explains the reasoning behind IOM’s propaganda offensive: pretty much the first advice the authors offer is to “change the narrative” surrounding immigration. So, basically: don’t mention the negatives, emphasize the positives. No more journalism, then.

Maybe someone should tell them that that has been tried for a couple of decades already?


Leave a Reply

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *